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 03:02 On 5/18/10 1:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > I have developed something I call 'structured spacetime'. BTW -- I used to live in Berlin. Heinersdorfer Strasse
From: eric gisse on 18 May 2010 03:24 Sam Wormley wrote: > 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? Sam, I know you can read. Boilerplate responses serve nobody. > > > > 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: eric gisse on 18 May 2010 03:36 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. > 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 60 pages skimmed, 2 lines of math. Both are SR. <sarcasm>Yeah you know what you are talking about...</sarcasm>
From: Thomas Heger on 18 May 2010 05:44 Sam Wormley schrieb: > 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! > Well, I don't think it is nonsense. I did my best to make it as good as possible, what is certainly not enough. As being not a mathematician I have some trouble with such a formulation. But I have found interesting books and papers, where such a construct is used and appropriate models are developed. The bi-quaternion system was used by various people. In recent times by Prof. Rowlands, who wrote a book called "Zero to Infinity". If you are interested in mathematics, you could follow some of the links. Actually I'm no physicist neither and treat the subject as a hobby ('for amusement only'). So, like it or don't. Greetings TH
From: J. Clarke on 18 May 2010 06:18
On 5/18/2010 5:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Sam Wormley schrieb: >> 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! >> > Well, I don't think it is nonsense. I did my best to make it as good as > possible, what is certainly not enough. As being not a mathematician I > have some trouble with such a formulation. But I have found interesting > books and papers, where such a construct is used and appropriate models > are developed. The bi-quaternion system was used by various people. In > recent times by Prof. Rowlands, who wrote a book called "Zero to Infinity". > If you are interested in mathematics, you could follow some of the links. > Actually I'm no physicist neither and treat the subject as a hobby ('for > amusement only'). So, like it or don't. If you're going to come up with a new model, you need to be able to show that its predictions are not in conflict with observation. If you can't calculate with your model then you can't do that. The existing models are not accepted because they kinda sorta say that things are vaguely going to happen in more or less a certain way, they provide numerical predictions that have proven to be quite remarkably accurate. |