Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
Cosmologists are always changing their story! Anyway, what do they know? They should stick to cosmetics and hairstyles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
They are like weather guys... On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Cosmologists are always changing their story! Anyway, what do they know? They should stick to cosmetics and hairstyles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
The evidence for the Big Bang is not just the red-shift. It has multiple lines that actually support each other. For example, the temperature of empty space is what you would expect if a universe expanded about 13 billion years ago. Also the relative abundance of the elements in the universe is a explained very well as a consequence of the Big Bang theory. As we go back in time and look at further away galaxies we can see that the universe changed in composition and type of stars available. One can fill an entire book with the evidence for an evolving cosmos. This article doesn't address all these lines of evidence but it explains that there is a possible loop hole that could account for the red-shift and being consistent with general relativity. But it has more problems that it solves without the explanatory power of the Big Bang theory because it doesn't address all the things the Big Bang theory addresses. Big Bang theory stays perfectly unchallenged. It is just journalistic sensationalism. Giovanni On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: They are like weather guys... On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Cosmologists are always changing their story! Anyway, what do they know? They should stick to cosmetics and hairstyles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
Also the relative abundance of the elements in the universe is a explained very well as a consequence of the Big Bang theory http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328534.700-blame-dark-matter-underdog-for-mystery-missing-lithium.html#.UegKOI3viSo On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: The evidence for the Big Bang is not just the red-shift. It has multiple lines that actually support each other. For example, the temperature of empty space is what you would expect if a universe expanded about 13 billion years ago. Also the relative abundance of the elements in the universe is a explained very well as a consequence of the Big Bang theory. As we go back in time and look at further away galaxies we can see that the universe changed in composition and type of stars available. One can fill an entire book with the evidence for an evolving cosmos. This article doesn't address all these lines of evidence but it explains that there is a possible loop hole that could account for the red-shift and being consistent with general relativity. But it has more problems that it solves without the explanatory power of the Big Bang theory because it doesn't address all the things the Big Bang theory addresses. Big Bang theory stays perfectly unchallenged. It is just journalistic sensationalism. Giovanni On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: They are like weather guys... On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Cosmologists are always changing their story! Anyway, what do they know? They should stick to cosmetics and hairstyles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
Hi, On 18-7-2013 17:17, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: The evidence for the Big Bang is not just the red-shift. It has multiple lines that actually support each other. ... Big Bang theory stays perfectly unchallenged. It is just journalistic sensationalism. I disagree, as there is at least the issue of the singularity. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
There are dozens of models of Big Bang theory without a singularity. Not a biggy. Giovanni On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.comwrote: Hi, On 18-7-2013 17:17, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: The evidence for the Big Bang is not just the red-shift. It has multiple lines that actually support each other. ... Big Bang theory stays perfectly unchallenged. It is just journalistic sensationalism. I disagree, as there is at least the issue of the singularity. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
LENR has produced most of the heavier elements in the universe as a result of nebular electrostatic consolidation as well as explaining the lithium problem. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: The evidence for the Big Bang is not just the red-shift. It has multiple lines that actually support each other. For example, the temperature of empty space is what you would expect if a universe expanded about 13 billion years ago. Also the relative abundance of the elements in the universe is a explained very well as a consequence of the Big Bang theory. As we go back in time and look at further away galaxies we can see that the universe changed in composition and type of stars available. One can fill an entire book with the evidence for an evolving cosmos. This article doesn't address all these lines of evidence but it explains that there is a possible loop hole that could account for the red-shift and being consistent with general relativity. But it has more problems that it solves without the explanatory power of the Big Bang theory because it doesn't address all the things the Big Bang theory addresses. Big Bang theory stays perfectly unchallenged. It is just journalistic sensationalism. Giovanni On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: They are like weather guys... On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Cosmologists are always changing their story! Anyway, what do they know? They should stick to cosmetics and hairstyles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
here is a post I issued addressing the lithium problem... Big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) theory, together with the precise WMAP cosmic baryon density, makes tight predictions for the abundances of the lightest elements. Deuterium and 4He measurements agree well with expectations, but 7Li observations lie a factor 3 - 4 below the BBN+WMAP prediction. This 4 - 5 mismatch constitutes the cosmic lithium problem, with disparate solutions possible. (1) Astrophysical systematics in the observations could exist but are increasingly constrained. (2) Nuclear physics experiments provide a wealth of well-measured cross-section data, but 7Be destruction could be enhanced by unknown or poorly-measured resonances. Physics beyond the Standard Model can alter the 7Li abundance, though D and 4He must remain unperturbed; Physics is inventing outlandish theories for this puzzle including decaying Super symmetric particles and time-varying fundamental constants. Present and planned experiments could reveal which (if any) of these is the solution to the problem. Why don't they consider LENR??? Because they have a closed mind! http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt780307/PDF/2007MmSAI..78..476G.pdf The screening of lithium reactions are as high as 17.4 MeV. LENR is why there is a Lithium Problem On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR has produced most of the heavier elements in the universe as a result of nebular electrostatic consolidation as well as explaining the lithium problem. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: The evidence for the Big Bang is not just the red-shift. It has multiple lines that actually support each other. For example, the temperature of empty space is what you would expect if a universe expanded about 13 billion years ago. Also the relative abundance of the elements in the universe is a explained very well as a consequence of the Big Bang theory. As we go back in time and look at further away galaxies we can see that the universe changed in composition and type of stars available. One can fill an entire book with the evidence for an evolving cosmos. This article doesn't address all these lines of evidence but it explains that there is a possible loop hole that could account for the red-shift and being consistent with general relativity. But it has more problems that it solves without the explanatory power of the Big Bang theory because it doesn't address all the things the Big Bang theory addresses. Big Bang theory stays perfectly unchallenged. It is just journalistic sensationalism. Giovanni On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: They are like weather guys... On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Cosmologists are always changing their story! Anyway, what do they know? They should stick to cosmetics and hairstyles. - Jed
[Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding Particles' changing masses could explain why distant galaxies appear to be rushing away. http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379 harry
Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: From the article: The idea [of increasing mass] may be plausible, but it comes with a big problem: it can't be tested. Mass is what’s known as a dimensional quantity, and can be measured only relative to something else. What I don't quite understand is why astrophysicists are comfortable placing confidence in the expanding universe hypothesis when it is epistemologically indistinguishable from this one (I take the article's word for it). It seems like when two explanations are both indistinguishable and sensible, neither should be given preference. Perhaps they were simply unaware of the possibility. I'm excluding explanations along the lines of invisible pink unicorns, which aren't really plausible. A third possible explanation for the redshift, I suspect, is that the mass of things is staying the same but the speed of light is changing over time. Another one might be that time is slowing down or speeding up (I'm not sure if this could account for the redshift). I suppose you could have all four happening simultaneously -- expansion, change in mass, change in the rate at which time progresses and change in the speed of light. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
A 4th possibility... Time does not exist and our 3 dimensions of space are decaying and unfolding concurrently, which varies based upon location in the universe. The good news is we are not getting older.We are decaying “Time is an illusion.” - Albert Einstein Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: From the article: The idea [of increasing mass] may be plausible, but it comes with a big problem: it can't be tested. Mass is what’s known as a dimensional quantity, and can be measured only relative to something else. What I don't quite understand is why astrophysicists are comfortable placing confidence in the expanding universe hypothesis when it is epistemologically indistinguishable from this one (I take the article's word for it). It seems like when two explanations are both indistinguishable and sensible, neither should be given preference. Perhaps they were simply unaware of the possibility. I'm excluding explanations along the lines of invisible pink unicorns, which aren't really plausible. A third possible explanation for the redshift, I suspect, is that the mass of things is staying the same but the speed of light is changing over time. Another one might be that time is slowing down or speeding up (I'm not sure if this could account for the redshift). I suppose you could have all four happening simultaneously -- expansion, change in mass, change in the rate at which time progresses and change in the speed of light. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: From the article: The idea [of increasing mass] may be plausible, but it comes with a big problem: it can't be tested. Mass is what’s known as a dimensional quantity, and can be measured only relative to something else. What I don't quite understand is why astrophysicists are comfortable placing confidence in the expanding universe hypothesis when it is epistemologically indistinguishable from this one (I take the article's word for it). It seems like when two explanations are both indistinguishable and sensible, neither should be given preference. Perhaps they were simply unaware of the possibility. I'm excluding explanations along the lines of invisible pink unicorns, which aren't really plausible. A third possible explanation for the redshift, I suspect, is that the mass of things is staying the same but the speed of light is changing over time. Another one might be that time is slowing down or speeding up (I'm not sure if this could account for the redshift). I suppose you could have all four happening simultaneously -- expansion, change in mass, change in the rate at which time progresses and change in the speed of light. Eric I I can't tell if the new mass is created ex-nihilo or if energy is continually being converted into new mass. If the cosmology requires that the conservation of energy applies globally then it implies energy of the universe is slowly being ingested by matter. Harry
