engineering and cosmology

[fencewalker]

Disclaimer: I am a brain tumor survivor 28 years and counting. This is not about that, but may explain some things.

I manged to get an engineering degree with a physics minor 24 years ago and I have seen many documentaries, lectures and online classes that have conclusions based on public data that are opposite of my conclusions.

Let’s call this nerd passion. I need to communicate this to the scientific community and I don’t know how, as my emails, phone calls and face to face conversations have lead nowhere.

I have much to say regarding the interpretation of galactic data.

The over simplified version is that it’s as easy as DERTT, and they forgot the minus sign.

I’ve written a few pages and made some short videos on this topic.

Attempts at communicating with my alma mater, CSUSacramento, have resulted in claims of non-expertise, followed by the suggestion of contacting UCDavis cosmology.

My goal is to move to Denmark and continue this work there, and my first step is getting someone here to understand the data as I do.

May we have conversation?

hubble plot:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/book/export/html/1967

 

ENC2.doc

[beecee]

1 hour ago, fencewalker said:

I have much to say regarding the interpretation of galactic data.

Firstly I must say you can take anything I personally say with a grain of salt: I'm only a rank amateur and lay person at this game, so most of what I do know aligns with mainstream.

When you speak of galactic data, what are you referring to? AGN's?  Quasars? Spiral arms and density waves? galactic age? galactic formation? peculiar velocities? galactic local group gravity decoupling from overall large scale expansion? DM and rotational curves?

Or are you disputing the overall accepted model for universe/spacetime evolution? ie The BB. Let me say that while the BB may not be perfect, in that some problems do exist, it certainly does align with the four main pillars...[1] the observed expansion and mentally reversing that, [2] The CMBR or left over relic heat of the BB at 2.7K, [3] the abundance of the lighter elements, and [4] the seeds of galactic formation itself.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by beecee

[Strange]

2 hours ago, fencewalker said:

May we have conversation?

I would be interested to hear what you have to say. If you just want to ask questions, to clarify your understanding, then you can do that in this thread.

If you have an alternative theory to the mainstream, then you will need to present that under the Speculations area.

Pretty much every amateur (if you'll excuse the word) alternative theory I have seen has been based on one or more fundamental misunderstandings of the underlying science (typically because it has been picked up from popular science articles). But I try to approach each new idea with an open mind!

[fencewalker]

well, i have an engineering degree with a physics minor. all the documentaries and lectures i've seen misinterpret hubble data. they say they look into the past, but don't take it into consideration. is this theory or speculation in your opinion? the data tells me different things than it tells cosmologists.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, fencewalker said:

 the data tells me different things than it tells cosmologists.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why? Questions like do I have any possible preconceived agenda that is leading me up the garden path?Or as Strange has alluded to, perhaps you have some fundamental misunderstanding. 

[Endy0816]

You can also rearrange DERTT to obtain:

\(Rate = Distance * \frac{1}{Time}\)

\(Rate =  \frac{1}{Time} * Distance\)

Or in other words Hubble's Law:

\(V = H * D\)

\(\frac{km}{s} = \frac{1}{s} * km\)

Edited April 5, 2018 by Endy0816

[Strange]

8 hours ago, fencewalker said:

they say they look into the past, but don't take it into consideration

Can you explain how you think it should be taken into account? 

For example, are you thinking about the distance changing between when the light was emitted and when we receive it?

Edited April 5, 2018 by Strange

[Airbrush]

17 hours ago, fencewalker said:

... all the documentaries and lectures i've seen misinterpret hubble data. they say they look into the past, but don't take it into consideration. is this theory or speculation in your opinion? the data tells me different things than it tells cosmologists.

Could you be more specific?  Give us an example of a popular documentary that got Hubble data wrong.  I don't have a clue what you are talking about.