Why I disagree with static eternal universe

Hi Lyndon, I think one line on your link could maybe do with a little tidying up, I always find it best to get someone to do a proofreading of my stuff, as it's almost impossible to do it oneself. Hope you don't take offense, there's none intended []

"The light from the quasar has written on it the history of the dynamics of the Universe as on it, like the black dots on a high school ticker tape, are the positions of the Hydrogen clouds over the life of the universe."

"The light from a quasar has the dynamic history of the universe written (engraved?) upon it. Like the black dots on a ticker tape machine, we can map the positions of hydrogen clouds over the lifetime of the observable universe."

Thanks Stoat,
But what did you think of the article?
These Hydrogen clouds are , on average , equally spaced and if one believes the mainstream papers, z = 1 includes the time dilation supernovae that are supposed to show time dilation.
Cheers,
Lyndon

lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.

G'day Lyndon

Can you explain the evidence that proves the universe is expanding?

Meaning the total universe.


Smile and live another day

Hi Lydon, I've only just managed to take a look at your powerpoint pdf. My server wouldn't let me just look at and being thick as two short planks I didn't think to right click on it until now.

Somewhere on the board, i looked at Wheeler's comment, that the universe acts "informationally" as though everything had been at some time within the Compton wavelength of an electron. i did the maths for it and came up with a figure that suggested the universe is about 8,000 times older than 13.5E 9 years. I'll try to find it again but the search engine for the site isn't that good.

Do you hold with Tom's idea of the speed of gravity being very much more than the speed of light? Really Newton's I suppose, who has it at infinity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pluto</i>
<br />G'day Lyndon

Can you explain the evidence that proves the universe is expanding?

Meaning the total universe.


Smile and live another day
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well yes.
Tired light.
Lets look at the 'three pillars' of the Big Bang.
<b>Pillar one - redshift</b>
As photons travel through space they are absorbed and re-emitted by electrons in the plasma of intergalactic space. On both absorption and re emission the electron recoils. Some of the energy of the photon is transferred to the recoilng electron on both absorption and re-emission and so the energy of the photon is reduced.
Since E = hf if the energy E is reduced the frequency f is also reduced.
Since c = f(lambda)
Since c (speed of photon in a vacuum) is constant, if frequency is reduced the the wavelength lamda increase - redshifted.
The Hubble relation becomes Photons of light from a galaxy twice as far away, travel twice as far through the plasma of intergalactic space, make twice as many interactions with the electrons lose twice as much energy and so their frequency reduces by twice as much and the wavelength increases by twice as much. redshift explained.
It is a bit more complicated than that but the maths work out and one can predict the value of the Hubble constant in this way and get it right.
for a full explanation and the maths see
[url] lyndonashmore.com/tired_light_front_page.htm [/url]
<b>pillar two - CMB</b>
The recoiling electron radiates the energy given to it on absorption and re-emission by brehmstrahlung. One can work out the wavelengths involved and it is in the microwave region. Plasma clouds radiate Black body radiation
See
[url] lyndonashmore.com/CMB_and_Tired_Light.htm [/url]
I am in the process of going further with this and am putting a paper together on it.
<b>Pillar Three - Big Bang can explain the ratios of the light elements.</b>
No way - It can only get two of the three correct at any one time. See eric Lerner's stuff on this.
But I believe one measured ratio has to over be three sigmas (standard deviations) too high whilst the other has to be more than three sigmas too low for the results to agree.
So there you are.
Best regards,
lyndon


lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Hi Lydon, I've only just managed to take a look at your powerpoint pdf. My server wouldn't let me just look at and being thick as two short planks I didn't think to right click on it until now.

Somewhere on the board, i looked at Wheeler's comment, that the universe acts "informationally" as though everything had been at some time within the Compton wavelength of an electron. i did the maths for it and came up with a figure that suggested the universe is about 8,000 times older than 13.5E 9 years. I'll try to find it again but the search engine for the site isn't that good.

Do you hold with Tom's idea of the speed of gravity being very much more than the speed of light? Really Newton's I suppose, who has it at infinity.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Stoat,
I met Tom at the CCC2 conference and hold a great regard for him. How he managed to organise that conference whilst being so ill I will never know. He gave a presentation on his views on gravity (which were new to me) and I found interesting.
I wanted to ask him if General relativity actually required gravity to have a speed but didn't get the chance as he was so popular and was always surrounded by others.
Trying to sort out whether the universe is expanding or not takes up all my spare time so i guess I will leave gravity to others.
Cheers,
lyndon




lyndon ashmore - bringing cosmology back down to earth.