Lyndon Ashmore wrote:
Glad to hear it.
How can the scientific establishment keep promoting the big bang when their
Hubble constant is just (planck constant)x(radius of electron)/(mass of
electron) in each cubic metre of space?
Consider this:
Just forget, for a moment, what these Big Bang Codsmologists have been
telling us and lets look what the experimental evidence says.
The Hubble constant is found by measuring the redshift in light from distant
galaxies.
The redshift is found by measuring the shift in absorption lines in the
spectra of this light.
These absorption lines are caused by electrons in atoms in the space around
stars etc. taking this light and absorbing photons of certain energies.
The energy of these absorbed photons is proportional to their frequency and
the constant of proportionality is the planck constant.
Ashmore's paradox tells us that measured values of H are exactly equal to
the (planck constant)x(radius of electron)/(mass of electron) in each cubic
metre of space.
Where does this all this expansion come into it.
Visit my website at www.lyndonashmore.com

I can't visit your website from this machine, but I will check it out.

I agree with your description of the generation of the Hubble constant,
but I don't quite follow your logic at the end. Are you saying that
planck's constant isn't constant in space? Or that the radius of
an electron or mass of an electron varies the further away one
goes from earth? Or are you saying that the absorption lines
are created all along the path from teh distant star to earth
such that the greater distance the light travels the greater
the observed shift? But wouldn't that BROADEN them rather than
just shift them? Even if such were true, I don't think that
explains a shift in emission lines as well.

As for the Big Bang, I have said and still maintain that this
is a natural result of people interpreting Red Shift as a
velocity. Originally assumed to be a Doppler shift, these days
the mathematical description has been changed to avoid the word
"Doppler" but the results are the same. Just the terminology
has changed. You, I, and the "tired light" folks however, are
asking the question, "What if the Red Shift is NOT due to
velocity? What if it's due to some other physical phenomena
whereby light is shifted in frequency proportional to
intersellar distance? The answer of course, it that once
a credible explanation has been found which is not due
to velocity, two things become apparent. One is that the
"Big Bang" immediately goes out the window. And the other
is that there arises the possiblity of a calculation or
estimate of the diameter of a universe of a relatively fixed
size.

Benj

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!