|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
re ashmore's paradox
Eid Mubarak painus.
You are perfectly correct when you say that the age of the Universe cannot be related to the electron, that is the whole point of the paradox. It is not I that is telling you that, it is the big bang theory. So the Big bang theory must be wrong, the Universe is not expanding. On the website www.lyndonashmore.com are listed the last 26 measurements of the Hubble constant (by several different methods) aand they give an average value of 64 km/s per Mpc. This is good science, repeat, repeat, repeat and use different methods. This is not in doubt and I believe is correct. But, what I am pointing out is that if you use 'proper units' meters etc. you realise that this is (planck constant)x(radius of electron)/ (mass of electron) in each cubic metre of space. It is daft, rediculous for this to be so. But experiment tells us that it is. Further more The big bang theory and the expanding Universe tells us that age of Universe is 1/H. Experiment tells us that this is now m/hr. It is daft, rediculous for this to be the case. But experiment tells us that it is. Who is wrong then? 26 experimenters or the theory. It is the theory that is wrong. The Universe is not expanding. A paradox is 'a statement that seems self contradictory but contains a truth' hence ashmore's paradox. to say that the Hubble constant is equal to hr/m for the electron is contradictory - it cannot be so, but on the other hand it is true, 26 experimental teams tell us that it is so. All I am doing is pointing out the relationship - something that everyone else seems to have missed because they work in hte wrong units. regards, Lyndon Link: ashmore's paradox www.lyndonashmore.com ---------- Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question:
How can a measurement of velocity (Hubble Constant) be related to a measurement of mass (your constant)? "lyndonashmore" wrote in message ... Eid Mubarak painus. You are perfectly correct when you say that the age of the Universe cannot be related to the electron, that is the whole point of the paradox. It is not I that is telling you that, it is the big bang theory. So the Big bang theory must be wrong, the Universe is not expanding. On the website www.lyndonashmore.com are listed the last 26 measurements of the Hubble constant (by several different methods) aand they give an average value of 64 km/s per Mpc. This is good science, repeat, repeat, repeat and use different methods. This is not in doubt and I believe is correct. But, what I am pointing out is that if you use 'proper units' meters etc. you realise that this is (planck constant)x(radius of electron)/ (mass of electron) in each cubic metre of space. It is daft, rediculous for this to be so. But experiment tells us that it is. Further more The big bang theory and the expanding Universe tells us that age of Universe is 1/H. Experiment tells us that this is now m/hr. It is daft, rediculous for this to be the case. But experiment tells us that it is. Who is wrong then? 26 experimenters or the theory. It is the theory that is wrong. The Universe is not expanding. A paradox is 'a statement that seems self contradictory but contains a truth' hence ashmore's paradox. to say that the Hubble constant is equal to hr/m for the electron is contradictory - it cannot be so, but on the other hand it is true, 26 experimental teams tell us that it is so. All I am doing is pointing out the relationship - something that everyone else seems to have missed because they work in hte wrong units. regards, Lyndon Link: ashmore's paradox www.lyndonashmore.com ---------- Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Edward C. Otto III" wrote in message ...
Just a question: How can a measurement of velocity (Hubble Constant) be related to a measurement of mass (your constant)? 'Lo Edward -- If i understand Lyndon correctly, it is the fact that there *is* no relationship between the Hubble Constant and the mass, radius of the electron and Planck's constant that yields the paradox and disproves the BB theory. To me, it is like saying that in four years, the fact that I plopped out of my mother's womb will be disproved because my age will coincide with the planet Mercury's spin rate as measured in days. But that's okay, because the *following* year, i shall once again be able to prove how i was born, because my age will no longer coincide with Mercury's rate of rotation. If we wait long enough, the age of the Universe will increase enough so that Ashmore's Paradox will disappear and the Big Bang theory will once again thrive as the sovereign scientific creation theory. Even theories can have their good days and bad days g happy days and... starry starry nights! -- a Secret of the Universe... so please don't breathe a word of this-- the Moon above will smile perverse whene'er it sees two lovers kiss; (breathe not a single word of this!) Paine Ellsworth |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Painius" wrote in message ... "Edward C. Otto III" wrote in message ... Just a question: How can a measurement of velocity (Hubble Constant) be related to a measurement of mass (your constant)? 'Lo Edward -- If i understand Lyndon correctly, it is the fact that there *is* no relationship between the Hubble Constant and the mass, radius of the electron and Planck's constant that yields the paradox and disproves the BB theory. He takes his equation (which has as final unit of measurement meter) and then reduces 63.9 Km/MPc to 2**-18/Meter which puts it in the same frame of reference. Onlu problem is that his equation actualy is per meter **3 as it actually works out (mass concentration). I was just asking. Why would there HAVE to be a relationship between the expansion velocity of the universe and Plank's constant? According to theory the BB happened 2 ** -43 second or so BEFORE Plank's constant and the mass of the electron were determined.....The velocity was established long before (in terms of the BB) the mass of the electron or Plank's constant, or the constant of Gravitation, for that matter. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the question Edward,
The Hubble constant is not a measure of velocity. Never was, never will be. Don’t believe all the hype these codsmologists tell you. Absorption lines in the light from distant galaxies shift towards the red end of the spectrum the further light travels. The Hubble constant is just a measure of that. Hubble himself was never a promoter of the expanding universe preferring ‘tired light’ models (as per my theory) where light looses energy as it travels along. The Hubble constant is a “1/(time)" i.e. a "per second” not a " velocity" i.e. a "m/s". I can assure you (you can work it out for yourself)that the Hubble constant and my constant “hr/m per cubic metre of space” are the same in every respect. That is why the Big Bang theory must be wrong. No way can the two constants be identical by coincidence and no way can the age of the Universe be the same as a combination of parameters of the electron. As to how I work this out will have to wait I am afraid. If I put the theory on the Internet they won’t consider it in the academic press, where it is now. The Big Bang theory is wrong and ‘ashmore’s paradox’ shows it is wrong. Unless anyone out there would like to explain the paradox? "Edward C. Otto III" wrote: Just a question: How can a measurement of velocity (Hubble Constant) be related to a measurement of mass (your constant)? "lyndonashmore" ashmore ---------- Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ashmore seems to be operating from the pre-held agenda of 'disproving'
the BB. It would be interesting to hear his take on the nucleosynthesis of the primal elements hydrogen, helium and lithium- and particularly on the deuterium enigma. Deuterium cannot be created by stars because it is destroyed in the fusion process. Yet it is found in protostellar clouds that have yet to undergo star formation. Where did all this pristine deuterium come from? The synthesis of the primal elements and particularly the existance of D in the universe are fully consistent with a superhot 'Genesis Event' in the deep past. The BB is a fact, like it or not, deny it or not. oc "It is described abstractly in mathematical language, _but not explained_." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lyndon:
What do the terms, i.e., "“", mean? Ralph Hertle lyndonashmore wrote: Thanks for the question Edward, The Hubble constant is not a measure of velocity. Never was, never will be. Don’t believe all the hype these codsmologists tell you. Absorption lines in the light from distant galaxies shift towards the red end of the spectrum the further light travels. The Hubble constant is just a measure of that. Hubble himself was never a promoter of the expanding universe preferring ‘tired light’ models (as per my theory) where light looses energy as it travels along. The Hubble constant is a “1/(time)" i.e. a "per second” not a " velocity" i.e. a "m/s". I can assure you (you can work it out for yourself)that the Hubble constant and my constant “hr/m per cubic metre of space” are the same in every respect. That is why the Big Bang theory must be wrong. No way can the two constants be identical by coincidence and no way can the age of the Universe be the same as a combination of parameters of the electron. As to how I work this out will have to wait I am afraid. If I put the theory on the Internet they won’t consider it in the academic press, where it is now. The Big Bang theory is wrong and ‘ashmore’s paradox’ shows it is wrong. Unless anyone out there would like to explain the paradox? "Edward C. Otto III" wrote: Just a question: How can a measurement of velocity (Hubble Constant) be related to a measurement of mass (your constant)? "lyndonashmore" ashmore ---------- Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ralph Hertle wrote:
What do the terms, i.e., "“", mean? They're some sort of 'special character' codes (Unicode numbers?) that aren't being translated properly. At least a few of them appear to stand for opening and closing quotes. Unattractive as they are in print, in Usenet messages 'straight' quotes are preferable because they don't get garbled. Likewise most of the characters that aren't printed on the keys should be avoided (e.g. fractions and mathematical symbols), although most newsreaders can handle the more common non-ASCII characters like the diacritics used in Western European languages. -- Odysseus |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Greetings Painus,
Not too struck on your calculation of the units, Painus. Definitely a 'two out of ten' there. The Hubble constant is a 'reciprocal of time'. That is why the age of the Universe, in seconds, is the reciprocal of the Hubble constant (1/H). The (planck constant)x(electron radius)/(electron mass) in each cubic metre of space also boils down to the reciprocal of time. H = hr/m per cubic metre - for sure. As to the paradox being a coincidence, I might have taken your point of view too if it had been any other constants but these. These three constants are fundamental in the interaction of light with matter. No way is it a coincidence. Kirshner, (one of the guys who found H from supernovae and got it exactly equal to hr/m per metre cubed of space) writes on page 256 of his book ' the extravagant Universe' that "most theorists are, quite rightly, suspicious of coincidences. They don't like the small of an idea that places us at a special time in the history of the Universe". "Edward C. Otto III" wrote: "Painius" wrote in message ... "Edward C. Otto III" wrote in message ... Just a question: How can a measurement of velocity (Hubble Constant) be related to a measureme ---------- Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Greetings Ralph.
For more details on 'ashmore's paradox' visit my site at www.lyndonashmore.com. But briefly, In big bang codsmology, the Hubble constant is not a quantity like 'velocity' but it is a ratio telling you how much faster space is expanding for every bit further you go. It is quoted as 64 km/s for each parsec of distance. In real cosmology, H is the ratio of the electron radius to the electron mass all multiplied by the planck constant i.e. 'this much of the electron (hr/m)in each cubic metre of space'. It is quoted as hr/m m/s for each metre of distance. They are identical but lets not get bogged down in details. Cheers , lyndon Ralph Hertle wrote: Lyndon: What do the terms, i.e., "“", mean? Ralph Hertle lyndonashmore wrote: Thanks for the question Edward, The Hubble constant is not a measure of velocity. Never was, never will be. Don’t believe all the hype these codsmologists tell you. Absorption lines in the light from distant galaxies shift towards the red end of the spectrum the further light travels. The Hubble constant is just a measure of that. Hubble himself was never a promoter of the expanding universe preferring ‘tired light’ models (as per my theory) where light looses energy as it travels along. The Hubble constant is a “1/(time)" ---------- Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ashmore's Paradox | Lyndon Ashmore | Misc | 3 | November 22nd 03 01:04 PM |
Ashmore's Paradox | Lyndon Ashmore | Astronomy Misc | 4 | November 21st 03 02:44 PM |
Ashmore's Paradox | Lyndon Ashmore | UK Astronomy | 0 | November 14th 03 10:32 AM |
Fondation on Olbers' Paradox | telove | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 28th 03 12:09 AM |
Foundation on Olbers' Paradox | telove | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 26th 03 09:39 PM |