john hunter Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Hello, why not check out http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0005v1.pdf This very simple theory gives a good match to data (apparent omega(m)=0.25) without dark energy. Recent COSMOS/WMAP http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.0053v1.pdf especially Figure 12,14 and 15 shows omega(m) approx 0.266 John Hunter.
ajb Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 Hello, why not check out http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0005v1.pdf This very simple theory gives a good match to data (apparent omega(m)=0.25) without dark energy. Recent COSMOS/WMAP http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.0053v1.pdf especially Figure 12,14 and 15 shows omega(m) approx 0.266 John Hunter. I have not read it. But if it is good find an expert who will get you endorsed on the arXiv. It will get much more attention there than viXra.
Mr Skeptic Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 Well, I've read a bit of it but I have to go now. I've never been a big fan of dark matter/energy, but what about experiments to determine if Plank's constant is changing? If as you say the redshift is due to changing Plank's constant, then the change in Plank's constant must be observable.
Tugrul Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 God how I wish I knew the 'math'! r I do too
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now