|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
REDISCOVERING HUBBLE'S LAW?
Hubble had some problems with the establishment;
http://www.etheric.com/Cosmology/redshift.html ߃--¹¹ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
REDISCOVERING HUBBLE'S LAW?
Blatant fudge and masterstroke in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:
http://www.decodedscience.com/einste...n-physics/4070 Paul A. Heckert, professor of physics and astronomy at Western Carolina University: "Einstein therefore forced his theory to conform to his preconceived ideas about the universe. To keep general relativity from predicting either an expanding or collapsing universe, Einstein added a cosmological constant to the general relativity equations. There was absolutely no experimental or observational justification for the existence of this cosmological constant. Einstein's cosmological constant was a blatant fudge to force his theory to conform to his conception of a static universe. (...) Einstein modified general relativity by removing the cosmological constant and returning the equations to their original form. To Einstein's credit he admitted his error and called the cosmological constant his biggest blunder. (...) One possible solution is Einstein's cosmological constant. If cosmologists put the cosmological constant back into Einstein's general relativity equations, then general relativity equations can predict that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The value of the cosmological constant would have to be different than the value Einstein originally used to force the theory to predict a static universe. The idea basic is however the same. Was Einstein's biggest blunder actually a masterstroke?" Pentcho Valev |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
REDISCOVERING HUBBLE'S LAW?
On 17 oct, 16:35, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Blatant fudge and masterstroke in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world: http://www.decodedscience.com/einste...-and-the-2011-... Paul A. Heckert, professor of physics and astronomy at Western Carolina University: "Einstein therefore forced his theory to conform to his preconceived ideas about the universe. To keep general relativity from predicting either an expanding or collapsing universe, Einstein added a cosmological constant to the general relativity equations. There was absolutely no experimental or observational justification for the existence of this cosmological constant. Einstein's cosmological constant was a blatant fudge to force his theory to conform to his conception of a static universe. (...) Einstein modified general relativity by removing the cosmological constant and returning the equations to their original form. To Einstein's credit he admitted his error and called the cosmological constant his biggest blunder. (...) One possible solution is Einstein's cosmological constant. If cosmologists put the cosmological constant back into Einstein's general relativity equations, then general relativity equations can predict that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The value of the cosmological constant would have to be different than the value Einstein originally used to force the theory to predict a static universe. The idea basic is however the same. Was Einstein's biggest blunder actually a masterstroke?" Pentcho Valev In the ASOVAC's convention (Caracas 1982) I presented my thesis that the near universe have an accelerated expantion. And that acceleration is mesured by Newton's Gravitation Constant. (Nobody gives any attention) It mesures the acceleration of expanding tridimensional space by unity of mass. With the Hubble Constant one can determine the mean density of our near universe and viceversa. Ludovicus |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
REDISCOVERING HUBBLE'S LAW?
Einsteiniana: Nobel money taken so it is time for some "heresy":
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-...tood-dark.html "(PhysOrg.com) -- The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics, awarded just a few weeks ago, went to research on the light from Type 1a supernovae, which shows that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The well-known problem resulting from these observations is that this expansion seems to be occurring even faster than all known forms of energy could allow. While there is no shortage of proposed explanations - from dark energy to modified theories of gravity - it's less common that someone questions the interpretation of the supernovae data itself. In a new study, that's what Arto Annila, Physics Professor at the University of Helsinki, is doing. The basis of his argument, which is published in a recent issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, lies in the ever-changing way that light travels through an ever-evolving universe. "The standard model of big bang cosmology (the Lambda-CMD model) is a mathematical model, but not a physical portrayal of the evolving universe," Annila told PhysOrg.com. "Thus the Lambda-CMD model yields the luminosity distance at a given redshift as a function of the model parameters, such as the cosmological constant, but not as a function of the physical process where quanta released from a supernova explosion disperse into the expanding universe. "When the supernova exploded, its energy as photons began to disperse in the universe, which has, by the time we observe the flash, become larger and hence also more dilute," he said. (...) As a result, Annila argues that the supernovae data does not imply that the universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion." Pentcho Valev wrote: If distant supernovae are farther away than one would expect based on the LINEAR increase of red shift with distance, this can be explained on the assumption that, as the photon travels through "empty" space (in a STATIC universe), it loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air: http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?for...rg%3A0706.2885 An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift David Schuster Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Denver "Current models of the intergalactic medium contend that it has mass density on the order of 10^(-27) kg/m^3. While it is true that this equates to approximately one atom of neutral Hydrogen per cubic meter, averaging over cosmological distances, it is reasonable to consider the IGM a super-low density fluid. (...) Obviously, as the density of the intervening medium increases, so does the number of interactions and, consequently, so does the travel time of the light. This is the effect seen in a dense material like calcite where there are so many interactions that THE LIGHT SLOWS DOWN appreciably in a short distance. (...) Assuming the interaction cross-section to correspond to the Bohr radius. This means that a photon will, on average, have an interaction and, accordingly, a characteristic delay every 37600 light years. This is using the minimum particle density in intergalactic space, which can vary widely up to approximately 1000 particles/m^3 in areas of particularly high density." On this analogy the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the the velocity of the photon (V): Fr = - KV That is, the speed of light decreases in accordance with the equation: dV/dt = - K'V Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this difference, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR. Pentcho Valev |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hubble's field of view | Lysdexic | Misc | 1 | May 11th 07 04:12 AM |
Hubble's Variable Nebula | Rick Johnson[_2_] | Astro Pictures | 1 | January 3rd 07 10:13 PM |
Hubble's *big* images | Wally Anglesea™ | Misc | 5 | March 2nd 06 07:27 AM |
Hubble's Biggest Mistake | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 5 | April 19th 05 06:50 AM |
Hubble's done Mars | Doug Ellison | UK Astronomy | 1 | August 27th 03 10:45 PM |