3 cosmological models
in [Physics]
|
Prev: CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Next: Quantum Gravity 369.1: Multiverse-Multivalued Logics Relationship to Gn = Gn-1 - Gn-2 Unification
From: Michael Helland on 6 May 2010 18:21 1. Big Bang, v = HD, the light encounters expanding distances 2. Zwicky's Tired Light Model, the light loses energy 3. My model, v = c - Hd, light has a finite range and loses velocity In model #2, if a galaxy is 50 million light years away, its light will take 50 million years to get here. In models #1 and #3, it will take the light longer than 50 million years to get because it encounters expanding distances (#1) or slows down (#3). That increase in the duration of light's journey through cosmological space is consistent between #1 and #3 and leads to a decrease in frequency and time dilation in light curves. While the duration of light's journey from deep space to Earth is consistent between #1 and #3, the distance the light actually traveled is going to be greater in model #1, which would lead to a decrease in the force of gravity between celestial objects. Other differences would between #1 and #3 is that in #3, without the expansion of space, there is no rewind to the Big Bang 14ish billion years ago, giving the Universe and indefinite age allowing for all the large scale walls and voids we observe, and the CMB would simply be light coming from the edge of the Hubble Sphere where light is facing the end of its range
From: Sam Wormley on 7 May 2010 00:10 http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
From: Michael Helland on 7 May 2010 08:46 On May 6, 9:10 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html Sam, I will have to say, I am genuinely happy about your response. But these days I'm leaning toward redshift being a function of the duration of light's journey from a distant galaxy to our telescopes. That might be inconsequential to the Big Bang theory, which presumes a 1 to 1 relationship between the duration of light's journey and a distance of light's journey, but to my theory there are profoundly different results, which seems to eliminate the need for "acceleration" of expansion. But I can't say more on that until I've worked out more of the calculations required to justify such claims.
From: Sam Wormley on 7 May 2010 12:36 On 5/7/10 7:41 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > Tell me this, is the big bang an unquestionable fact, Alan? Look at the evidence! No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
From: Sam Wormley on 7 May 2010 12:39
On 5/7/10 7:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > On May 6, 9:10 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > > Sam, I will have to say, I am genuinely happy about your response. > > But these days I'm leaning toward redshift being a function of the > duration of light's journey from a distant galaxy to our telescopes. That has been shown to be wrong--I've been meaning to write in this newsgroup some detail as to the arguments and the evidence, but that's going to have to wait till the rest of my classes finish up. In the mean time look at the evidence for the big bang. WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html |