Cosmology, the range of light, and the scientific method
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 400.7: Search for Equations of form y = 2x + z, SUNY Buffalo New York USA Results
Next: speed of light out of pure math the pseudosphere as time and sphere as distance Chapt 19 #216; ATOM TOTALITY
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 19:20 Michael Helland wrote: [...] >> > <quote> >> > In this paper we show that other models of a Universe >> > in dynamical equilibrium without expansion had >> > predicted this temperature prior to Gamow. Moreover, >> > we show that Gamow?s own predictions were worse than >> > these previous ones. >> > </quote> >> >> a) Who cares? Expansion was established before Gamow's time anyway. >> b) It is well established that the CMB is not starlight. No matter how >> hard you say 'but light has a limit!!!'. > > > Expansion was proposed in 1929. > > The temperature of the CMB was already predicted before that and > without even using expansion of the Big Bang, and more accurately than > the models that did use expansion. ....such models are inconsistent with observation for other reasons. So I repeat, 'who cares?' Just like the morons who fixate on the Michelson-Morely experiment, there are multiple tests of modern cosmology other than the bulk temperature of the CMB. [snip rest]
From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 19:24 On Jul 9, 4:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Helland wrote: > > [...] > > >> > <quote> > >> > In this paper we show that other models of a Universe > >> > in dynamical equilibrium without expansion had > >> > predicted this temperature prior to Gamow. Moreover, > >> > we show that Gamow?s own predictions were worse than > >> > these previous ones. > >> > </quote> > > >> a) Who cares? Expansion was established before Gamow's time anyway. > >> b) It is well established that the CMB is not starlight. No matter how > >> hard you say 'but light has a limit!!!'. > > > Expansion was proposed in 1929. > > > The temperature of the CMB was already predicted before that and > > without even using expansion of the Big Bang, and more accurately than > > the models that did use expansion. > > ...such models are inconsistent with observation for other reasons. So I > repeat, 'who cares?' I suppose anyone who would like to objectively compare expanding and non-expanding cosmological models. > Just like the morons who fixate on the Michelson-Morely experiment, there > are multiple tests of modern cosmology other than the bulk temperature of > the CMB. > > [snip rest]
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 19:50 On 7/9/10 6:24 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > I suppose anyone who would like to objectively compare expanding and > non-expanding cosmological models. > Michael, you wrote that you had read this material: 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 I was hoping you would become familiar with with "Tests of Big Bang Cosmology", but alas that appears not to be the case.
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 20:39 Sam Wormley wrote: > On 7/9/10 6:24 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > >> >> I suppose anyone who would like to objectively compare expanding and >> non-expanding cosmological models. >> > > Michael, you wrote that you had read this material: Reading material is necessary for understanding it, but not sufficient. [...]
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Jul 2010 01:49
On 7/10/10 12:28 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > v = c - Hd This equation says that for distances nearby recession velocities approach the speed of light, c and the further an object is, that the recession velocity approaches zero. v = H_o d says that a 1 Mpc, the recession velocity of an object is 71 km/s assuming that H_o is 71 km/s/Mpc |