Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

 Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad55f7

It seems that supermassive very old mature galaxies, too old for the BBT to accommodate, have been confirmed to exist in the “very early” Big Bang universe in a new study just published in Astrophysical Journal letters. In this quote from an article on the paper in the online source Science daily, one researcher seems baffled:

“We have confirmed that these (galaxies) appear to be packed with ancient stars -- hundreds of millions of years old -- in a universe that is only 600-800 million years old. Remarkably, these objects hold the record for the earliest signatures of old starlight," said Bingjie Wang, a postdoctoral scholar at Penn State and lead author on the paper. "It was totally unexpected to find old stars in a very young universe. The standard models of cosmology and galaxy formation have been incredibly successful, yet, these luminous objects do not quite fit comfortably into those theories."

Incredibly successful? My understanding is that every time we look at the early universe it turns out to not match BBT predictions. Notice that the age of the imaginary Big Bang has changed over the years from 8 to 25 billion years. And finally only settled on its current age when the so called CMBR confined it to an exact 13 or so billion years old. 

Don’t forget that not only did Hubble himself never accept expansion as an explanation for the observed redshift/distance relationship called Hubble redshift, but that the BBT itself was invented by a devout Catholic priest LeMaitre! 

So once again the Big Bang theory has failed spectacularly. But the bigger question is...Why are they so confused? We Critics of the Big Bang have been saying for years that the universe is infinite in age and not expanding and that JWST would confirm that the BBT was a delusional fantasy. 

Fast Radio Burst mystery solved. They are short Gammaraybursts.

As usual the theorists haven’t the faintest idea about what mechanism produce Fast radio bursts and Gammaraybursts. In their ignorance they think imaginary massive explosions caused by imaginary black holes etc produce these flashes. Some fantasists have even imagined there is a time reversal structure, so desperate is their desire to try to explain why their “explosion” model always fails to model each successive new observation of either Gamma or Fast ray burst data. As these following links show:

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-fast-radio-approach-characterize-behavior.html

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-astrophysics-advances-gamma-ray.html

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aad335/pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927324000793?via%3Dihub

The actual mechanism of gamma and fast radio bursts is well described by a simple classical model where light is a wave only. GRB and FRB data is only consistent with a model where the universe is infinite and not expanding. And the speed of light is always and only c relative to its source. In other words ignore the all relativity based physics.

DO NOT make up a fantasy model that continually needs to be corrected as the actual data comes in as all established models currently do. Instead base your model on the data first and foremost. Not as an afterthought. If you do, as I do, it will always correctly predict any subsequent new observation. As the link below explains.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2019/12/grb-190114c.html

To start with all current data on Fast radio bursts is consistent with them being just very short Gammaraybursts where the burst time line itself is so short that all data above radio frequencies occurs too fast to be measured by our instrumentation above the background noise. So for instance if a FRB is observed to last only seconds, then it’s optical counterpart will be a flash in less then a thousandth of a second and the gammaray part of the burst will last in even smaller timeframes of millionth of a second or less. Too small a time to be measured currently by our latest technology.

Proof of this model is that if one looks at any FRB lightcurve it will always show an exponential decay in peak fluence from hi to low frequencies. Proportional to wavelength. The fluence of the FRB lightcurve lasts for longer times at longer wavelengths. This same decay rate is also observed in all GRB data for all observed wavelengths. Confirming that an FRB is just a very short GRB. 

So that for instance if in a GRB, the gamma lightcurve peaks at t_0 seconds and lasts 20 seconds, then the xray peak will be delayed slightly and last longer. And this trend will continue. Optical peaks later than xray and lasts for even longer. And, the trend continues through IR, far Infrared through to radio. Where shorter radio wavelength parts of the electromagnetic spectrum of the burst will not peak for hours or even days after gamma peaks. And the radio lightcurve also lasts for days and weeks longer than gamma. This model is confirmed by ALL grb and FRB data since they were first observed in the 1990’s.

The delay and stretch of each part of the EM spectrum of any burst will always follow this rule. That is that it will peak and decay later and longer proportional to wavelength.

This model of mine first developed in 1990 when GRBs were not known even to be isotropic. And, not only did I successfully predict  in 1990 that they would be isotropic. I also succesfully predicted that similar rebrightenings in all other wavelengths and lightcurves would be observed to be delayed proportional to wavelength. When no such data had yet even been observed. Nor even considered possible by the fantasies of the ridiculous fact free Neil Gehrels explosion model.

And to date, 35 years later, my models predictions have always been confirmed with each successive year. Whilst the explosion progenitor model’s predictions have failed each year since 1990.

Links to my own theories articles and videos cited above describe in more detail how this “Doppler” effect of light in a classical model can explain all GRB and FRB data. 

But in a nutshell let me here offer a simple analogy: Imagine a gedanken of a flat surface of a large body of water. Create a series of waves of a particular wavelength on this surface. Now imagine you are on a motorboat travelling with and at the same speed as those waves as they propagate across the surface of the water. You don’t measure any up and down of the waves because your are moving at the same speed as those waves. Now speed up and slowly overtake these wavefronts. What do you see or measure? Your boat now bounces up and down slowly as it overtakes/passes each wave crest. Speed your boat up again and those waves will appear to you to be at an even higher frequency. Thus the faster your boat moves, the higher the observed frequency of those waves you overtake will appear to be. Do this same gedanken with lightwaves in a non BBT universe and you will get a GRB.

This is just a Doppler effect. That is what GRB and FRB’s are. No explosions involved

Adam Riess discovers universe isn’t expanding after all

 A new study by Riess et al seems to have confirmed that something, once again, is wrong with the BBT model. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd

Part of the problem lies with the earlier mistake made by him and others in their nobel prize winning paper of 1998. They realised back then that the lightcurves of distant SN1a were too “dim” to be explained by the BBT. So to get around this massive failure of their BBT model they added another pre-copernican fix to their preferred model of expansion. And called this fix ‘acceleration’. 

What they failed to take into account is the fact that a non expanding model of the universe predicts that these distant SN1a will not have *time dilated* afterglow lightcurves. And thus the SN1a afterglow is predicted to appear to be fainter post peak fluence in a non expanding model than is predicted in an expanding model.

And...this is exactly what is observed in Riess et al’s 1998 data. Far from confirming the BBT with an added fix of acceleration, what they actually did was confirm the non expanding models predictions and proved that the universe isn’t expanding at all.

And so now this failure to understand the data by Big Bang theorists in 1998 has come home to haunt them again. Riess has just confirmed once again that the BBT is a failed model. And that once again Riess’s data shows the universe isn’t expanding. Except this time he can’t think of an easy excuse. Although its apparent he still doesn’t blame the BBT model. And instead says that somehow there must be new physics. New fantasies to cover up old fantasies failures is what he really means.

It is worth pointing out here the oft repeated claim made by BBT supporters that SN1a lightcurves show time dilation and confirm the BBT model. When using chi^2 fitting methods to match observed SN1a data to theoretical time dilated templates . Knop et al 2003 being one example.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309368

This claim is dubious at best. Because analysis like this fails to do a control test on the SN1a data to see if a chi ^2 match to *non dilated* lightcurve templates can give as good, or even a better match to that of time dilated templates. 

And I have shown quite clearly in my blog page on supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html  that yes in fact the same hi-red shifted SN1a data gives at least as good a match to non dilated templates as it does to BBT inspired theoretical time dilated lightcurves. If not better. Considering that to make the SN1a data fit the dilated lightcurve templates, Knop had to arbitrarily fiddle the individual Hubble Space Telescope datapoints by as much as 15 % in luminosity to make a good fit to the expanding BBT models theoretical lightcurve templates.

 

CMBR explained in a non expanding universe

 CMBR explained using the model of a non expanding universe

In previous posts on this blog I have offered an alternative explanation to the observed temp and wavelength of the CMBR for a non expanding model of the universe, in that the source of the CMBR isn’t the hot soup of an early Big Bang. But rather the conglomerate output of stars and galaxies at certain great cosmological distances. What causes redshift in a non expanding universeAnd secondly in recent posts on this blog I have outlined how redshift itself in a non expanding model can be modelled by basing it on similar phenomena observed in emission and absorption spectra of atoms. Where the emitted light is redshifted slightly from the absorbed light. Offset between absorption and emission spectra

To test this model describing CMBR in a non expanding universe I have used the following data:

The CMBR peaks at 1.023 mm=1023000nm. 

With a measured temperature of 2.7260±0.0013 K. 

The Suns surface temp is 5778 K

The energy peak of its blackbody spectra is at approximately 500nm. 

And also assuming the following rule of wavelength to energy via Planks energy wavelength inverse relationship. (In that the energy halves with each doubling of the wavelength.)

As I have outlined in recent previous posts on this blog cited above, I have already suggested that blackbody radiation emitted from distant stars/galaxies at and around z=1023 could be the source of the observed CMBR in a non expanding model of the universe.

The following calculations use the above data:

First I test to see if rest frame blackbody radiation from 500nm (solar spectra is used as an example) from these distant Galaxies (at z=1023) could, when redshifted in a non expanding model match to that observed at 1023000nm in the CMBR. 

And the fit is very good.

To stretch the wavelength of emitted blackbody radiation from 500nm rest frame to that observed in CMBR in the microwave region of 1023000 nm I have provided the calculations below:

(Notice that blackbody emission spectrum peaking at 500nm when redshifted to observers on earth from a distance of z=1023 has a wavelength exactly 11 times longer than the initial emission peak of 500nm. Which is 1023000nm in the microwave region.)

Divide 1023000/2=511500

Repeat this 10 more times ( for a total of 11 times) to get approx 500nm

Which is equivelent to the average peak of a rest frame blackbody emmission spectrum of a star.

This gives the relationship between redshift z to distance in a non expanding universe. Which is that in a non expanding universe the CMBR is defined as the rest frame blackbody emission spectrum of star/galaxy sources redshifted over great cosmological distances to the microwave region. Or in other words: the average rest frame peak of the blackbody emission spectrum of 500nm (visible light) from distant galaxies at z=1023 in a non expanding model of the universe will be stretched, via cosmological redshifting, to 1023000 nm (microwave).

The interesting thing is that this also gives a close match to the observed temperature 2.72K of the CMBR using the inverse relationship between wavelength and energy of light. In that when the temperature of the emitted rest frame radiation from distant galaxies ( using 5770 K, the proxy spectra of the Sun as an example) is redshifted to us on earth by z= 1023 it becomes 2.81 K. 

That is 5770k is divided by 2 (11 times). This uses the same method as when calculating the stretch of wavelengths from visible light rest frame emission to microwave.

Indicating that the average stellar spectra at z=1023, and locally, must be approximately 5600 K. Seeing as 5600K redshifted from z=1023 is 2.73 K. ( CMBR being 2.72.6 K)

Distorted galaxies in deep field images

 Hubble has already shown us images of distorted galaxy formation in deep field images. These incidentally were not initially predicted by the BBT. However theorists now pretend this apparent isotropic evolution in galaxy shapes from the “early universe” to now is all part of the success of the predictive powers of the BBT. Presumably JWST will reveal more of these distorted galaxy shapes in the distant universe.

But can these distortions be explained in a non expanding universe? I believe it can. Using two simple methods. Firstly one must take into account optical distortion. The more distance light travels through the gas and dust filled plasma of the vacuum, the more distorted the images will be. Just as light travelling through an imperfect glass or atmospheric medium distorts light images. And this distortion of course will be isotropic. The second method relies on the simple rule of light speed in a non relativistic model of EMR. Outlined in other pages of this blog on pages like my DeSitter page in this blog. As I have said elsewhere the MMX and Sagnac experiments show us light always travels at c relative to the source. This means that if the source moves relative to the observer or vice versa the speed of light of *all the light that has ever left* the source is always still at c relative to the source. A simple example can be explained as follows: Light propagates away from a source at c. The observer moves in a circle relative to the source. Notice as the observer moves away from the source the measured light speed is slower. And when they travel towards the source the light speed increases. 

Now apply this observation to the early universe. We see a galaxy rotate from our point of view. But from a star at the edge of the galaxies POV, they see earth rotate in the sky. Lightpaths from that star are always travelling at c in a straight line towards the earth relative to the star. Whereas the earth is moving back and forth across these light paths. From the earths POV the light appears to be dragged back and forth across the sky. And the light also appears to slow down and speed up as it arrives here on earth.Even though in fact in the stars frame it is always propagating in straight lines at a constant speed c.

So in the earths frame if one then tracked the path of light from various stars around the edge of the galaxy but always kept the light travelling at c in straight lines relative to each star, then over great cosmological time frames the image of the galaxy would *appear* to warp and bend from the earths point of view. Even though in fact the galaxy itself has not warped and bent.

Black Holes in M87 and Sag A

 Recent news from Event Horizon Telescope consortium is a new discovery of a black hole at sag A in our Milky Way. With an image surprisingly similar to the BH in M87

Notice M87 didn’t have a mandatory accretion disc. The rather disingenuous excuse from NASA is that by some remarkeable coincidence the BH is face on to us. The only angle that an accretion disc wouldn’t show up in observations. I said back then this is a failed image of an imaginary BH with a lousy excuse to legitimise the image not having a mandatory accretion disc. 

Guess what? The BH in sag A also doesn’t have an accretion disc either. And guess what NASA’s excuse is this time? 

“If confirmed this means that from our vantage point we are looking down on Sgr A* and its ring more than we are from side-on, surprisingly similar to EHT's first target M87*.”(NASA)

Another amazing coincidence to back up a failed prediction about Black Holes by theorists? Or just an imaginary BH from a unsubstantiatable theory.

Big Bang, Acceleration and the cosmological constant.

 Big Bang, Acceleration and the cosmological constant.

In the 1998 the Supernova Cosmolgy Project and the Reiss et al paper (1) claims hi redshifted SN1a data shows not only expansion but acceleration in the expansion of the Big Bang. Yet an analysis of the data in the paper seems to indicate the opposite: ie no acceleration and no expansion. (Notice that an independent peer reviewed analysis (2) of similar hi redshifted SN1a shows no expansion in hi redshifted SN1a data).

The main point in the Reiss paper, hilited in italics in the paper, is that SN1a appear fainter or dimmer than expected by between 10-15% at higher redshifts. This is an odd claim considering that the Big Bang theory predicts that for the hi redshifted sample in the paper at z>1, time dilation of about 10-15% in lightcurve decays are expected. (In figure 13 of the paper it explains that ‘dimmer’ also equates to a faster decay than expected in a supernovae lightcurve.) In other words the 10-15% increase in lightcurve decays for the hi redshifted sample that the Big Bang theory predicts ...is not actually observed!

Of course it all depends on what exactly Reiss was referring to in figure 13 when it says that fainter or dimmer supernovae are those which are also decaying faster.

Yet not only does the paper and the Big Bang theory predict that SN1a data will show time dilation due to expansion, which it doesn’t, it also pretends that the reason why this predicted time dilation was not observed...was because a previous un predicted and anomalous acceleration of expansion is occurring in the universe from about 7 billion years to present. Due to a change in the cosmological constant. 

 A Sneaky way to make no time dilation observed in hi and low redshifted SN1a data...look like it was still predicted by the Big Bang theory.

1)Reiss et al 1998. “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and cosmological constant”

2)http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/10/supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html

Supernova Light curves fit a non expanding model

Supernova (Sn1a) lightcurves have been used to illustrate time dilation due to the Big Bang expansion. This is an argument that has failed to follow a rigorous scientific method. The authors of these papers should have also tried to see if the observed lightcurve data fits a non expanding, z=0 model.  Using data from Knop et al 2003 I have created graphs of lightcurves where there is no expansion (z=0).  The following graphs are Knops dilated lightcurve graphs on the left and  for comparison, graphs of undilated fits on the right. These show how the data can also fit a non expanding model.

Gamma ray bursts and Fast radio bursts: A Theoretical model

Gammaraybursts and Fast Radio Bursts: A Classical Model.
This page was originally published 2000-2014 at gammarayburst.com

The following description of a GRB model can also be used to explain
more recent FRB observations. Essentially a FRB is a very fast GRB where
wavelengths shorter than radio are too short in duration to be observed.

In a non expanding universe of infinite age and size, observors should see
emr from all directions and from great cosmological distances. This assumes
a non Big Bang universe  not conforming to the laws of relativity. At these
scales some stellar sources will actually be moving away from the earth at
speeds greater than c. The earth then must be travelling away from the
source, at speeds greater than c and we would therefore overtake this light
and "see" the light in reverse. That is, what appears to be a flash above us is
actually light we are overtaking from the opposite direction below our feet.
Much as a fast boat can overtake slower waves on water and the waves
appear to be coming towards the observer in the prow of the boat when
in fact they are travelling in the same direction as the boat but at a slower
speed. Taking into account the assumption that we would always be
decellerating in relation to the source of the light, the burst would first
be seen as more blue shifted (at the gamma end of the spectrum) and as
time progresses observations in longer wavelengths would be observed.
So the original gamma lightcurve profile would be seen stretched out
over longer time frames in longer wavelengths . If the burst was for
20 seconds in gamma and 200 in optical and then it would be seen for
2000 sec in radio. But always show the same distinctive profile for each
burst in various parts of the observed spectrum.
For a brief visual explanation of this see..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8

The model I describe here predicts that the afterglows in different parts
of the emr spectrum will be similar in profile to that of the gammaray
lightcurve, but with different timescales. This is consistent with all
observations and shown in the illustration below. The graph below shows
this in data from grb 970508. Using gamma, optical and radio observations.
The prediction would be that other unmeasured lightcurves like x-rays
would also have similar profiles as their counterpart in gamma.
The shorter the wavelength the shorter the timescale. That is; in x ray
the burst duration would be shorter than optical and longer than gamma.
In the comparison graph below, between the 3 lightcurves,  a self
similarity of lightcurve profiles from different parts of the emr spectrum
is observed. The length of the afterglow is directly proportional to the
wavelength. It also indicates that if  gamma and optical burst time lengths
very were small, on the order of smaller than milliseconds. Then in radio,
these bursts would be observed having time scales in millisconds. And
that there would be measurable delays between shorter and longer
radio wavelengths. This is confirmed by recent Fast Radio Burst
observations.