The universe may not be expanding.

The reason tha astrophysicists believe that the universe is expanding is due to the red-shift of the light from distant galaxies, indicating that they are all receeding from us at a speed designated by Hubble's constant.

According to the tired light theory, Hubbles constant is exactly the same as the electron density of a square metre of intergalactic space. Each time a photon is absorbed and re-emitted by an atom there is a tiny time delay, meaning that (as there is NO empty space in our universe) the light we see from distant galaxies has slowed down, giving us the illusion that these galaxies are racing away from us.

Lyndon Ashmore sounds like a bloody clever bloke.

My question is: If the universe is not expanding, this implies that there was NOT a "big bang", so what about the background noise found by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson?

If the universe is not expanding (therefore infinite?), what is outside of the universe?

:S

reply to post by suicide__x


I'm assuming that it's infinite size makes more sense if the universe isn't expanding. An expanding universe must be expanding into something, implying that there is an outside edge to it.

That's true.

But, if space is inifinite... yet not expanding... well, that messes my mind up a bit.

The whole inifite universe theory confuses me a lot, as I personally can't imagine it...

reply to post by suicide__x


Nothing to beat yourself up about. None of us can truly wrap our brains around "infinite".

João Magueijo

en.wikipedia.org...


I really don't know, myself. Either the Universe is expanding, or it is an optical illusion. Most of the current data fits the expanding Universe model, but there is still so much to know.

We have DE as an explanation for rotational velocities at the outer edges of galaxies which should lag behind the rotational velocities at the centers of galaxies, but don't.

There is no consensus on a unification of QM and relativity.

It's possible, but I'm also not certain that tired light is the full explanation.

I think the universe is circular. For instance, if we could make a telescope that could see infinately far, we might be lookin at the back of our head looking through a telescope.
Just my 2 cents.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by skeetontheconspiracy


I can sort of grasp that idea more than inifinite... would certainly be interesting... and confusing.

reply to post by elfie


Here is a great paper by LaViolette, where he tests the hypothesis. Hope this link works!

The one thing he doesn't seem to take into account is whether a tired light contracting universe fits the known data better. Certainly the tired light Euclidian universe fits better than an expanding one. See what you think.

Maybe the background noise is like a basic vibrational state of the universe, maybe its the physical evidence for the connection of every single thing.
I'm relating it a bit to the OM of the Buddhists.

If the red shift is not the result of Doppler effect, how does Ashmore account for blue shifted galaxies?

[edit on 9/18/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
If the red shift is not the result of Doppler effect, how does Ashmore account for blue shifted galaxies?

[edit on 9/18/2009 by Phage]

I couldn't find a reference to them in Ashmore's work, but I assume that the same explanation applies, i.e.: that these local galaxies are moving towards us but the rate at which they are moving would have to be recalculated to compensate for the light "tiring"?

reply to post by Karilla

But he claims the frequency shift is not a result of relative velocity.

In this Tired Light theory, I explain the increase in wavelength as being due to photons of light interacting, or colliding, with the electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space and thus losing energy. The more interactions they make, the more energy they lose and the lower their frequency becomes.

Blue light is higher frequency than red. According to him the light from blue shifted galaxies must somehow be gaining energy as it travels even though it's moving through the same intergalactic space which takes energy away from red shifted light.

[edit on 9/18/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Blue light is higher frequency than red. According to him the light from blue shifted galaxies must somehow be gaining energy as it travels even though it's moving through the same intergalactic space which takes energy away from red shifted light.

I don't think he's denying the whole phenomena of red- and blue-shift. If something is emitting light and travelling towards us the doppler effect must still apply, but the amount of blue-shift, or wave-length shortening would have to account for the photons losing energy at the same time, meaning the velocity of the blue-shifted galaxy would be greater.

As I understand it, all Ashmore is saying is that the almost universal red-shift noticed when observing distant objects can be accounted for by another mechanism than expansion. Blazars would still be shooting relativistic jets towards us if they were blue-shifted and the Andromeda galaxy would still be moving towards us. In order to get rid of the doppler effect entirely he'd have to re-write every physics text-book there is.

I think we are witnessing string theory. The matter in different galaxies may have a different string frequency. Hence, red slower and blue faster. In other words, the basis for the matter in those galaxies is different than the basis for the matter in ours.

The color is independent of age or relative speed, and is only related to the vibrational energy of the strings.

For example, imagine a galaxy made of dark matter. We have recorded one that I know of in the BBC news. news.bbc.co.uk... As you can see, it is quite invisible. It's string frequency is much higher. Think of it as in the light range of radar, while we are like in the visible light range.

When a galaxy is blue, its strings are faster than ours, but not so fast that they are invisible dark matter. And, of course, the opposite for red.

Does this make sense?

reply to post by Karilla


Thanks for the link. Hₒ is currently estimated to be 70.8 ± 4.0 (km/s)/Mpc.

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by Karilla

 

Thanks for the link. Hₒ is currently estimated to be 70.8 ± 4.0 (km/s)/Mpc.

I was just reading a bit of Ashmore's writings on big-bang "codsmology" (he reckons it doesn't qualify as cosmology). He was moaning about their use of km/s-/mpsc as both kilometres and megaparsecs are units of distance.

Nonsense number 3: Why these rediculous units of km/s per Mpc?

What strange units for 'professional' scientists to use! km/s per Mpc. 'Mpc' means megaparsec and it is a unit of distance. But km is also a unit of distance so why have two different units for distance in the same expression? Why not Mpc/s per Mpc? Or km/s per km? Or even m/s per m? Ah! but wait a minute, if one has 'm/s per m', the metres cancel to give 'per sec' or just s-1 . But then it is not a velocity. people would never believe that the universe was expanding if the units were just 'per sec' and had no units of velocity in there, would they? Methinks the units of km/s per Mpc are a con to make people think that the universe is expanding. The proper unit for H is s-1. Lets use that instead.
If we are to believe in 'Big Bang' Codsmology then:
i) We must believe:
The magnitude of the age of the Universe is (mass of electron)/[(planck constant)x(radius of the electron)]
ii) We must believe:
The space occupied by a ruler one metre long stretches at such a rate that every second it stretches by an amount equal to [(planck constant)x(radius of electron)]/(mass of electron)
And that both these results are purely by chance.
It cannot be. The Universe is not expanding.
Of course until now, these codsmologists did not realise that the value they had for H was a combination of three very common physical constants. You can take any child's scientific calculator and call up these constants and work out the Hubble constant! It is there - inside the child's calculator.

For me, I just cannot believe that these results happen by chance. If you have a coincidence of this nature so that two seemingly very different quantities have the same value then their must be a relationship between them.

It is an indisputable fact that the Hubble constant is hr/m per cubic metre.

In my Tired Light Theory, I show that H = 2nhr/m where 'n' is the number of electrons in each cubic metre of space - and we know from observation that 'n' is about 0.5m-3 so the above results are not a problem in the Tired Light Theory. This is where the ' per cubic metre' comes from in the above relationships. It is the number of electrons in each cubic metre of space. In Tired light 1/H is not the age of the universe and space is not expanding so the coincidences of the age of the universe and the ruler do not happen. H is only dependent upon the electron and the Plank constant.

Is the Expanding Universe too big a stretch of the imagination????

Contradictions in the Big Bang theory.

I wonder if this means the end of the multiple Universe theory?

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
I wonder if this means the end of the multiple Universe theory?

I'm not sure. Yet. But I'm reading up on it, and right now I can't see why the two ideas would be mutually exclusive.

Apparently something called "subquantum Kinetics" is an attempt at a unified field theory, which introduces a mode for continuous creation from zero point energy, getting round the need for any big bang.

It does swap the uncertainties about what came before, and existed outside, the initial singularity, but introduces alot more infinity to get one's head around.

I'll be getting the book on subquantum kinetics... I could do with a little light reading.

Originally posted by Karilla

My question is: If the universe is not expanding, this implies that there was NOT a "big bang", so what about the background noise found by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson?

The absence of expansion doesn't mean that there was no Big Bang, coz the Big Bang is a consequence of an universe collapsing due to the gravitational influences ,thus making a super-super black hole that further collapsed into what is called the "singularity," from which a newly born universe expanded. But Stephen Hawking's math argues that our universe is not destined to collapse and create another Big Bang; our universe will keep expanding and the distances between galaxies will grow. The localized chunks of the universe will collapse and create giant black holes, which, according to Hawking will "evaporate."

That means our universe could be the result of a chunk of Super Universe, which existed before our universe. That chunk had a mass of our universe and so its density could create the singularity, which our universe comes from through the Big Bang.

There is a chance that the remnants of the Super Universe are mistaken for the parts of our universe and that messes up the Hubble constant.