How Roy Masters tried to disprove the Big Bang
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Twins Paradox doesn't add up with light
Next: Terra incognita, Sacred ground, Mysterious territory.
From: Sam Wormley on 18 May 2010 02:01 On 5/18/10 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Sam Wormley schrieb: >> On 5/17/10 11:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Hubble's law is not consistent with observations, as A.F. Meyer has >>> shown. >> >> What aspect of Hubble's law is inconsistent with observation? >> Please cite W.F. Meyer paper that you refer to. >> >> >> >> > http://www.jaypritzker.org/pages/book.html > Alexander Franklin Meyer > "On the Geometry of Time in Physics and Cosmology" > > It is more a book, hence a bit lengthy. He uses a program he has written > himself to put the measured distances to stars into 'bins' (spherical > shells with some depth). The method is more a statistical analysis of > redshift compared to distance. Than he finds, that the number of stars > within these sets mismatch Hubble's law by a factor of thousand and more. > The aspect, that does not fit is, that Hubble's law requires more > redshift with more distance. How do you compare this with the Sloan Survey? Hubble assumed a linear dependence (hence > his 'constant' as a factor). But than stars with different redshift had > to be remote from each other and that is why they could have no > influence on each other. > And redshift had to increase with distance, so we would find more stars > with higher redshift, because of simple geometry. This would require > more volume in these spherical shells, that are further away and more > stars within those 'bins'. But that is not observed. > > Greetings > > TH
From: Thomas Heger on 18 May 2010 02:06 Sam Wormley schrieb: > On 5/17/10 11:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> As I said, a singularity is quite a questionable assumption. > > A star is held up from gravitational collapse by the energy > created in its for from nuclear fusion... when there is no more > nuclear fusion, the collapse continues. > > White dwarfs are held up by electron degeneracy pressure, but > there is a limiting mass of about 1.44 solar masses beyond which > gravitational collapse continues. > > Neutron stars are held up by neutron degeneracy pressure, but > there is a limiting mass of about 2.9 solar masses beyond which > gravitational collapse continues. > > I ask you what stops the continuing gravitational collapse for > masses greater than 2.9 solar masses. It is thought that nothing > stops the continuing collapse. > > I have developed something I call 'structured spacetime'. According to this there are no real particles as real, countable, independent entities, but we could describe certain states with such an assumption, if we encapsulate this behavior into operators and treat those as real things. That is like a tornado for example. We could describe a tornado as an entity. But a tornado is a vortex, consisting of air. In the analog the rotation around the center is called (be me) 'radiation term'. This does not radiate by itself, only if gets tilted. This could happen through gravity or electric forces. In case of stars gravity is the thing, that makes stars shine (according to my model). That is like a three-dimensional version of a tornado. The 'air' in that picture is spacetime itself, that is treated as something real, but mostly invisible. My 'book' you find here: http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 (Still this stupid google.doc. But you can download it as pdf with the little arrow 'actions' down/left). greetings TH
From: BURT on 18 May 2010 02:06 On May 17, 10:09 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/17/10 11:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > As I said, a singularity is quite a questionable assumption. > > A star is held up from gravitational collapse by the energy > created in its for from nuclear fusion... when there is no more > nuclear fusion, the collapse continues. > > White dwarfs are held up by electron degeneracy pressure, but > there is a limiting mass of about 1.44 solar masses beyond which > gravitational collapse continues. > > Neutron stars are held up by neutron degeneracy pressure, but > there is a limiting mass of about 2.9 solar masses beyond which > gravitational collapse continues. > > I ask you what stops the continuing gravitational collapse for > masses greater than 2.9 solar masses. It is thought that nothing > stops the continuing collapse. Neutron stars are held up by their quantum neutron aether wave exclusion. Mitch Raemsch
From: Sam Wormley on 18 May 2010 02:42 On 5/18/10 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Sam Wormley schrieb: >> On 5/17/10 11:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> As I said, a singularity is quite a questionable assumption. >> >> A star is held up from gravitational collapse by the energy >> created in its for from nuclear fusion... when there is no more >> nuclear fusion, the collapse continues. >> >> White dwarfs are held up by electron degeneracy pressure, but >> there is a limiting mass of about 1.44 solar masses beyond which >> gravitational collapse continues. >> >> Neutron stars are held up by neutron degeneracy pressure, but >> there is a limiting mass of about 2.9 solar masses beyond which >> gravitational collapse continues. >> >> I ask you what stops the continuing gravitational collapse for >> masses greater than 2.9 solar masses. It is thought that nothing >> stops the continuing collapse. >> >> > I have developed something I call 'structured spacetime'. According to > this there are no real particles as real, countable, independent > entities, but we could describe certain states with such an assumption, > if we encapsulate this behavior into operators and treat those as real > things. That is like a tornado for example. We could describe a tornado > as an entity. But a tornado is a vortex, consisting of air. Don't beat around the bush--I ask you what stops the continuing gravitational collapse for masses greater than 2.9 solar masses. > In the analog the rotation around the center is called (be me) > 'radiation term'. This does not radiate by itself, only if gets tilted. > This could happen through gravity or electric forces. In case of stars > gravity is the thing, that makes stars shine (according to my model). > That is like a three-dimensional version of a tornado. The 'air' in that > picture is spacetime itself, that is treated as something real, but > mostly invisible. > My 'book' you find here: > http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > (Still this stupid google.doc. But you can download it as pdf with the > little arrow 'actions' down/left). > > greetings > > TH
From: Sam Wormley on 18 May 2010 02:50
On 5/18/10 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > My 'book' you find here: > http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > (Still this stupid google.doc. But you can download it as pdf with the > little arrow 'actions' down/left). Damn--Another bullshit book! You talk about General relativity, but include of of the GR mathematics. The whole book is just nonsense! Word Salad! |