New Red Shift Theory

I wish to announce a paper outlining a new theory
explaining Red Shift.

The paper rejects the Doppler interpretation
of Red Shift and suggests a more or less static, fixed-
diameter, Universe.

Using the new theory with some galactic data a
mean diameter of the universe of about 500 million light
years was calculated.

The paper can be viewed by accessing:
www.hypersphere.us

bjacoby
--
SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!

Mr. Jacoby's model with all its math and geometry is predicated on
void-space and universal c-invariance. It makes no provision for an
underlying spatial medium (or VED) and density-gradients within it.
'C-dilation', the *relative* drop in c across a density-gradient, with
concominant drop in amplitude, is not considered at all. Another example
of math being used to 'prove' any pre-held belief.

As explaind before, 'c-dilation' is the natural extension of Special
Relativity once the VED is recognized. It upholds the constancy of c and
the Lorentz invariance _locally_ in all *density frames*. Viewed from
the 'outside' frame, the relative value of c drops with thinning spatial
density from the instant of the BB. Viewed from 'inside', the c-drop
causes the most ancient light to appear 'dimmer than it should be' at a
given redshift.

By rejecting the Big Bang, Mr. Jacoby dismisses the overwhelming
evidence FOR the BB, namely the neucleosynthesis of H, He, Li, and
deuterium. The existance of deuterium, which cannot be created by
stellar processes, bespeaks a superhot BB event. oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Mr. Jacoby's model with all its math and geometry is predicated on
void-space and universal c-invariance. It makes no provision for an
underlying spatial medium (or VED) and density-gradients within it.
'C-dilation', the *relative* drop in c across a density-gradient, with
concominant drop in amplitude, is not considered at all. Another example
of math being used to 'prove' any pre-held belief.

As explaind before, 'c-dilation' is the natural extension of Special
Relativity once the VED is recognized. It upholds the constancy of c and
the Lorentz invariance _locally_ in all *density frames*. Viewed from
the 'outside' frame, the relative value of c drops with thinning spatial
density from the instant of the BB. Viewed from 'inside', the c-drop
causes the most ancient light to appear 'dimmer than it should be' at a
given redshift.

By rejecting the Big Bang, Mr. Jacoby dismisses the overwhelming
evidence FOR the BB, namely the neucleosynthesis of H, He, Li, and
deuterium. The existance of deuterium, which cannot be created by
stellar processes, bespeaks a superhot BB event. oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

In message ,
Bill Sheppard writes
Mr. Jacoby's model with all its math and geometry is predicated on
void-space and universal c-invariance. It makes no provision for an
underlying spatial medium (or VED) and density-gradients within it.
'C-dilation', the *relative* drop in c across a density-gradient, with
concominant drop in amplitude, is not considered at all. Another example
of math being used to 'prove' any pre-held belief.

As explaind before, 'c-dilation' is the natural extension of Special
Relativity once the VED is recognized. It upholds the constancy of c and
the Lorentz invariance _locally_ in all *density frames*. Viewed from
the 'outside' frame, the relative value of c drops with thinning spatial
density from the instant of the BB. Viewed from 'inside', the c-drop
causes the most ancient light to appear 'dimmer than it should be' at a
given redshift.

By rejecting the Big Bang, Mr. Jacoby dismisses the overwhelming
evidence FOR the BB, namely the neucleosynthesis of H, He, Li, and
deuterium. The existance of deuterium, which cannot be created by
stellar processes, bespeaks a superhot BB event. oc

I may have missed your earlier reply, but doesn't the observed _amount_
of helium and deuterium bespeak a constant speed of light?
Current theory predicts certain amounts based on the speed having its
current value, and AFAIK those predictions are fairly close to what is
observed.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"

In message ,
Bill Sheppard writes
Mr. Jacoby's model with all its math and geometry is predicated on
void-space and universal c-invariance. It makes no provision for an
underlying spatial medium (or VED) and density-gradients within it.
'C-dilation', the *relative* drop in c across a density-gradient, with
concominant drop in amplitude, is not considered at all. Another example
of math being used to 'prove' any pre-held belief.

As explaind before, 'c-dilation' is the natural extension of Special
Relativity once the VED is recognized. It upholds the constancy of c and
the Lorentz invariance _locally_ in all *density frames*. Viewed from
the 'outside' frame, the relative value of c drops with thinning spatial
density from the instant of the BB. Viewed from 'inside', the c-drop
causes the most ancient light to appear 'dimmer than it should be' at a
given redshift.

By rejecting the Big Bang, Mr. Jacoby dismisses the overwhelming
evidence FOR the BB, namely the neucleosynthesis of H, He, Li, and
deuterium. The existance of deuterium, which cannot be created by
stellar processes, bespeaks a superhot BB event. oc

I may have missed your earlier reply, but doesn't the observed _amount_
of helium and deuterium bespeak a constant speed of light?
Current theory predicts certain amounts based on the speed having its
current value, and AFAIK those predictions are fairly close to what is
observed.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"

Jonathan S. asked,

...doesn't the observed _amount_ of
helium and deuterium bespeak a
constant speed of light?

Yes, in the *local* spatial density, all constants are fixed. That
includes c, the Lorentz invariance, and the proportions of the first
elements.

With spatial density thinning from the instant of the BB, all constants
remain fixed, locally. From the 'outside' frame, the *relative* speed of
light is seen to drop with the thinning. That's density-gradient
'c-dilation'. It is the natural progression of SR which holds c constant
in all inertial frames, to holding c constant in all density frames.
The progresson of SR/GR has been stalled by the
void-space paradigm, which recognizes no density-gradients in the
spatial medium. And void-space is why Uncle Albert could not solve the
unification of gravity in the UFT. The new paradigm recognizes the
reality of the spatial medium (or VED), and builds on Einstein just as
Einstein built upon Newton.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Jonathan S. asked,

...doesn't the observed _amount_ of
helium and deuterium bespeak a
constant speed of light?

Yes, in the *local* spatial density, all constants are fixed. That
includes c, the Lorentz invariance, and the proportions of the first
elements.

With spatial density thinning from the instant of the BB, all constants
remain fixed, locally. From the 'outside' frame, the *relative* speed of
light is seen to drop with the thinning. That's density-gradient
'c-dilation'. It is the natural progression of SR which holds c constant
in all inertial frames, to holding c constant in all density frames.
The progresson of SR/GR has been stalled by the
void-space paradigm, which recognizes no density-gradients in the
spatial medium. And void-space is why Uncle Albert could not solve the
unification of gravity in the UFT. The new paradigm recognizes the
reality of the spatial medium (or VED), and builds on Einstein just as
Einstein built upon Newton.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Jonathan S. asked,

...doesn't the observed _amount_ of
helium and deuterium bespeak a
constant speed of light?

Yes, in the *local* spatial density, all constants are fixed. That
includes c, the Lorentz invariance, and the proportions of the first
elements.

With spatial density thinning from the instant of the BB, all constants
remain fixed, locally. From the 'outside' frame, the *relative* speed of
light is seen to drop with the thinning. That's density-gradient
'c-dilation'. It is the natural progression of SR which holds c constant
in all inertial frames, to holding c constant in all density frames.
The progresson of SR/GR has been stalled by the
void-space paradigm, which recognizes no density-gradients in the
spatial medium. And void-space is why Uncle Albert could not solve the
unification of gravity in the UFT. The new paradigm recognizes the
reality of the spatial medium (or VED), and builds on Einstein just as
Einstein built upon Newton.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

E = mc² ... the epitome of elegance!

The world waited what? about 250 years for Einstein to come
along and build upon Newton?

Must we wait until 2155 for someone to build upon Einstein?

Seems such things require more than mere genius. Seems
such things require much more courage than most can muster?

Let's see...

is it G = k i ?

or is it I = k g ?

where i (or I) is Inertia, G (or g) is Gravity, and k is a constant
that is equal to 1 (one) in local space? or should something
be squared to make it more...

Elegant !

Of Course!!!

I = gk²

(or G = ik²)

probably shouldn't make a note of that, right?

it's more contrived than derived... g²

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Life without love is
A lamp with no oil,
Love without prejudice
A world with no soil,
A tool with no toil.

Paine Ellsworth

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Jonathan S. asked,

...doesn't the observed _amount_ of
helium and deuterium bespeak a
constant speed of light?

Yes, in the *local* spatial density, all constants are fixed. That
includes c, the Lorentz invariance, and the proportions of the first
elements.

With spatial density thinning from the instant of the BB, all constants
remain fixed, locally. From the 'outside' frame, the *relative* speed of
light is seen to drop with the thinning. That's density-gradient
'c-dilation'. It is the natural progression of SR which holds c constant
in all inertial frames, to holding c constant in all density frames.
The progresson of SR/GR has been stalled by the
void-space paradigm, which recognizes no density-gradients in the
spatial medium. And void-space is why Uncle Albert could not solve the
unification of gravity in the UFT. The new paradigm recognizes the
reality of the spatial medium (or VED), and builds on Einstein just as
Einstein built upon Newton.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

E = mc² ... the epitome of elegance!

The world waited what? about 250 years for Einstein to come
along and build upon Newton?

Must we wait until 2155 for someone to build upon Einstein?

Seems such things require more than mere genius. Seems
such things require much more courage than most can muster?

Let's see...

is it G = k i ?

or is it I = k g ?

where i (or I) is Inertia, G (or g) is Gravity, and k is a constant
that is equal to 1 (one) in local space? or should something
be squared to make it more...

Elegant !

Of Course!!!

I = gk²

(or G = ik²)

probably shouldn't make a note of that, right?

it's more contrived than derived... g²

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Life without love is
A lamp with no oil,
Love without prejudice
A world with no soil,
A tool with no toil.

Paine Ellsworth

"Painius" wrote in message
...
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Jonathan S. asked,

...doesn't the observed _amount_ of
helium and deuterium bespeak a
constant speed of light?

Yes, in the *local* spatial density, all constants are fixed. That
includes c, the Lorentz invariance, and the proportions of the first
elements.


You know, I've been working through this new theory, and as far as I can
tell it simply doesn't work. I understand the concept of local differences
in light speed, which look "normal" internally, etc. But here's the problem:
what are you measuring the "local" changes against? For the sake of
argument, let's make things more local, and say the local spacial density
around Vega is different than around the sun. So you say that light actually
moves "slower" around Vega than around here. How exactly are you measuring
this? (I mean in theory, not in practice. I really don't believe you have a
flying saucer available). If everything locally behaves as if all constants
are the same as elsewhere, then there would be no effect. This includes,
BTW, no effect on the light as it moves from one zone to another. Bill seems
to imply that as the light moves from Vega to here, there will be a shift in
frequency. This is NOT supported by the explanation of the theory. There
would be NO perceived red shift, or blue shift. There is no reason to
believe that there would be a change in energy amplitude. In other words, in
summary, the "local spacial density" theory results in no measurable
predictions. *flush*