Science Forums 2

[jerrygg38]

Originally Posted by CraigD

This – that the observed redshifts conforming to Hubble’s law are due entirely to the relativistic Doppler effect and gravitational redshift – is no longer the most accepted theory explaining Hubble’s law.

Rather, the “cosmological redshift” due to the metric expansion of face is theorized to be the dominant contributor to the large redshifts of the most distant objects. Many good summaries of this present-day state of cosmological theory are available in the popular science press and online, including this wikipedia article.

The situation is actually worse than this. Not accounting with the cosmological redshift, various observations of very distant objects indicate that these objects are receding at greater than the speed of light, and therefore have greater than infinite kinetic energies. This impossible application of the theory of special relativity was a major influence on the development of the theory of the metric expansion of space and the cosmological redshift.

Theories containing this mechanism, conventionally termed “tired light”, have been well-known for a long time (Zwickey proposed one of the first in 1929). However, for many reasons (summarized in the precedingly linked wikipedia article and its linked references), this mechanism was largely rejected by most cosmologists by the late 1950s.

Jerry, what do you mean by multi-lightspeed universe and multi-lightspeed energies? The only references I’m able to find to this term appear in your posts at this and other forums.

As you should know, Jerry, hypography’s rules require that claims such as the several in your preceding post must be backed up with links and references.

Your previous post makes may very unusual claim, but gives no links or references. In addition to being against our site rules, this is bad form for scientific writing in general. I strongly encourage you to seek out good sources of experimental data supporting your claims (I don’t think you’ll be able to find good scientific papers or popular articles supporting them), or if unable to find such data, reconsider them.

Thanks for the information. My posts are part of my Unified Field theory. I do not have any backup because what I write is my singular theory. Einstein published his Special Relativity theory without proofs. Proofs came later.
A theory does not require proofs or backup. I am not discussing other peoples theory but my own. There may be parts of my theory which are incorrect and must be revised.

As far as the redshift is concerned as my theory sees it, it is due to (1)the expansion of the dot-waves . This will expand the rulers. Is that what face means? (2) According to my theory, the Redshift is also due to the slowing of light when the photonic field encounters stars and galaxies. Finally the third component of the redshift is due to the conversion of grav-photonic energy into electro-photonic energy as the light sphere reaches a maximum radius of 15.9 billion light years as per my Dot-Wave theory calculations. I have no proof or references to this theory. That is why I post in the New Theories sections for discussions.
I also send my theory to some College professors who provide me with some useful feedback. I just emailed over 120 schools with my revised theory. It is not easy to get many responses but I do get some. However I just had to rewrite my work to make it more understandable.