Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
It does not effect one way or another which theory is correct as to the origin or origins or ongoing universe.
|
It really does. The same theory that we use to explain the behavior of satellites in orbit and the color of gold metal (i.e. relativity) also explains the history of the cosmos. If the history of the universe is significantly different than we think then we would need a new theory that works with local and cosmic observations.
Cosmologists and astronomers aren't just making up stories and random explanations for observations. They are using very exact theories that have been tested here on earth and extending them to the cosmos. Astronomers will either find that the data fits the theory or does not. The examples where the data does NOT fit the theory are very rare, but also very welcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
What is interesting is that there are scientists who have other theories that are able to be backed by science.
"Big Bang Blasted!"
The Home of Tired Light. Redshift, the Hubble constant, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Expanding Universe all explained.
Quote:
Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.
Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.
The Tired Light Theory (that redshift is due to electron interaction) is supported by the fact that measured values of the Hubble constant, H are exactly equal to a combination of the parameters of the electron. This is known as 'Ashmore's Paradox'. If, in the expanding Universe, the expansion is not related to the electron then why is the Hubble constant found experimentally to be related to the electron?
|
|
The book "Big Bang Blasted" by Lyndon Ashmore and the theories it discusses are addressed extensively in the thread:
Big Bang Blasted.
I've read a couple chapters of the book and could read no more. It's completely ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf
Recoil Interaction Between Photons and The Electrons In The Plasma Of Intergalactic Space Leading To The Hubble Constant And CMB
Quote:
ABSTRACT:
The Hubble diagram for type Ia Supernovae gives the value of the Hubble constant, H as 64±3 km/s Mpc-1, which, in SI units, is equal to ‘hre/me per cubic metre of space’ (2.1x10-18 s-1). This coincidence could suggest a relationship between H and the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space that act collectively and oscillate if displaced. The possibility that light from distant galaxies is absorbed and reemitted by the electrons is considered with the electron recoiling on both occasions. A double Mössbauer effect leads to a redshift in the transmitted light. Introduction of the photoabsorption cross section 2reλ leads to the relationship H = 2nehre/me giving H ≈ 12 km/s Mpc-1 when ne has the reported value of ne ≈ 0.1m-3. The small amount of energy transferred to the electron by recoil is radiated as bremsstrahlung with a wavelength in the
|
As I read I like to share my readings.
If I'm on the wrong track, than usually someone somewhere will tell me.
|
This is a good example of Ashmore's ridiculousness. He makes up a "paradox" and names it after himself: "
Ashmore's Paradox".
And, he doesn't seem to know what a
paradox is. A paradox is some statement or situation that contradicts itself, "Ashmore's paradox" is actually a
coincidence.
His coincidence points out the Hubble constant (i.e. Hubble time) expressed in one set of units is almost equal to Plank's constant multiplied by the mass of an electron divided by the radius of an electron in another set of units. This coincidence is completely ridiculous—it has no meaning whatsoever. It's like pointing out that George Bush is 63 years old and the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico is 63 meters tall. That's not much of a paradox, and a pretty meaningless coincidence as well.
~modest
Moderation Note: Subsequent discussion regarding the relativistic effects of gold were moved to The color of gold and relativity
