Quantized redshift anomaly

Do galaxies suck up matter or do they spew out matter? It really depends on their rotation. If they rotate such that matter is sprialing inward much like water spirials inward toward a drain, then they suck up matter, ending up as a black hole. But there is another way of looking at it, that matter is spewing outward, from what I call a white hole (because that is what it looks like)

Of course there would have to be an explanation of where the matter comes from. Matter can come from outside the galaxy or it can come from within the galaxy. The traditional view assumes that matter can only come from the outside, and therefore the spirialing we see must be a result of matter spirialing inward from the outside.

But advances in science has shown us that matter depends on a sustaining supply of energy from the INSIDE of space (Puthoff 1987) in order to explain how atomic particles can radiate energy without an external battery pack forever almost. (atomic particles move, and they move all the time and they move forever without any evidence of slowing down over time. How do they do that? Their radiated energy is matched by an inout energy through the ZPE) So there is a source of energy which can be found anywhere in space. We don't have to go back billions and billions of years to draw energy from nothing, it can be found today everywhere and anywhere INSIDE empty space. We are not made of organized inert matter, pecks of some kind of stuff. The stuff we are made of is dynamic, it is in a constant state of movement. Shroedinger said that whe they went into the atom they did't find a "substance" instead they found shape, pure shape. This sahpe is a kind of activity and this activity goes on forever. It can do this because it is fed by energy coming from INSIDE. Galaxies, at least some types of galaxies, take advantage of this source of energy, probably by means of plasma current flows, spirialing current flows. For example, our sun has been described as a plasma star, and the the hundredfold increase of energy at the chronosphere over the photosphere is due to this plasma current flows. Plasma is a flow of electron and proton currents without a conductor. Free energy has been produced especially with plasmoids. The creation of energy from the INSIDE is not SciFi, virtual particles emerge from the so-called empty space all the time. Space isn not empty, it is, as the Chinese have always maintained, full. It is from this fullness that energy, and then matter emerges. The big bang is the production of a priest, a religion. It is being sustained today by another religion - money.
The big bang is a "con" game.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Black holes: fact or fiction?

David Pratt

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bol.htm

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. – Bertrand Russell

Mainstream scientists tell us that black holes form by the gravitational collapse of extremely massive stars, and some speculate that large volumes of interstellar gas can collapse into supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies. During this process, gravity allegedly becomes infinitely strong, crushing matter to an infinitesimal point of infinite density and infinite ‘spacetime curvature’. This ‘singularity’, as it is called, is surrounded by a gravitational field so intense that nothing entering a black hole’s boundary can ever escape, not even light. Theorists predict that black holes can emit extremely tiny amounts of heat radiation, so that a typical black hole will evaporate in about a million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years.

As pointed out in ‘Big bang, black holes, and common sense’, the existence of black holes as defined above can be rejected simply on the grounds of logic and common sense. In the real world, nothing finite can become infinite or infinitesimal; nor can the boundless universe originate from an infinitesimal point, as the big-bang theory claims. As for the notion of ‘curved space’, which Einstein invented to ‘explain’ gravity, several scientists, and also G. de Purucker, have dismissed it as a mathematical delusion. Inside a black hole, ‘spacetime’ supposedly becomes so distorted that space becomes time and time becomes space. Aard Bol is silent about all this – which is not surprising, as it’s unlikely that he has found a way to turn the finite into the infinite, or space into time!

Leaving aside the weird theories about what goes on inside a black hole, what evidence is there that such objects exist? Black holes can never be observed directly, so scientists look for indirect evidence of them: namely, their gravitational effects on matter in their vicinity, and radiation coming from their direct environment (attributed to material falling into them). However, as Fred Hoyle and other critically-minded astronomers have noted, the available evidence merely points to the existence of highly condensed aggregates of matter which produce very strong gravitational fields – but these objects generally appear to be undergoing explosive activity rather than swallowing things up.

The black-hole theory has great difficulty explaining why gas is universally seen moving radially outward from galactic nuclei. It insists that matter must first be attracted towards a hypothetical black hole from surrounding space, and some of it may then somehow get flung in the opposite direction. In the previous article, I mentioned several observations showing that the postulated disks and clouds of gas and dust surrounding ‘black holes’ are often missing; this implies that the gas or radiation speeding outwards originates within the central object itself – which would, by definition, be impossible if it were really a black hole. After space-telescope observations in 1995 failed to detect material around hypothetical black holes at the centre of many quasars, the astronomer heading the investigation called the discovery ‘a giant leap backward’; this major problem for the black-hole theory has still not been solved.

While failing to give any serious attention to evidence contradicting black holes, Aard Bol insists that if any gas at all is moving towards galactic nuclei, this can only be because they house a black hole. It goes without saying that a galactic nucleus exerts a strong attraction on all the solar systems, gas clouds, etc. that make up that galaxy, but this hardly proves that the central mass must be a black-hole singularity of zero volume! Furthermore, evidence suggests that gas is prevented from approaching too close to the centres of active galaxies by the tremendous energy they radiate, which counteracts the inward pull of gravity, and by its own angular momentum, which causes it to orbit the centre at a considerable distance. In 2001, x-ray telescope observations showed that matter is orbiting the centre of our own galaxy at a distance 1500 times further from the centre than predicted by black-hole believers (LaViolette, 2003: 175, 224; 2004: 241-2). This seriously undermines the hypothesis that the intense energy coming from the centre of our galaxy is fuelled by matter being sucked into a black hole.

However, evidence that undermines the black-hole dogma is very quickly forgotten, and the following year, as Aard Bol mentions, a team of scientists claimed to have proven that the mysterious object at the centre of our galaxy – known as Sagittarius A* – was indeed a black hole (Nature, 419, 2002: 694-6). Their reasoning was very simple: measurements of the orbital speed of the star closest to it shows that the mass of Sgr A* is so great that a black hole is the only theoretical possibility – assuming, of course, that current theories about gravity, curved space, imploding stars, singularities, and the possible states of physical matter are complete and correct. Bol must be confident that they are, given the uncritical way he parrots any claims that black holes exist.

According to the second report quoted by Bol, astronomers have ‘unambiguously’ witnessed a star being ripped apart by a giant black hole in the centre of galaxy RX J1242-11. Unfortunately, the bare facts are rather less dramatic: all that has been observed is a powerful x-ray burst in the centre of that galaxy ( chandra.harvard.edu ). The entire story about what supposedly caused the blast is pure speculation! But because black-hole propaganda often fails to make a clear distinction between observation and interpretation, the unsuspecting public is easily misled.

Plasma physicist Wal Thornhill presents a critical analysis of this farcical ‘news’ report in his article ‘Black holes tear logic apart’ ( www.holoscience.com , ‘News & views’). The black-hole theory focuses exclusively on gravity, which it fancifully treats as the ‘warping of spacetime’, while ignoring electric forces, which are a thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger and would prevent a black hole from forming. According to the black-hole model, x-rays are emitted when gases are heated to millions of degrees by being pulled into a black hole at very high speed. Thornhill comments: ‘Using gravity to heat gas is the most unlikely method imaginable to produce X-rays. We use almost infinitely more efficient electric power to do it. And Nature is not known for being inefficient.’ He concludes: ‘The gravitational black hole model is fictional and worthless.’

The strong evidence that matter is being generated in the core of galaxies shows that they do not contain black holes, which, by definition, can only destroy matter. This problem has been known for decades. In the mid-1980s, for instance, astrophysicist and black-hole opponent Phillip Morrison said: ‘We don’t see things being swallowed up for the most part, we see things being spat out ...’ Galactic nuclei can even eject embryo-galaxies, which tend to have far higher redshifts than their parent-galaxy. The big-bang/black-hole model is totally unable to cope with this, and efforts have been made for decades to deny and suppress the abundant observational evidence (Arp 1998, 2003). Astronomer Paul LaViolette, who rejects the notion of black holes with their irrational ‘singularities’, proposes that galactic centres house ‘mother stars’ – highly compact objects which continuously convert etheric energy into physical matter-energy.

In theosophy, the term ‘central sun’ is used to refer, among other things, to the galactic centre. If we draw an analogy with our own sun, we can conclude that Sgr A* comprises subtler states of matter than the four states known to scientists on earth, that it is an ‘alchemical laboratory’, and that it contains a ‘laya centre’. A laya centre is a region, large or small, where energy-substance materializes or dematerializes, but these two processes need not always be taking place simultaneously or to the same degree.

Our own physical sun, for example, is clearly emitting huge quantities of radiation and plasma (the ‘solar wind’). According to theosophy, it is powered mainly by an influx of energy from inner planes, and not of course by the relatively small amount of physical matter it absorbs from its environment; even when it dies, it will not devour its planets and implode – instead, it will explode. Some of the energies that the sun is shedding are said to circulate through the solar system before returning – in one form or another – to the heart of the sun. All these processes could equally well apply to a central sun. H.P. Blavatsky says that the central sun is in a ‘laya’ (highly ethereal) condition, and calls it an ‘ever-emitting life-centre’ (The Secret Doctrine, 2:240fn). The radiation coming from the galactic centre indicates that the central sun is millions of times more powerful than our own sun.

Theosophy also suggests that when physical matter dematerializes or etherealizes, attractive and cohesive forces weaken – the opposite of what allegedly happens in a black hole. Whether matter can also dematerialize while undergoing compression is unclear. What we can rule out with absolute certainty is the possibility that gravity can become infinitely strong and crush matter to an infinitesimal point – a defining feature of the modern logic-defying black-hole doctrine. Even Einstein himself refused to believe that the ‘singularities’ allowed by his equations could exist in reality. It seems likely that, in time, more and more scientists will come to openly admit that singularities cannot form, that the idea of stars and gas clouds imploding needs rethinking, and that the ‘objects’ at the centre of galaxies do in fact generate and eject matter-energy – just as observations (and theosophy) suggest.

If Aard Bol were to take the trouble to acquaint himself with the work of dissident cosmologists, he would discover that far from basing their theories on obsolete data, they take account of data that conventional scientists prefer to ignore. Moreover, the fact that ‘prominent astronomers’ make observations with ‘the latest equipment’ is no guarantee that their interpretations and conclusions are correct – even if they are published in ‘eminent journals’ such as Nature. This magazine has in fact played a shameful role in the censorship of evidence challenging the big-bang theory (Arp, 1998: 190, 245). And when Rupert Sheldrake published A New Science of Life in 1981 – in which he argued that many biological facts require the existence of nonphysical ‘morphic fields’ – the editor of Nature denounced it as an ‘infuriating tract ... the best candidate for burning there has been for many years’!

In pursuing what H.P. Blavatsky called ‘free and fearless investigation’, the best approach is to examine a subject from different angles. In this way, blind faith in the latest scientific fashions can give way to critical, independent thought.


Sources:
Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, cosmology and academic science, Apeiron, 1998; Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations, Apeiron, 2003; www.haltonarp.com

Paul LaViolette, Genesis of the Cosmos: The ancient science of continuous creation, Bear and Company, 2004 (2nd ed. of Beyond the Big Bang); Subquantum Kinetics: A systems approach to physics and cosmology, Starlane Publications, 2nd ed., 2003; etheric.com



<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[Tommy] "The traditional view assumes that matter can only come from the outside, and therefore the spirialing we see must be a result of matter spirialing inward from the outside."

I hope this isn't important to your ideas, because it is wrong. For as long as we have been able to measure average radial movement in galaxies, said movement has been outward. There has never been a time when the traditional view assumed otherwise.

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> [Tommy] "The traditional view assumes that matter can only come from the outside, and therefore the spirialing we see must be a result of matter spirialing inward from the outside."

I hope this isn't important to your ideas, because it is wrong. For as long as we have been able to measure average radial movement in galaxies, said movement has been outward. There has never been a time when the traditional view assumed otherwise.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, it is important to my idea that some cosmologists either are stupid or have been bought off. Do you have references? I haven't been able to find anything on this other than Oort's claim that matter equal to one solar mass is streaming outward from the "center" of galaxies. This led Asimov to speculate that if true, galaxies could not exist to this day, prompting him to suggest that sme sort of cycling is going on.

However, I am confused, because as I understand the standard theory, matter was at one time all over the place, and ultimately collected in the form of galaxies (stars) which common sense would say that the matter is coming from outside the galaxy proper, and therefore is steaming inward.

[Tommy] "Do you have references?"

Probably not the sort you would prefer. This subject was a point of discussion in my astronomy classes when I was earning my physics degree. And I have spoken with a few working astronomers, including TVF, about it. The idea that the average mass flow (and in particular the flow of stars) of mature galaxies is anything but outward has never been supported by observation.

===

But galaxies are very dynamic systems. At any given instant you can find "large" regions within a galaxy where a specific wad of matter is moving in any particular direction relative to the galaxy as a whole. Might be a star or stars, might be a nebula, or a gas or dust cloud, etc.

[Tommy] "However, I am confused, because as I understand the standard theory, matter was at one time all over the place, and ultimately collected in the form of galaxies (stars) which common sense would say that the matter is coming from outside the galaxy proper, and therefore is steaming inward."

(Keep in mind that most of us here do not place much stock in the standard theory.)

This is obviously a description of the birth or coalescence phase of a galaxy. This is a very brief period compared to the life time of a galaxy. Matter should indeed flow inward during this period, under the influence of gravity.

The same thing happens with solar systems. If random motion causes enough matter to collect in a small enough volume of space that matter will begin to coalesce due to mutual gravitational attraction. During this very brief part of a solar system's life cycle the average mass flow is inward. Once the main mass at the center ignites the process reverses and aveage mass flow is outward from then on. Mostly in the form of the solar wind, but occasionally large flows occur, for example when one of the planets or stars in the system goes pop.

===

In both cases this does not mean that NO mass ever flows inward once the birth phase is over. Just that the average flow is not inward.


LB

Hmmm. Don't forget that our ability to measure things like this is not perfect. We may some day be able to detect mass flows that elude us now. My point is that the "traditional view" does not assume that mass flows inward.

LB

Found on the web
<hr noshade size="1">

Quasi-Steady-State Theory of the Universe
Recent Abstracts

The references and abstracts listed below have been extracted from the NASA - Astronomy Abstract Service (Some of the main papers in this list may be downloaded directly from NASA - ADS in tif image format)

---

Title:
A quasi-steady state cosmological model with creation of matter

Authors:

HOYLE, F.; BURBIDGE, G.; NARLIKAR, J. V.

Affiliation:

AB (California Univ., La Jolla) AC(Inter-Univ. Centre for Astronomy and

Astrophysics, Poona, India)

Journal:

Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 410, no. 2, p. 437-457.

Publication Date:

06/1993

NASA/STI Keywords:

ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, COSMOLOGY, RELIC RADIATION,

ANISOTROPY, COMPUTATIONAL ASTROPHYSICS, GALACTIC

CLUSTERS, GALACTIC NUCLEI, MATTER (PHYSICS)

---

Title:
Further astrophysical quantities expected in a quasi-steady state Universe

Authors:

HOYLE, F.; BURBIDGE, G.; NARLIKAR, J. V.

Affiliation:

AAAdmirals Walk, England, UK ABUniv. of California, La Jolla, CA, US

ACInter-Univ. Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune, India

Journal:

Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 289, no. 3, p. 729-739

Publication Date:

09/1994

NASA/STI Keywords:

ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, COSMOLOGY, DARK MATTER,

GALACTIC EVOLUTION, HUBBLE CONSTANT, MASS

DISTRIBUTION, STEADY STATE, UNIVERSE, ACCRETION DISKS,

FIELD THEORY (PHYSICS), MASS TO LIGHT RATIOS,

OSCILLATIONS, RELATIVISTIC THEORY

Abstract
In two previous papers we have described a new cosmological model which we have called the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) (Hoyle et al. 1993, 1994). In this theory matter is created only in strong gravitational fields associated with dense aggregates of matter. In this paper and in Hoyle et al. (1994) we are attempting to show that many aspects of the observable universe are explicable using this theory so that it is a reasonable alternative to the classical Big-Bang model which has been so widely accepted. We first review briefly the theory of the creation process and show how we arrived at the quasi-oscillatory model. In later sections we show how two of the three parameters of the theory P, and Q, are related to two observed quantities. Q is related to the value of the Hubble constant H(sub 0) at the present epoch, and the counts of radio sources enable us to determine P/Q and hence P. We find that Q = 40 x 10(exp 9) years and P = 8 x 10(exp 11) years. We then calculate numerical values for the mass density in the universe and the rate of creation. Finally, we discuss the properties of galaxies including faint galaxies, creation events in individual galaxies, and the mass-to-light ratios in galaxies and clusters. The results here are particularly interesting since in this model stars can be much older than 1/H(sub 0). This means that much of the mass in galaxies will naturally be baryonic and will consist of evolved stars. Thus very large mass-to-light ratios are expected in galaxies and in clusters. We conclude by summarizing the results obtained in all three papers. More work is required, particularly on the cosmogonical aspects of the theory, but a very attractive aspect of it is that the creation process in the centers of galaxies leads to a comparatively simple way of understanding explosive phenomena.

---

Title:

The extragalactic universe - An alternative view

Authors:

ARP, H. C.; BURBIDGE, G.; HOYLE, F.; WICKRAMASING, N. C.;

NARLIKAR, J. V.

Affiliation:

AA(Max-Planck-Institut fuer Astrophysik, Garching, Federal Republic of

Germany) AB(California, University, La Jolla) AD(University of Wales,

Cardiff) AE(Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Poona,

India)

Journal:

Nature (ISSN 0028-0836), vol. 346, Aug. 30, 1990, p. 807-812. Research

supported by NASA.

Publication Date:

08/1990

NASA/STI Keywords:

BIG BANG COSMOLOGY, GALACTIC EVOLUTION, SPACEBORNE

ASTRONOMY, STELLAR EVOLUTION, GALACTIC NUCLEI,

GRAVITATION THEORY, HUBBLE CONSTANT, HUBBLE DIAGRAM,

RED SHIFT

Abstract
It is argued that the currently popular cosmological model is subject to many doubts based on observational data which suggest that there never was a Big Bang. It is further argued that the observational evidence concerning nonthermal objects with large redshifts leads to the conclusion that these redshifts are largely intrinsic in origin. These objects do not lie at large cosmological distances, but rather much closer with z(c) less than about 0.1. This in turn means that there is no evidence for evolution in the discrete objects, and that what is seen in them are creation events involving the ejection of new matter from the nuclei of galaxies.

---

Title:

The quasi-steady state cosmology: analytical solutions of field equations and their relationship to observations.

Authors:

SACHS, R.; NARLIKAR, J. V.; HOYLE, F.

Journal:

Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.313, p.703-712

Publication Date:

09/1996

A&A Keywords:

COSMOLOGY: THEORY, OBSERVATIONS

Abstract
We solve the cosmological equations obtained by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar (1995a) from a Machian theory of gravity in the case where the universe satisfies the Weyl postulate and the cosmological principle. The equations in effect are the Einstein equations of general relativity together with a negative cosmological constant and a trace-free zero rest-mass scalar field. We find a wide range of solutions for spatial sections of zero, positive and negative curvature. The solution for the quasi-steady state cosmology used by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar (1994 a,b) is shown to be an approximation to the simplest of the above solutions. We apply the simplest solution to work out the redshift-magnitude relation and the radio source count. We show that there are marginal differences from the results obtained by Hoyle et al (1994a), although the present exact solution provides a better rationale for the parameters of the model.

---

Title:

Astrophysical deductions from the quasi-steady-state cosmology.

Authors:

HOYLE, F.; BURBIDGE, G.; NARLIKAR, J. V.

Journal:

Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 267, 1007-1019 (1994)

Publication Date:

00/1994

Abstract Not Available

---

Title:

The quasi-steady-state cosmology: a note on criticisms by E. L. Wright

Authors:

HOYLE, F.; BURBIDGE, G.; NARLIKAR, J. V.

Affiliation:

AA(102 Admirals Walk, Bournemouth, Dorset BH2 5HF, UK ), AB(Center for

Astrophysics and Space Sciences and Department of Physics, University of

California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0111, USA ), AC(Inter-University

Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkind, Pune

411007, India )

Journal:

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 277, Issue 1, pp.

L1-L3.

Publication Date:

11/1995

Abstract
We answer criticisms made by Wright of the quasi-steady-state cosmology (QSSC). It is shown that none of his criticisms is valid, and the QSSC remains a viable cosmological theory.

---

Title:

Anomalous redshifts in the spectra of extragalactic objects.

Authors:

HOYLE, F.; BURBIDGE, G.

Journal:

Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.309, p.335-344

Publication Date:

05/1996

A&A Keywords:

QUASARS: GENERAL, GALAXIES: GENERAL, DISTANCES AND

REDSHIFTS

Abstract

In this paper we show that strong statistical evidence has been available for many years showing that QSO redshifts in at least some cases are not caused by the expansion of the Universe. In a complicated world the number of unexpected associations that can be subjected to statistical test is very large and somewhere among the entire ensemble of such associations a few may seem of significance, if taken separately, which are only chance effects, however, occasioned by the profusion of cases in the ensemble. False associations of this kind show up readily as new data become available, since the original chance effects are unlikely to be repeated in the new data. An example was an algebraic formula for the sunspot number which caused a considerable stir early in the present century, the formula agreeing with sunspot numbers over many years with seemingly uncanny precision, only for the agreement to disappear as soon as new sunspot numbers came along. This well-known statistical trap cannot be claimed against the proposition that QSOs of high redshifts are sometimes physically associated with nearby galaxies. This proposition has now been exposed to statistical test for almost thirty years, and it survives in new data just as well as in old data. Additionally, a number of cases have come along with the years where actual physical connections have been detected between QSOs and nearby galaxies. Six of these cases are discussed in detail in the present paper. It is consistent with standard physics for redshifts to arise from doppler motions and also in radiation emitted by matter in a gravitational field, as well as from the cosmological expansion of the Universe. These other possibilities have been examined repeatedly over the years but have never been found to give convincing explanations for the QSO-nearby galaxy associations described above. One is therefore left with the non-standard possibility that different samples of matter can have different mass scales. No theory of how the QSO mass scale could be different from the usual galaxy mass scale has hitherto been found acceptable, with the consequence that most astrophysicists and cosmologists have felt justified in ignoring the evidence for anomalous redshifts, the thought being that what is known to be impossible remains impossible no matter how strong the evidence for it may be. The main purpose of the present paper is to question this mode of thinking. We show how, consistent with the quasi steady-state cosmological theory developed recently in a number of papers, it is possible for samples of material of different ages to have different mass scales.

---

Title:

Astrophysical deductions from the quasi-steady-state cosmology: Erratum

Authors:

HOYLE, E.; BURBIDGE, G.; NARLIKAR, J. V.

Journal:

Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 269, 1152

Publication Date:

08/1994

Abstract Not Available.

---

Title:

Mathematical theory of the origin of matter

Authors:

HOYLE, F.

Journal:

Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 198, no. 2, p.

195-230.

Publication Date:

12/1992

NASA/STI Keywords:

BIG BANG COSMOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL MODELS, MATTER

(PHYSICS), NUCLEAR FUSION, RELATIVITY, SCHROEDINGER

EQUATION, EQUATIONS OF MOTION, HADRONS, NUCLEAR

ASTROPHYSICS, PARTICLE MOTION, PARTICLE TRAJECTORIES

Abstract

It is shown that from a simple and elegant action it is possible to obtain: (i) the equations of classical dynamics, (ii) Schroedinger's equation, (iii) the dynamical equation of special relativity, (iv) scale-invariant gravitation including general relativity, (v) the mathematical theory of the origin of matter, and (vi) the potential function of inflationary theory. When the action term in question is related to the electromagnetic theory an ugly feature arises, however. There must be a multiplication by a small dimensionless number of order 10 exp -38. If this ugly feature is to be avoided, matter must be taken to originate not as particles observed in the laboratory but as Planck particles. The decay of each such particle into about 10 exp 19 hadrons then explains the genesis of numbers of order 10 exp 38 that appear in physics and cosmology.

---

Title:

Possible explanations of the large angle fluctuations of the microwave background

Authors:

HOYLE, F.; BURBIDGE, G.

Affiliation:

AB(California Univ., La Jolla)

Journal:

Astrophysical Journal, Part 2 - Letters (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 399, no. 1, p.

L9, L10.

Publication Date:

11/1992

NASA/STI Keywords:

COSMOLOGY, MICROWAVES, MILKY WAY GALAXY, RELIC

RADIATION, ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, COSMIC DUST, DARK

MATTER

Abstract

Possible origins of the structure in the cosmic microwave background radiation are discussed. It is pointed out that the presence of such structure is compatible with the 1990 modified steady state model proposed by Arp et al. The possibility that the fluctuations are due to dust grains in the form of ironwhiskers produced comparatively locally is also discussed.

---

Title:

Inflation for astronomers

Authors:

NARLIKAR, J. V.; PADMANABHAN, T.

Affiliation:

AA(Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Poona, India)

AB(Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India)

Journal:

IN: Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics. Vol. 29 (A92-18081

05-90). Palo Alto, CA, Annual Reviews, Inc., 1991, p. 325-362.

Publication Date:

00/1991

NASA/STI Keywords:

ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, BIG BANG COSMOLOGY,

COMPUTATIONAL ASTROPHYSICS, INFLATING, UNIVERSE, DARK

MATTER, DENSITY DISTRIBUTION, PERTURBATION THEORY

Abstract
The cosmological theory of inflation is reviewed. The standard model and its problems are summarized and the basic mechanism of inflation is described. The epicycles of inflation are addressed and the problem of structure formation is considered, including the scale-invariant spectrum, the origin of density perturbations. The role of inflation in the problems of dark matter and the cosmological constant is discussed.

---

Title:

The microwave background: Its smoothness and frequency distribution as an astrophysical product

Authors:

HOYLE, FRED; WICKRAMASINGHE, N. C.; BURBIDGE, GEOFFREY

Affiliation:

AC(California Univ., San Diego, La Jolla.)

Journal:

In ESA, From Ground-Based to Space-Borne Sub-mm Astronomy p 59-63

(SEE N91-21986 13-89)

Publication Date:

12/1990

NASA/STI Keywords:

ASTROPHYSICS, BACKGROUND NOISE, BACKGROUND

RADIATION, COSMOLOGY, FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION,

MICROWAVES, SMOOTHING, FLUX DENSITY, IRON, SPECTRUM

ANALYSIS, THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM, WHISKERS

(CRYSTALS)

Abstract

The use of astrophysical sources in providing an understanding of the total energy density of the background is reviewed. The need of a thermalizing agent is stressed. The nearer such an agent comes to establishing thermodynamic equilibrium, the smoother the background becomes. This is shown to be true despite irregularities in the distribution of the thermalizer. The ejection of iron whiskers from galaxies and the ways in which such whiskers could affect the microwave background are discussed.

---

Return