Plasma redshift, coronal heating, QSOs, CMB, DM halos etc.

In article , "Jim Jastrzebski"
writes:

The evidence for time dilation of distant supernovae light
curves actually supports the idea that the universe is not
expanding. It is because this effect is consistent with a
variation of Einsteinian theory of gravity, in which (unlike
in the big bang cosmology) it is assumed that the principle
of conservation of energy is valid absolutely.

http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3263.htm

Can you give a brief list of testable predictions this theory makes?

"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply"
wrote in message ...
In article , "Jim Jastrzebski"
writes:

The evidence for time dilation of distant supernovae light
curves actually supports the idea that the universe is not
expanding. It is because this effect is consistent with a
variation of Einsteinian theory of gravity, in which (unlike
in the big bang cosmology) it is assumed that the principle
of conservation of energy is valid absolutely.

http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3263.htm

Can you give a brief list of testable predictions this theory makes?

Of course, here it is:
1. That the time in a virialized cloud of dust runs slower than
outside (obviously) but much slower than it is required by the
common gravitational redshift, and its change with distance is
not quadratic (as in the common gravitational redshift) but
exponential and that in the case of our universe, assuming its
density were around 6E-27 kg/m3, it would produce
Hubble's constant around 70 km/s/Mpc without any real
expansion of space.
2. That the acceleration of the observed (apparent in this
case) expansion of the universe would be 2.5E-36 1/s2.
3. That there is a lower limit of "dynamical friction" (quote
since it is the Newtonian name of the effect while this
particular effect is relativistic) experienced by any object
moving in our universe of about 7E-10 m/s2.
4. That the "average size" of the pieces of non luminous
matter in our universe, deduced from the 2.7K temperature
of CMBR, assuming density of those pieces of order of
1E3 kg/m3, is of order of 1 m across..

-- Jim

"Jim Jastrzebski" wrote in message
...
"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply"

wrote in message ...
In article , "Jim Jastrzebski"
writes:

The evidence for time dilation of distant supernovae light
curves actually supports the idea that the universe is not
expanding. It is because this effect is consistent with a
variation of Einsteinian theory of gravity, in which (unlike
in the big bang cosmology) it is assumed that the principle
of conservation of energy is valid absolutely.

http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3263.htm

Can you give a brief list of testable predictions this theory makes?

Of course, here it is:
1. That the time in a virialized cloud of dust runs slower than
outside (obviously) but much slower than it is required by the
common gravitational redshift, and its change with distance is
not quadratic (as in the common gravitational redshift) but
exponential and that in the case of our universe, assuming its
density were around 6E-27 kg/m3, it would produce
Hubble's constant around 70 km/s/Mpc without any real
expansion of space.
2. That the acceleration of the observed (apparent in this
case) expansion of the universe would be 2.5E-36 1/s2.
3. That there is a lower limit of "dynamical friction" (quote
since it is the Newtonian name of the effect while this
particular effect is relativistic) experienced by any object
moving in our universe of about 7E-10 m/s2.
4. That the "average size" of the pieces of non luminous
matter in our universe, deduced from the 2.7K temperature
of CMBR, assuming density of those pieces of order of
1E3 kg/m3, is of order of 1 m across..

[Jim Jastrzebski]
There is one more possible testable prediction that
I forgot. Probably nothing that can be used to test
anything in practice but it's funy so I would list it as
well: it is that the predicted volume of the spacetime
comes out as zero. It's because the metric tensor
comes out degenerate. It is shown here (for brevity
with c = 1, and angular coordinates dropped):
g_uv =
[ exp(-2r/R) -exp(-2r/R) ]
[ exp(2r/R) -exp(2r/R) ]
where R is accidentally a number equal to "Einstein's
radius of the universe", c/sqrt(4 pi G rho), where G is
Newtonian gravitational constant, and rho is density
of space. It makes R the same as the radius of spatial
hypersphere of "Einstein's universe". The cosmological
constant of this universe is of course 1/R^2.

Another funny thing is that this radius of curvature,
and so also the cosmological constant, come out
from purely Newtonian math that does not know
aything about curvatures. This math was just applied
to calculate the time dilation in virialized clouds of
dust in the same way as gravitational time dilation
could be calculated, straight from simple Newtonian
balance of energies.

The metric, despite that metric tensor is degenerate
(which harms nobody except making spacetime
geometry non Riemannian and not allowing to use
metric tensor for raising and lowering tensor indeces
any more) comes out quite decent as ds^2 =
exp(-2r/R)dt^2 + 2sinh(2r/R)dtdr - exp(2r/R)dr^2.
Of course it gets reduced to Minkowski for rR,
it's null for dt = dr, and homogenous.

So it seems to have all the required properties that
we might want from a metric, except publishablility
of course, since no physicist is apparently interested
in metrics that don't produce expanding space. But
I hope it might entertain astronomers as a kind of a
curio: no expansion, and yet it makes the universe
looking as if it were expanding with accelerating
expansion; the numbers seem to come out right; it
does not violate any physical pronciple including
the conservation of energy; and it is actually derived
only from the principle of conservation of energy,
and with Newtonian math only. A genuine puzzle
to me. I hope someone here will solve it.

-- Jim