Here is a Minkowski Space-time diagram showing my cosmological model in
its current form.
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/fi...2005-09-07.JPG

The line segment BE represents the worldline of our galaxy from the
time of the Big Bang to an event which occurred approximately 13.7
billion years ago.

The line segment EO represents the worldine of our galaxy from that
event to the present.

The event E represents the passage of either a black hole, or a
gargantuan cloud of neutrinos from outside the universe, toward the
direction which is now 11h09m Right Ascension, -7deg declination. (The
direction of the hot dipole of the CMBR anisotropy)

If it was a black hole, it punched its way through the dense outer
surface of our universe and is pulling along matter behind it
gravitationally.

If it were neutrinos, they are the shattered remains of a very large
object which passed through the dense outer shell of our universe. The
only matter which could pass successfully through the shell would be
particles with a nearly zero cross-section, and to retain their
direction and not be scattered by electric and magnetic fields, they
would have to be electrically neutral.

This neutrino cloud hit our region at near the speed of light, causing
us to accelerate. Particles were dragged along by the neutrino cloud
and pulled toward its center by gravity as it passed, accelerating us
until it was moving past us at only .6c.

The neutrino cloud now moves away at approximately .6c just past the
region of galaxies with redshifts between .8 and .1 in the direction of
Virgo, Hubble Deep Field North, and the "hot" dipole of the CBR.

If you are not familiar with the Minkowski Space-Time diagram, you
might be confused to note that the length of line segment BE appears to
be very long in the diagram, which might seem to indicate that the
galaxy was very old at event E. However, the actual passage of time
for a particle along this line is determined by s^2= t^2 - x^2, where s
is the proper time, t and x are the coordinate time and distance from
the big bang origin, respectively. With t being approximately 30
billion light years, and x being approximately 30 billion light years,
t^2-x^2 is close to zero; the actual age, s, of our galaxy (determined
with respect to the Big Bang Event) at event E was approximately zero.

Though I have made the proper age of the universe 45 billion years in
this diagram, it is only for example. I have heard many conflicting
figures for the proper age of the universe. This diagram only begins
to describe a model for which the actual age might be determined.

I would like to point out that no "low-velocity approximation" is
admitted into this theory. The redshift of galaxies is assumed to be
almost entirely due to recession. That being said, any light coming
from the center of the neutrino cloud should be highly redshifted due
to the difference in gravitational potential.

This theory requires clarification of the Cosmological Principle. The
local density and pressure of the universe at any given proper time
will be approximately constant throughout the universe. A region of
constant proper time is represented by a hyperbola in a Minkowski
space-time diagram.

The density of the universe given a single observer's coordinate time
will increase towards infinity toward the edge of the universe. Then,
beyond the edge, the density cannot be predicted. A region of constant
coordinate time is represented by a horizontal line in a Minkowski
space-time diagram.

The distribution of matter across such a horizontal plane is shown,
roughly, in this diagram:
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/files/250%20plus.JPG

This represents the distribution of matter before such an event
described as event E.

This theory requires a clarification of the nature of the CMBR dipole.
Traditional analysis finds the velocity by a low velocity
approximation: dT/T =3.36 mK/2.73K =v/c =369km/sec then subtracts the
motion of the sun from the Galactic Standard of Rest to find the motion
of our galaxy to be around 600km/second with respect to the Cosmic
Background. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~drlaw/Ay124/hw1_solns.pdf.
This idea is that the actual temperature of the vacuum of space itself
is 2.73 Kelvin and is glowing as would a solid, liquid, or gas, with
radiant blackbody energy. While many may defend such an idea, it has
no place in this model.

My theory assumes the Cosmic Background Radiation is coming from a
dense wall of matter traveling away at very nearly the speed of light,
and thus the low velocity approximation cannot be used. The actual
temperature of this matter can be determined as the recombination
temperature of hydrogen.

Presumably, while Class O stars are known to glow with temperatures as
high as 60,000 Kelvin, the temperature of the visible inner surface of
this expanding sphere is only 3000 K, representing the temperature
where it becomes possible for electrons to bond to hydrogen atoms.
This is the temperature of a Halogen lamp, or a class M star. I gather
that any intervening matter would absorb photons of higher frequency
before it reached us.

I am using this figure of 3000 K for the original temperature of the
plasma. To determine the actual redshift we must have a value for the
actual temperature, and this is the one most often given.

Assuming a recombination temperature of 3000K and measured temperatures
of 2.73336K and 2.72664K, and using

z+1=T_actual/T_observed

The redshifts are z_hot=1096.6 and z_cold=1100.3 respectively. The
amount by which we would need to change our speed to remove this
difference in redshift is considerably more than 600km/sec.

To balance the redshift, you would need to add 1.85 to 1096.6 and
subtract 1.85 from 1100.3. A redshift of 1.85 could be achieved by a
change in velocity of .781c toward the cold dipole. This suggests that
we were accelerated by a total of .781c during event E.

In summary, this model describes my current notion of what the universe
consists of. For a short time, the universe was isotropic, expanding
much like the particles in this animation:
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/fi...l-big-bang.gif. A black hole
or dense gas of neutrinos came through the dense outer surface of the
sphere, causing the particles of our galaxy to fall toward each other
and accelerate by .781c.

This event is marked by point E in this diagram:
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/fi...2005-09-07.JPG

The alien mass continued past us at .6c past Virgo toward the hot
dipole of the CMBR. This mass has created a significant increase in
the appearance of galaxies with redshift between 0.8 and 1.0 in the
Hubble Deep Field North.

Thanks for your time,
Jonathan Doolin

Spoonfed wrote:

[snip all]

Is your model consistent with General Relativity? If yes, what metric
are you using? If no, what other theory of gravity (Newtons?) are you
using?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Spoonfed wrote:

[snip all]

Is your model consistent with General Relativity? If yes, what metric
are you using? If no, what other theory of gravity (Newtons?) are you
using?


Bye,
Bjoern

My model is compatible with General Relativity, assuming the Freidmann
metric refers to proper-time and local density, and not to
coordinate-time and universal density.

However, most of the observable redshift effects are due to recession
velocity, whereas the infalling of matter to form stars and galaxies is
due to the General Relativistic gravitational effects described by
Schwarzchild.

Ben Rudiak Gould gave me this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equation and determined that my
model was a k=-1, a(t)=t model. It should be noted that this t
represents proper-time, not coordinate time.

Assuming rho=0 and Lambda=0 (see below), k=-1, and a(t)=t, the
Friedmann equation simplifies to H^2=(1/t)^2 where t is the proper-time
of an inertial observer since the big bang event.

I assume Lambda=0 because my model assumes no vacuum energy.

I have not precisely determined the function rho(t), but I believe it
is nearly zero for high t. If I am not mistaken, Linear density can be
taken to be 1/d where d is the distance to nearest particle. Then the
volume density is going to be somewhere around (1/d^3). The nearest
particle probably moving at a momentum determined by it's mass and the
Planck energy. Anyway, I believe that (8/3)Pi*G*rho(t) ~ n/t^3, where
n is a very small number and t is the proper age of the particle in
question, and can be neglected for t1 million years or so. Since the
scale of my diagram represents 45,000 million years, this would barely
be noticeable.

Thus the Friedmann_equation is approximated in my model by

H^2 = 1/(proper time)^2

During any acceleration event, such as event E, in the diagram,
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/fi...2005-09-07.JPG
the symmetry is broken, so Hubble's Constant should become dependent on
direction. However, because such a large amount of matter was affected
by event E, the region in E's light cone appears to have almost the
same symmetry as the original Big Bang.