http://www.physorg.com/news103886236.html
Present accelerating expansion is explainable by classical Newton laws. The universe has two end/start states, singularity and maximum energy dilution. It evolves between these states.
The Universe: Beginning, End and In-Between
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=268
Dr. Leif Rongved wishes to make the following comment to Universe Accelerating Expansion.
The brightness of some Novae is very predictable, and their observed brightness is used to predict their distances away from us. This type Novae in very distant galaxies with red shifts near and above unity are brighter than expected from their distances away predicted by Hubble’s law and by the straight line Hubble relation for standard galaxies.
Novae are not the only distant objects in the universe that are brighter than can be expected from Hubble’s law. The orders of magnitude of quasars, widely believed to be distant galaxies, are much smaller than expected from the straight line Hubble relation between the logarithm of red shifts and orders of magnitude of standard galaxies. Or they are also much brighter that can be expected from their distances deduced from Hubble’s law. The brightness of quasars is different for many possible reasons. They may be different kinds of galaxies. They may be galaxies in the process of formation. Thus their brightness is not a useful means to determine their distances away for us. Nevertheless when their cosmological red shift is near or above unity their brightness is much greater than expected from the straight line Hubble relation. See for example, Burbidge, G. R. and Burbidge E. M. "Quasi-Stellar Objects-A Progress Report", Nature, Vol. 224, p 21-24, Oct. 1969.
There are now several assumptions around to explain the larger than expected brightness of Novae. One assumption is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Another assumption is that this acceleration is produced by “black matter” uniformly distributed between all galaxies of the universe. Both assumptions are patently wrong for the following reason. Any distant galaxy accelerating toward us must have a force on its far side greater than the force on its near side. Progressing on a line towards us from one galaxy to the next the forces between successive galaxies must diminish as their distances away from us diminish. By the same reasoning progressing on a line away from us from one galaxy to the next the forces between successive galaxies must increase as their distances away from us increase. This is completely at odds with the observed uniformity of the universe on a large scale. Local accelerations are possible. For example, gravitational forces may cause one galaxy to accelerate due to local variations in distances between and sizes of galaxies. A large scale acceleration of the universe is simply at odd with the observed uniformity and isotropy of the universe on a large scale.
It is of interest to note that the Hubble expansion is in exact accord with Euler’s nonlinear equations for all ideal fluids where the fluid pressure is a function of the fluid density. See for example, Rongved, L. "Fluid Dynamics of an Expanding Ideal Fluid", Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. XLVII, Num. 4, p 735-745. 1980. The fluid pressure and density are gradually diminishing with time as a result of the expansion. However, they are at any given time uniform throughout space. The fluid elements recede from each other at constant rates proportional to their distances apart exactly like the galaxies of the universe recede from each other. This is true no matter how large the fluid pressure is. This is in accord with our every day experience. We are exposed to an atmospheric pressure of about 15 lb. per square inch. This pressure does not push us apart, because it is equal on all sides of us. It does reduce our volumes a bit so that the pressure is sensibly constant throughout our body except for small local variations due to heart beats, intestinal gas, etc. If the atmospheric pressure is to accelerate us, the pressure must have a gradient, like the pressure gradients in high or low pressure regions.
Another important property of the Hubble expansion is that it is identical, on a large scale, relative to all galaxies of the universe. Any galaxy will appear to be at the center of the expansion. It is in accord with the observed isotropy and uniformity of the universe on a large scale. Thus, the Hubble expansion makes sense for more than one reason.
There are other explanations for the greater than expected brightness of Novae and quasars, see for example the web site, www.drleifrongved.com.
The brightness of some Novae is very predictable, and their observed brightness is used to predict their distances away from us. This type Novae in very distant galaxies with red shifts near and above unity are brighter than expected from their distances away predicted by Hubble’s law and by the straight line Hubble relation for standard galaxies.
Novae are not the only distant objects in the universe that are brighter than can be expected from Hubble’s law. The orders of magnitude of quasars, widely believed to be distant galaxies, are much smaller than expected from the straight line Hubble relation between the logarithm of red shifts and orders of magnitude of standard galaxies. Or they are also much brighter that can be expected from their distances deduced from Hubble’s law. The brightness of quasars is different for many possible reasons. They may be different kinds of galaxies. They may be galaxies in the process of formation. Thus their brightness is not a useful means to determine their distances away for us. Nevertheless when their cosmological red shift is near or above unity their brightness is much greater than expected from the straight line Hubble relation. See for example, Burbidge, G. R. and Burbidge E. M. "Quasi-Stellar Objects-A Progress Report", Nature, Vol. 224, p 21-24, Oct. 1969.
There are now several assumptions around to explain the larger than expected brightness of Novae. One assumption is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Another assumption is that this acceleration is produced by “black matter” uniformly distributed between all galaxies of the universe. Both assumptions are patently wrong for the following reason. Any distant galaxy accelerating toward us must have a force on its far side greater than the force on its near side. Progressing on a line towards us from one galaxy to the next the forces between successive galaxies must diminish as their distances away from us diminish. By the same reasoning progressing on a line away from us from one galaxy to the next the forces between successive galaxies must increase as their distances away from us increase. This is completely at odds with the observed uniformity of the universe on a large scale. Local accelerations are possible. For example, gravitational forces may cause one galaxy to accelerate due to local variations in distances between and sizes of galaxies. A large scale acceleration of the universe is simply at odd with the observed uniformity and isotropy of the universe on a large scale.
It is of interest to note that the Hubble expansion is in exact accord with Euler’s nonlinear equations for all ideal fluids where the fluid pressure is a function of the fluid density. See for example, Rongved, L. "Fluid Dynamics of an Expanding Ideal Fluid", Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. XLVII, Num. 4, p 735-745. 1980. The fluid pressure and density are gradually diminishing with time as a result of the expansion. However, they are at any given time uniform throughout space. The fluid elements recede from each other at constant rates proportional to their distances apart exactly like the galaxies of the universe recede from each other. This is true no matter how large the fluid pressure is. This is in accord with our every day experience. We are exposed to an atmospheric pressure of about 15 lb. per square inch. This pressure does not push us apart, because it is equal on all sides of us. It does reduce our volumes a bit so that the pressure is sensibly constant throughout our body except for small local variations due to heart beats, intestinal gas, etc. If the atmospheric pressure is to accelerate us, the pressure must have a gradient, like the pressure gradients in high or low pressure regions.
Another important property of the Hubble expansion is that it is identical, on a large scale, relative to all galaxies of the universe. Any galaxy will appear to be at the center of the expansion. It is in accord with the observed isotropy and uniformity of the universe on a large scale. Thus, the Hubble expansion makes sense for more than one reason.
There are other explanations for the greater than expected brightness of Novae and quasars, see for example the web site, www.drleifrongved.com.
Some people would find their ideas would be much more readily recieved if they made use of good writing skills. For example, sentences and paragraphs improve the readability of long posts. White space is a good thing.
QUOTE (Leif Rongved+Oct 5 2007, 03:09 PM)
Dr. Leif Rongved wishes to make the following comment to Universe Accelerating Expansion.
The brightness of some Novae is very predictable, and their observed brightness is used to predict their distances away from us. This type Novae in very distant galaxies with red shifts near and above unity are brighter than expected from their distances away predicted by Hubble’s law and by the straight line Hubble relation for standard galaxies.
Novae are not the only distant objects in the universe that are brighter than can be expected from Hubble’s law. The orders of magnitude of quasars, widely believed to be distant galaxies, are much smaller than expected from the straight line Hubble relation between the logarithm of red shifts and orders of magnitude of standard galaxies. Or they are also much brighter that can be expected from their distances deduced from Hubble’s law. The brightness of quasars is different for many possible reasons. They may be different kinds of galaxies. They may be galaxies in the process of formation. Thus their brightness is not a useful means to determine their distances away for us. Nevertheless when their cosmological red shift is near or above unity their brightness is much greater than expected from the straight line Hubble relation. See for example, Burbidge, G. R. and Burbidge E. M. "Quasi-Stellar Objects-A Progress Report", Nature, Vol. 224, p 21-24, Oct. 1969.
There are now several assumptions around to explain the larger than expected brightness of Novae. One assumption is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Another assumption is that this acceleration is produced by “black matter” uniformly distributed between all galaxies of the universe. Both assumptions are patently wrong for the following reason. Any distant galaxy accelerating toward us must have a force on its far side greater than the force on its near side. Progressing on a line towards us from one galaxy to the next the forces between successive galaxies must diminish as their distances away from us diminish. By the same reasoning progressing on a line away from us from one galaxy to the next the forces between successive galaxies must increase as their distances away from us increase. This is completely at odds with the observed uniformity of the universe on a large scale. Local accelerations are possible. For example, gravitational forces may cause one galaxy to accelerate due to local variations in distances between and sizes of galaxies. A large scale acceleration of the universe is simply at odd with the observed uniformity and isotropy of the universe on a large scale.
It is of interest to note that the Hubble expansion is in exact accord with Euler’s nonlinear equations for all ideal fluids where the fluid pressure is a function of the fluid density. See for example, Rongved, L. "Fluid Dynamics of an Expanding Ideal Fluid", Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. XLVII, Num. 4, p 735-745. 1980. The fluid pressure and density are gradually diminishing with time as a result of the expansion. However, they are at any given time uniform throughout space. The fluid elements recede from each other at constant rates proportional to their distances apart exactly like the galaxies of the universe recede from each other. This is true no matter how large the fluid pressure is. This is in accord with our every day experience. We are exposed to an atmospheric pressure of about 15 lb. per square inch. This pressure does not push us apart, because it is equal on all sides of us. It does reduce our volumes a bit so that the pressure is sensibly constant throughout our body except for small local variations due to heart beats, intestinal gas, etc. If the atmospheric pressure is to accelerate us, the pressure must have a gradient, like the pressure gradients in high or low pressure regions.
Another important property of the Hubble expansion is that it is identical, on a large scale, relative to all galaxies of the universe. Any galaxy will appear to be at the center of the expansion. It is in accord with the observed isotropy and uniformity of the universe on a large scale. Thus, the Hubble expansion makes sense for more than one reason.
There are other explanations for the greater than expected brightness of Novae and quasars, see for example the web site, www.drleifrongved.com.
A most excellent defense for the expansions of the universes. It observers the vaiant, brightnes of Novae and their beginning or ending lifetimes. It futher expolores that against the brightness of quasars, alleging differences for a number of reasons that are not specified. The brightness of the Novae are unexpectedly bright for "any number of reasons", chiefly that the universes are expanding at an unexpectedly high rate. This would apppear to be an error in the wrong direction. In short, this appears to be afflicted by the same factors of the original Hubble assumption. It is based upon observation s a a single variable--brightness, and neglects the variables that may be possibly more or most significant. By this, I would suggest the concept of the gravitational retardation, on the near and distant traverses, and the absorption and re-emission in the traverses, and the perhaps even more significant factor, and that is the photon-photon interaction in infinite space and time. How can we be positive in our conclusions based upon a single variant when there are a multiplicity of such factors as yet to be evaluated? wbw
The brightness of some Novae is very predictable, and their observed brightness is used to predict their distances away from us. This type Novae in very distant galaxies with red shifts near and above unity are brighter than expected from their distances away predicted by Hubble’s law and by the straight line Hubble relation for standard galaxies.
Novae are not the only distant objects in the universe that are brighter than can be expected from Hubble’s law. The orders of magnitude of quasars, widely believed to be distant galaxies, are much smaller than expected from the straight line Hubble relation between the logarithm of red shifts and orders of magnitude of standard galaxies. Or they are also much brighter that can be expected from their distances deduced from Hubble’s law. The brightness of quasars is different for many possible reasons. They may be different kinds of galaxies. They may be galaxies in the process of formation. Thus their brightness is not a useful means to determine their distances away for us. Nevertheless when their cosmological red shift is near or above unity their brightness is much greater than expected from the straight line Hubble relation. See for example, Burbidge, G. R. and Burbidge E. M. "Quasi-Stellar Objects-A Progress Report", Nature, Vol. 224, p 21-24, Oct. 1969.
There are now several assumptions around to explain the larger than expected brightness of Novae. One assumption is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Another assumption is that this acceleration is produced by “black matter” uniformly distributed between all galaxies of the universe. Both assumptions are patently wrong for the following reason. Any distant galaxy accelerating toward us must have a force on its far side greater than the force on its near side. Progressing on a line towards us from one galaxy to the next the forces between successive galaxies must diminish as their distances away from us diminish. By the same reasoning progressing on a line away from us from one galaxy to the next the forces between successive galaxies must increase as their distances away from us increase. This is completely at odds with the observed uniformity of the universe on a large scale. Local accelerations are possible. For example, gravitational forces may cause one galaxy to accelerate due to local variations in distances between and sizes of galaxies. A large scale acceleration of the universe is simply at odd with the observed uniformity and isotropy of the universe on a large scale.
It is of interest to note that the Hubble expansion is in exact accord with Euler’s nonlinear equations for all ideal fluids where the fluid pressure is a function of the fluid density. See for example, Rongved, L. "Fluid Dynamics of an Expanding Ideal Fluid", Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. XLVII, Num. 4, p 735-745. 1980. The fluid pressure and density are gradually diminishing with time as a result of the expansion. However, they are at any given time uniform throughout space. The fluid elements recede from each other at constant rates proportional to their distances apart exactly like the galaxies of the universe recede from each other. This is true no matter how large the fluid pressure is. This is in accord with our every day experience. We are exposed to an atmospheric pressure of about 15 lb. per square inch. This pressure does not push us apart, because it is equal on all sides of us. It does reduce our volumes a bit so that the pressure is sensibly constant throughout our body except for small local variations due to heart beats, intestinal gas, etc. If the atmospheric pressure is to accelerate us, the pressure must have a gradient, like the pressure gradients in high or low pressure regions.
Another important property of the Hubble expansion is that it is identical, on a large scale, relative to all galaxies of the universe. Any galaxy will appear to be at the center of the expansion. It is in accord with the observed isotropy and uniformity of the universe on a large scale. Thus, the Hubble expansion makes sense for more than one reason.
There are other explanations for the greater than expected brightness of Novae and quasars, see for example the web site, www.drleifrongved.com.
A most excellent defense for the expansions of the universes. It observers the vaiant, brightnes of Novae and their beginning or ending lifetimes. It futher expolores that against the brightness of quasars, alleging differences for a number of reasons that are not specified. The brightness of the Novae are unexpectedly bright for "any number of reasons", chiefly that the universes are expanding at an unexpectedly high rate. This would apppear to be an error in the wrong direction. In short, this appears to be afflicted by the same factors of the original Hubble assumption. It is based upon observation s a a single variable--brightness, and neglects the variables that may be possibly more or most significant. By this, I would suggest the concept of the gravitational retardation, on the near and distant traverses, and the absorption and re-emission in the traverses, and the perhaps even more significant factor, and that is the photon-photon interaction in infinite space and time. How can we be positive in our conclusions based upon a single variant when there are a multiplicity of such factors as yet to be evaluated? wbw
My objection to the notion of an accelerating expansion of the universe was not well written, and as you pointed out it suggest a deceleration. I wish to rewrite it as follows.
The Accelerating Expansion of the Universe is a Figment of Imagination.
The assumption is that all galaxies accelerate away from us. By this assumption and the observed large scale isotropy of the universe the acceleration must be the same in all directions relative to us. Since all galaxies accelerate away from us the forces on their near sides must be greater than the forces on their far sides. Therefore, if “it” is whatever accelerates the galaxies, “it” must be greatest at our galaxy and must diminish as one proceeds on any radial line away from us.
This is OK if we assume that we are at the center of the universe, which is an entirely unacceptable assumption.
If observers in any other galaxy observe the same thing at this time then “it” is at the present time greater at any other galaxy of the universe and less at all others, which is also an unacceptable assumption.
Or it is OK if one can show that “it”, uniformly distributed throughout the universe, causes the galaxies to accelerate away from us. This notion is completely at odds with our every day experience. We are exposed to an atmospheric pressure of about 15 lb. per square inch. This pressure does not push us apart.
The Hubble expansion is in accord with the notion that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous on a large scale. It also is in accord with the laws of motion.
The paper, "The Pervasive Hubble Expansion of the Universe" was not written to explain the greater than expected brightness of Novae. This is just one of manny outstanding questions and paradoxes resolved. See my web site, www.drleifrongved.com
The Accelerating Expansion of the Universe is a Figment of Imagination.
The assumption is that all galaxies accelerate away from us. By this assumption and the observed large scale isotropy of the universe the acceleration must be the same in all directions relative to us. Since all galaxies accelerate away from us the forces on their near sides must be greater than the forces on their far sides. Therefore, if “it” is whatever accelerates the galaxies, “it” must be greatest at our galaxy and must diminish as one proceeds on any radial line away from us.
This is OK if we assume that we are at the center of the universe, which is an entirely unacceptable assumption.
If observers in any other galaxy observe the same thing at this time then “it” is at the present time greater at any other galaxy of the universe and less at all others, which is also an unacceptable assumption.
Or it is OK if one can show that “it”, uniformly distributed throughout the universe, causes the galaxies to accelerate away from us. This notion is completely at odds with our every day experience. We are exposed to an atmospheric pressure of about 15 lb. per square inch. This pressure does not push us apart.
The Hubble expansion is in accord with the notion that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous on a large scale. It also is in accord with the laws of motion.
The paper, "The Pervasive Hubble Expansion of the Universe" was not written to explain the greater than expected brightness of Novae. This is just one of manny outstanding questions and paradoxes resolved. See my web site, www.drleifrongved.com
QUOTE (wbraxtonwilson+Oct 18 2007, 05:21 PM)
A most excellent defense for the expansions of the universes. It observers the vaiant, brightnes of Novae and their beginning or ending lifetimes. It futher expolores that against the brightness of quasars, alleging differences for a number of reasons that are not specified. The brightness of the Novae are unexpectedly bright for "any number of reasons", chiefly that the universes are expanding at an unexpectedly high rate. This would apppear to be an error in the wrong direction. In short, this appears to be afflicted by the same factors of the original Hubble assumption. It is based upon observation s a a single variable--brightness, and neglects the variables that may be possibly more or most significant. By this, I would suggest the concept of the gravitational retardation, on the near and distant traverses, and the absorption and re-emission in the traverses, and the perhaps even more significant factor, and that is the photon-photon interaction in infinite space and time. How can we be positive in our conclusions based upon a single variant when there are a multiplicity of such factors as yet to be evaluated? wbw
I just Googled the abstract of Steinhardt and Turok in 1962. It is clear that the authors, at that time, addressed the EXPANSION of the Universe in the manner of DeSitter, and did NOT postulate at that time, the CYCLIC nature of the Universe, as was done, in part, in their receent subsequent work in their "BRANES" postulate.
wbraxtonwilson.
I just Googled the abstract of Steinhardt and Turok in 1962. It is clear that the authors, at that time, addressed the EXPANSION of the Universe in the manner of DeSitter, and did NOT postulate at that time, the CYCLIC nature of the Universe, as was done, in part, in their receent subsequent work in their "BRANES" postulate.
wbraxtonwilson.
QUOTE (Leif Rongved+Oct 18 2007, 06:04 PM)
My objection to the notion of an accelerating expansion of the universe was not well written, and as you pointed out it suggest a deceleration. I wish to rewrite it as follows.
The Accelerating Expansion of the Universe is a Figment of Imagination.
The assumption is that all galaxies accelerate away from us. By this assumption and the observed large scale isotropy of the universe the acceleration must be the same in all directions relative to us. Since all galaxies accelerate away from us the forces on their near sides must be greater than the forces on their far sides. Therefore, if “it” is whatever accelerates the galaxies, “it” must be greatest at our galaxy and must diminish as one proceeds on any radial line away from us.
This is OK if we assume that we are at the center of the universe, which is an entirely unacceptable assumption.
If observers in any other galaxy observe the same thing at this time then “it” is at the present time greater at any other galaxy of the universe and less at all others, which is also an unacceptable assumption.
Or it is OK if one can show that “it”, uniformly distributed throughout the universe, causes the galaxies to accelerate away from us. This notion is completely at odds with our every day experience. We are exposed to an atmospheric pressure of about 15 lb. per square inch. This pressure does not push us apart.
The Hubble expansion is in accord with the notion that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous on a large scale. It also is in accord with the laws of motion.
The paper, "The Pervasive Hubble Expansion of the Universe" was not written to explain the greater than expected brightness of Novae. This is just one of manny outstanding questions and paradoxes resolved. See my web site, www.drleifrongved.com
Dr. Rongved: The general concept is that the universe has cold dark matter and may consist of massless particles. This is of course isotropic. I do not regard that as being adequate since I think that there is no perfect vacuum there, either as radiation or as "massless matter". I prefer to regard it as the cold dark matter of "exhausted" photons as an isotropic "sea". More to the point it gets involved in cosmology as the residue potential fuel for constituents of the Galaxies. Still more to the point is the "Coriolis effect" of the galaxies and the observation that they move at great velocities in space. Rather like a giant vacuum cleaner. As the matter is gravitationally sucked into the galaxy it produces the diversity of cosmic bodies of variable temperature spectrum species. These, in infinite time achieve great temperature and remit radiation and produces what I have described as the perpetual cyclic universe. I add that the interference between galaxies can indeed produce pressures that alter their distribution in space. Rather like wanderers in infinity. Granted this is not physics but your comments set me to relating this to my 2003+ "text". Wendell B. Wilson (wbraxtonwilson)
The Accelerating Expansion of the Universe is a Figment of Imagination.
The assumption is that all galaxies accelerate away from us. By this assumption and the observed large scale isotropy of the universe the acceleration must be the same in all directions relative to us. Since all galaxies accelerate away from us the forces on their near sides must be greater than the forces on their far sides. Therefore, if “it” is whatever accelerates the galaxies, “it” must be greatest at our galaxy and must diminish as one proceeds on any radial line away from us.
This is OK if we assume that we are at the center of the universe, which is an entirely unacceptable assumption.
If observers in any other galaxy observe the same thing at this time then “it” is at the present time greater at any other galaxy of the universe and less at all others, which is also an unacceptable assumption.
Or it is OK if one can show that “it”, uniformly distributed throughout the universe, causes the galaxies to accelerate away from us. This notion is completely at odds with our every day experience. We are exposed to an atmospheric pressure of about 15 lb. per square inch. This pressure does not push us apart.
The Hubble expansion is in accord with the notion that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous on a large scale. It also is in accord with the laws of motion.
The paper, "The Pervasive Hubble Expansion of the Universe" was not written to explain the greater than expected brightness of Novae. This is just one of manny outstanding questions and paradoxes resolved. See my web site, www.drleifrongved.com
Dr. Rongved: The general concept is that the universe has cold dark matter and may consist of massless particles. This is of course isotropic. I do not regard that as being adequate since I think that there is no perfect vacuum there, either as radiation or as "massless matter". I prefer to regard it as the cold dark matter of "exhausted" photons as an isotropic "sea". More to the point it gets involved in cosmology as the residue potential fuel for constituents of the Galaxies. Still more to the point is the "Coriolis effect" of the galaxies and the observation that they move at great velocities in space. Rather like a giant vacuum cleaner. As the matter is gravitationally sucked into the galaxy it produces the diversity of cosmic bodies of variable temperature spectrum species. These, in infinite time achieve great temperature and remit radiation and produces what I have described as the perpetual cyclic universe. I add that the interference between galaxies can indeed produce pressures that alter their distribution in space. Rather like wanderers in infinity. Granted this is not physics but your comments set me to relating this to my 2003+ "text". Wendell B. Wilson (wbraxtonwilson)
There is a vast amount of philosophical comments presented presently without any analysis to back it up.
Read the paper “The Pervasive Hubble Expansion of the Universe”, it is purely analytical.
Presently, t = 0, is in accord with the laws of Newton, Euler, Einstein, and Hubble.
When |t| « т, where т is the Hubble age of the universe, the pervasive Hubble expansion changes solutions of these theories by about one part in 10 billion parts per year.
Nevertheless these seemingly minute changes removes all ad hoc and paradoxical assumptions associated with Einstein’s theories.
Moreover, one resolves many outstanding questions and paradoxes that have puzzled and irritated scientists for many years. Including the greater than expected brightness of Novae in very distant galaxies.
Read the paper and comment on it. Stop adding to the massive unsupported philosophical hogwash.
Read the paper “The Pervasive Hubble Expansion of the Universe”, it is purely analytical.
Presently, t = 0, is in accord with the laws of Newton, Euler, Einstein, and Hubble.
When |t| « т, where т is the Hubble age of the universe, the pervasive Hubble expansion changes solutions of these theories by about one part in 10 billion parts per year.
Nevertheless these seemingly minute changes removes all ad hoc and paradoxical assumptions associated with Einstein’s theories.
Moreover, one resolves many outstanding questions and paradoxes that have puzzled and irritated scientists for many years. Including the greater than expected brightness of Novae in very distant galaxies.
Read the paper and comment on it. Stop adding to the massive unsupported philosophical hogwash.
Two points. One. The Type 1A supernovae are not standard candles after all. It was found that by the simple expedient of a dwarf star spinning faster, so able to hold more mass before it went BANG, it could make a super-nova (as seen recently) twice as bright as normal, so causing astronomers to think it was twice as far away when they measure it's brightness.
Two. Gravity is stuck at light speed. As the universe expands, ever more of it will be beyond it's reach so the bigger it got, the faster it would naturally expand.
Two. Gravity is stuck at light speed. As the universe expands, ever more of it will be beyond it's reach so the bigger it got, the faster it would naturally expand.
The light velocity is limited relative to the expanding aether, which expands in accord with Hubble’s law. The light velocity in distant galactic neighborhoods relative to us is not limited. It may be many times larger than the light velocity measured presently by us. If you want to comment sensibly you simply have to read the paper available on the web site, www.drleifrongved.com.
QUOTE (wbraxtonwilson+Oct 18 2007, 08:38 PM)
I just Googled the abstract of Steinhardt and Turok in 1962. It is clear that the authors, at that time, addressed the EXPANSION of the Universe in the manner of DeSitter, and did NOT postulate at that time, the CYCLIC nature of the Universe, as was done, in part, in their receent subsequent work in their "BRANES" postulate.
wbraxtonwilson.
In the Board Reader abstract of "universe expansion" an error was clearly implied. EINSTEIN and De Sitter did NOT postulate any cyclic universe. That was done in my 03 text, followed by Steinhardt and Turok, with their "BRANES" universe concept. WBW (wbraxtonwilson)
Hmmmmm, very enteresting, got to know more about that:)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.