Starlight, Time and the New Physics: How we can see starlight in our young universe | |||

Hartnett (John) | |||

This Page provides (where held) the Abstract of the above Book and those of all the Papers contained in it. | |||

Colour-Conventions | Disclaimer | Books / Papers Citing this Book | Notes Citing this Book |

**BOOK ABSTRACT: **__Notes__

- For the author’s website, see Link
- For a biography of Moshe Carmeli, see
- See "Carmeli (Moshe), Hartnett (John G.), Etc - Scientific Papers of Moshe Carmeli, John Hartnett & Others" for other papers by Hartnett and / or Carmeli.

- About the Author – 6
- Introduction - 9
- Starlight and time - 17
- 'Dark' matter—today's 'fudge factor' - 33
- Einstein and beyond - 55
- Our galaxy—at the centre of the action - 73
- Stretched out the heavens - 91
- Why we see starlight in a 'young' universe - 107

- The large scale structure of the universe does not need 'dark' matter or 'dark' energy - 122
- The large scale structure of the universe tested against high redshift supernova measurements - 135
- Spiral galaxy rotation curves explained without 'dark' matter - 157
- A finite bounded universe with a unique centre - 181
- The Galaxy at the centre of concentric spherical shells of galaxies - 199
- Light-travel-time problem solved - 219

Creation Book Publishers, Australia, 2007.

"

"

- Humphries’ ‘Starlight and Time’
- The Options
- Phenomenological Language
- Faster Clocks ‘Out There’
- Clocks Slower Here Than ‘Out There’
- c-Decay
- Light Created ‘On Its Way’

"

- Mercury’s Orbit: How General Relativity Beat Vulcan
- ‘Missing Matter’ on All Scales
- Dark Energy Too
- Cosmological Special Relativity
- Carmeli’s New Theory
- Problem of ‘Dark Matter’ in Galaxies
- The Way Forward

"

- Introduction
- Challenging the Big Bang
- Einstein’s Field Equations
- Evidence: High Red-shift Supernova Observations

"

- Introduction
- Large Maps of Galaxy Distributions
- Solutions to Einstein’s Field Equations

"

- Introduction
- Creation Days 1-4
- Galaxy Creation
- Expansion Factor

"

- Introduction
- Which Relativity Theory?
- Cosmological Relativity
- Conclusion

"

- Motivation
- 5-D Line Element
- Redshift Versus Distance
- Matter Density
- No ‘Dark Matter’ Needed
- Hubble Parameter
- No ‘Dark’ Energy

"

- Introduction
- Line Element
- Field Equations
- Phase-space Equation

- Solution to Field Equations
- Matter Density Versus Red-Shift
- Comparison with High-z Type 1a Supernovae
- Curve Fits
- Quality of Fits

- Values of Some Key Universal Parameters
- Hubble Constant
- Mass of the Universe

- Conclusion

"

- Introduction
- Gravitational Potential
- Equations of Motion
- Newtonian
- Carmelian

- Rotation Curves
- Accellerations
- Sample of Galaxy Rotation Curves
- Extragalactic Spirals
- The Galaxy

- Conclusion

"

- Introduction
- Unbounded universe
- Bounded universe – solution in a central potential
- Gravitational redshift
- White hole
- Conclusion

"

- Introduction
- What do we observe in the universe?
- Detailed analysis
- Discrete redshifts
- Redshift-distance modulus

- Conclusion

"

- Introduction
- Gamma-factor in Special Relativity
- Gamma-factor in Cosmological Special Relativity

- Lorentz Transformations
- Time Dilation
- One-way speed of light
- Spherically-symmetric universe

- Light-travel time

"

- The 5D Cosmological General Relativity theory developed by Carmeli reproduces all of the results that have been successfully tested for Einstein’s 4D theory. However the Carmeli theory because of its fifth dimension, the velocity of the expanding universe, predicts something different for the propagation of gravity waves on cosmological distance scales. This analysis indicates that gravitational radiation may not propagate as an unattenuated wave where effects of the Hubble expansion are felt. In such cases the energy does not travel over very large length scales but is evanescent and dissipated into the surrounding space as heat.

- Introduction
- Cosmological General Relativity

… 2.1 Linearized General Relativity

… 2.2 Wave Equation in Curved*Spacevelocity*

… 2.3 Density Scales in the Universe - Conclusion

"

- The redshift-distance modulus relation, the Hubble Diagram, derived from Cosmological General Relativity has been extended to arbitrarily large redshifts. Numerical methods were employed and a density function was found that results in a valid solution of the field equations at all redshifts. The extension has been compared to 302 type Ia supernova data as well as to 69 Gamma-ray burst data. The latter however do not truly represent a ‘standard candle’ as the derived distance moduli are not independent of the cosmology used. Nevertheless the analysis shows a good fit can be achieved without the need to assume the existence of dark matter.
- The Carmelian theory is also shown to describe a universe that is always spatially flat. This results from the underlying assumption of the energy density of a cosmological constant of 1, the result of vacuum energy. The curvature of the universe is described by a
*spacevelocity*metric where the energy content of the curvature at any epoch is 1 − Omega, where Omega is the matter density of the universe. Hence the total density is always 1.

- Introduction
- Phase space equation
- Comparison with observation
- Extended redshift range
- Quality of curve fits
- Spatially flat universe
- Conclusion

"

- Near the beginning of Chapter 1, we read: ‘The Bible tells us (in Genesis 1) that the earth was created four days before the creation of the stars in the universe… God created Adam only two days after the stars…’ Clearly, this book is going to be a presentation of a Creationist- Young-Earth viewpoint of cosmology. Two sentences earlier, we read: ‘I don’t dispute the commonly held view that the visible universe is about twenty-eight billion light-years across…’. A few sentences later: ‘For creationists this has been one of the most difficult problems to solve.’ Although I am not a Young-Earth man myself, I consequently expected an unusually interesting presentation of the Young-Earth position.
- One valuable aspect of the book is its useful review of recent observational developments in cosmology. Being retired, I was largely out-of-touch with details of topics like ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’, anomalous features in galaxy rotation, apparent irregularities in the distribution of galaxies throughout the visible universe, and so on. The book was a worthwhile remedy. Dr Hartnett seems to be a competent observational cosmologist.
- On the other hand, the work in this book is of very uneven quality. The following notes deal with a small selection of specific examples of inadequacy.
- First, however, there is a general principle to be followed. Any adequate theoretical description (a model, usually mathematical) of a body of observation must embody features known to occur, must exclude features believed not to occur, and must have a logical structure which would satisfy William of Ockham: ‘It is wrong to use a lot where less will do.’ When a model is proposed, it may involve an attempt to predict hitherto unnoticed behaviour. If experiment confirms that the prediction is valid, the model is provisionally acceptable. Otherwise the model is revised or, in the worst case, rejected.
- Einstein’s general relativity provides a very precise model for the universe as a whole. In particular, it labels ‘events’ with the ‘points’ of a 4D-structure (spacetime) with a metric whose matrix everywhere has one positive eigenvalue and three negative. This straightforwardly yields the concepts of time and 3D space. The past and future of any typical observer are clearly distinguishable, and are separated by the observer’s present. On the other hand, the ‘New Physics’ of this book’s title (the Carmeli-Hartnett ‘spacetimevelocity’ model) is a 5D-structure (2 positive/3 negative). No significance for the nature of each individual ‘point’ is offered. No significant distinction between past and future exists – the topology is wrong – and one’s future can re-enter one’s past without difficulty. The extra dimension in this context has introduced a looseness which defies Ockham’s razor (28), and which prohibits any reliable correspondence between model and reality. All are substantial flaws.
- The author uses the words ‘the rate at which time flows’ (108), and similar phrases (111). It is difficult to decipher any meaning here. In Observer A’s immediate neighbourhood time flows at precisely one second per second; it has no other option. Similarly in Observer B’s neighbourhood. If A and B are separating, it may well happen that both may see the other’s clock as running slow. This ‘clock paradox’ rules out the notion of ‘absolute’ time in standard relativity, and for the same kind of reason will rule it out in the Carmeli-Hartnett model also. Inserting an extra timelike dimension will not help. If any writer believes that ‘absolute’ time is essential to physical reality then he must be prepared to discard altogether theories such as Einstein’s. Otherwise six days (93-95) will be unhappy alongside a billion years.
- A final comment: ‘He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent.’ (Ps. 104:2, author’s italics, 91,92) This text was offered as a primary justification for an expanding universe. I provisionally believe in an expanding universe. However, I remembered times when I camped in the Scottish Highlands. I would stretch out my tent. Then I would admire the starlit heavens stretched out like a tent. Then stretch out on my airbed, and sleep while the night stretched out to day. I cannot include expansion in any of these thoughts. I sincerely believe that we must not use Scripture like that.
- Normally, on finishing a book like this I would casually place it on one side and get on with other business. But not here. My worry is summarised in a quotation from another writer: ‘If [unbelievers] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books,’ [presumably the books of the Bible] ‘how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?’ (St Augustine, in Latin, c.400) Over the last sixteen centuries, the ‘foolish opinions’ have regularly changed. The underlying problem has not.
- Dr John Martin was Reader in Physics (retired 1996), Kings College London, and is author of
*General Relativity*(Prentice Hall Europe 1995).

- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2018
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Oct 2018. | Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. | File output: Website Maintenance Dashboard |

Return to Top of this Page | Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page | Return to Theo Todman's Home Page |