Astronomers Re-measure the Universe with Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Aladar
writes

Now, on the other hand, there is a perfectly good, coherent
representation of matter structure [a candy for the correct answer!]
which results in the photon energy loss with an exponential to
the distance rate - z =2^(t/Hd)-1 where t is the time of photon
travel and Hd =4.111 bly Hubble photon wavelength doubling time
constant. It is around 170 km/s per Mpc for the linear approximation
for very small redshifts.

I thought your figure was Hd = 4.234 billion
years. Given that you're quoting it to 4 decimal places, isn't that a
rather large difference?

I know... shame of me...

The worst part of it

I have to admit

it's coming from the fact that E not = mc^2, but E=0.9722mc^2 ...

I had to go back to the drawing board...

And found this.

Cheers!
Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com

In message , Aladar
writes
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message ...
In message , Aladar
writes

Now, on the other hand, there is a perfectly good, coherent
representation of matter structure [a candy for the correct answer!]
which results in the photon energy loss with an exponential to
the distance rate - z =2^(t/Hd)-1 where t is the time of photon
travel and Hd =4.111 bly Hubble photon wavelength doubling time
constant. It is around 170 km/s per Mpc for the linear approximation
for very small redshifts.

I thought your figure was Hd = 4.234 billion
years. Given that you're quoting it to 4 decimal places, isn't that a
rather large difference?

I know... shame of me...

The worst part of it

I have to admit

it's coming from the fact that E not = mc^2, but E=0.9722mc^2 ...

Why? Is the circumference of a circle 3.0000 x the radius, as the Bible
is supposed to claim? That's the sort of rewriting of basic physics
you're doing.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...

[...]
Now, on the other hand, there is a perfectly good, coherent
representation of matter structure [a candy for the correct answer!]
which results in the photon energy loss with an exponential to
the distance rate - z =2^(t/Hd)-1 where t is the time of photon
travel and Hd =4.111 bly Hubble photon wavelength doubling time
constant. It is around 170 km/s per Mpc for the linear approximation
for very small redshifts.

I thought your figure was Hd = 4.234 billion
years. Given that you're quoting it to 4 decimal places, isn't that a
rather large difference?

The difference is about 2.8%!


I know... shame of me...

The worst part of it

I have to admit

it's coming from the fact that E not = mc^2, but E=0.9722mc^2 ...

Why? Is the circumference of a circle 3.0000 x the radius, as the Bible
is supposed to claim? That's the sort of rewriting of basic physics
you're doing.

Actually, that kind of rewriting is going on in the academia, and
most obvious in astrophysics... [Dark energy, dark matter, etc...]

My reason is very simple: it is the right thing to do...

I tell you how it is: I found an excellent, coherent description
of everything, based on the colliding atoms representation. I tried
and
tried to reconcile with the Standard Model - and could not. You may
recall my idea of the mass-equivalent photon. I consider the photons
as spherical surface objects constructed of two interacting, self-
reconstructing collisions, whith the highest energy being a permanent
structure, like a massive body - hence the name: mass-equivalent.
Its radius is calculated as 1/4 of wavelength, which is defined from
E=h*nu = mc^2, and in my theory the electron rest mass is 27
collisions,
so nu= 2/27*me*c^2/h. I tried to compare the radius of this
mass-equivalent
photon with the Bohr radius - and bingo! You know, the Bohr radius
really
could not be a radius, but still shows some very fundamental natural
thing.
And what did I find? a_0=2Pi*r_gamma * some correction...

Now, the 2 is 2, the 27 is 27, the mass of electron is the mass of
electron,
and the Planck constant is that, and the c speed of light is that...
So the correction could come only from the E = mc^2*epsilon^2, with a
value of this correcting term is 0.972296766. Meaning, there must be
an energy loss about 3%, or a missing mass - missing energy - at the
transition from
mass to energy. I reread Einstein - he neglected a couple of higher
order
terms in his initial deduction... Also, there is a constant problem
in the reprocessing of nuclear reactor fuel - some 3% always missing!
In the accounting of cosmic ray always a lost energy...

But the key: really, nobody checked the most famous equation's
validity!

So, my entire excercise of getting this fair share of abuse... to
break
this news to you!

BTW! If use this correcting term to find the fine structure constant:

alpha = 2/27 * (epsilon/Pi)^2 -- which is a damn good reason to check
the almost 3% energy loss or extra mass missing!

Not to mention, that in my representation the constructing collisions
has to be inelastic, somewhat, just to be able to self-reconstruct...

Cheers!
[That was your Christmas present, so Merry Christmas!]

Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com

(Aladar) wrote in message . com...
Just reposting:

Now, on the other hand, there is a perfectly good, coherent
representation of matter structure [a candy for the correct answer!]
which results in the photon energy loss with an exponential to
the distance rate - z =2^(t/Hd)-1 where t is the time of photon
travel and Hd =4.116 bly Hubble photon wavelength doubling time
constant. It is around 170 km/s per Mpc for the linear approximation
for very small redshifts.

I thought your figure was Hd = 4.234 billion
years. Given that you're quoting it to 4 decimal places, isn't that a
rather large difference?

The difference is about 2.8%!


I know... shame of me...

The worst part of it

I have to admit

it's coming from the fact that E not = mc^2, but E=0.9722mc^2 ...

Why? Is the circumference of a circle 3.0000 x the radius, as the Bible
is supposed to claim? That's the sort of rewriting of basic physics
you're doing.

Actually, that kind of rewriting is going on in the academia, and
most obvious in astrophysics... [Dark energy, dark matter, etc...]

My reason is very simple: it is the right thing to do...

I tell you how it is: I found an excellent, coherent description
of everything, based on the colliding atoms representation. I tried
and
tried to reconcile with the Standard Model - and could not. You may
recall my idea of the mass-equivalent photon. I consider the photons
as spherical surface objects constructed of two interacting, self-
reconstructing collisions, whith the highest energy being a permanent
structure, like a massive body - hence the name: mass-equivalent.
Its radius is calculated as 1/4 of wavelength, which is defined from
E=h*nu = mc^2, and in my theory the electron rest mass is 27
collisions,
so nu= 2/27*me*c^2/h. I tried to compare the radius of this
mass-equivalent
photon with the Bohr radius - and bingo! You know, the Bohr radius
really
could not be a radius, but still shows some very fundamental natural
thing.
And what did I find? a_0=2Pi*r_gamma * some correction...

Now, the 2 is 2, the 27 is 27, the mass of electron is the mass of
electron,
and the Planck constant is that, and the c speed of light is that...
So the correction could come only from the E = mc^2*epsilon^2, with a
value of this correcting term is 0.972296766. Meaning, there must be
an energy loss about 3%, or a missing mass - missing energy - at the
transition from
mass to energy. I reread Einstein - he neglected a couple of higher
order
terms in his initial deduction... Also, there is a constant problem
in the reprocessing of nuclear reactor fuel - some 3% always missing!
In the accounting of cosmic ray always a lost energy...

But the key: really, nobody checked the most famous equation's
validity!

So, my entire excercise of getting this fair share of abuse... to
break
this news to you!

BTW! If use this correcting term to find the fine structure constant:

alpha = 2/27 * (epsilon/Pi)^2 -- which is a damn good reason to check
the almost 3% energy loss or extra mass missing!

Not to mention, that in my representation the constructing collisions
has to be inelastic, somewhat, just to be able to self-reconstruct...

Cheers!
[That was your Christmas present, so Merry Christmas!]

Aladar
http://www.stolmarphysics.com