Science Forums 2

[Aireal]

Revolutionary_suicide652

I don't think I could explain all of them, far too many. I currently have a list of over 30 wave theories I am compairing, and thats just one of the types of competing theories listed at the start of the thread. But I can sum it up for you.

It mostly boils down to the question of weather the universe is expanding or not. The big bang theory states that the universe started very, very small and grew very very fast. There are a number of versions of the big bang model, ans several that support an expanding universe, but is not a big bang theory. Then you have the theories that predict a non-expanding universe or static universe, of which there are even more versions.

What this means is that things are not as clear and as well understood as you are lead to believe in school and by watching T.V. So in the end I must agree with Harry, sharing is good, self discovery is better. After you have read a little on the subject, you will find people more willing to help you understand the details. It is not that people dont want to help, it is just to vast a topic.

Harry Costas

From my point of view, supporters of the big bang have not done enough to prove the universe is expanding. So in this post I will address the Hubble constant along with my complaint about web sites not giving sufficent details. When Hubble first made his discovery, he got a value that was 4 to 5 times the value we use today. This value was not in ageement with the age of the universe predicted by the big bang model. So later scientists made "adjustments" to it till it came into agreement with their beloved big bang model.

I have looked all over trying to find the logic behind these "adjustments" and all the web links I have found do not delve that deep. Indeed only a few of them even mention that adjustments have been made to the Hubble constant, much less how or why. The Hubble constant, as it is used today, is mainly due to the doppler effect. Hubble however disagreed with this interpatation of his work and opposed it till his dying day. He believed, as do I, that the doppler effect was but a part of his discovery, and a number of other factors needed to be looked at. To my knowledge, this still has not been done.

We know that gravity has an effect on light, and currently we try to ignore that effect when dealing with the Hubble constant. We do this by takeing measurments in faily open regions of space where the effects of gravity would be less. Notice I said less, but currently its effect is not taken into calculations at all. Also, how do we know there is not a black hole in that vast intervening distance that has a gravitional effect on the measerments we are not aware of.

Not only that, but gravity has a large effect on the source of the light (distant glaxies) that we are measuring. We record the red shiffting of the light as the universe spins away from us, but again this effect is taken as being completly due to the doppler shift. Yet the light from the far side of that glaxay must pass through the entire mass of its own glaxay before it even starts its trip to us. That is a lot of mass to be ignored in calculations.

The effects of gravity can not be the sourse of adjustments to the Hubble constant as the effects of gravity would cause the value to be higher instead of the lower values made in the adjustments. So when the effects of gravity are added in, the results are against the big bang model being correct.

Now if you know of a link that has the math detailing these "adjustments" to the Hubble constant, and their reasons for making them, I would gladly check them out, and it may revise my views somewhat. Until then, the current use of the Hubble constant strikes me as being closer to numerology than science.