Vak and tired photons

[Vak]

Big Bang was not.

The reason of cosmological redshift — "ageing" of photons.

My scientific concept does not give an occasion to Universe expansion.

 

[Spyman]

Big Bang was not.

The reason of cosmological redshift "ageing" of photons.

My scientific concept does not give an occasion to Universe expansion.

 

AFAIK the hypothetical Tired Light has been ruled out by the scientific consensus and if you have a new concept for how light might age then it's probably best to discuss your idea in the Speculations subforum.

 

"Today, tired light is remembered mainly for historical interest, and almost no scientist accepts tired light as a viable explanation for Hubble's Law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

Edited January 10, 2011 by Spyman

[Vak]

In the cycle of my posts the new Universe outlook concept is presented. From it the impossibility of the Big Bang follows. However it is impossible to deny cosmological expansion categorically.

The infinite Universe which was always extends, and always was infinite. The niches formed at expansion, are filled with a matter — according to my concept — generated by vacuum. New galaxies are gradually formed of this matter.

 

[Spyman]

In the cycle of my posts the new Universe outlook concept is presented. From it the impossibility of the Big Bang follows. However it is impossible to deny cosmological expansion categorically.

The infinite Universe which was always extends, and always was infinite. The niches formed at expansion, are filled with a matter — according to my concept — generated by vacuum. New galaxies are gradually formed of this matter.

 

I repeat, your concept is NOT accepted mainstream science and should be discussed in the Speculations subforum.

(Since you keep on reposting links to your website I suspect your only purpose is to increase your own traffic.)

 

 

----------

 

 

Let us think about "Far away Universe is moving fast and near Universe is moving slow".

Another assumption.

Far away Universe is old Universe, and we see it now.

Nearby Universe is not old Universe, and we see it now.

So long time ago, the Universe moving speed is past.

But recently , it's movement is not so past than before.

I think, this concept also should be tested by mathematical modeling.

Geometrical concept and time concept of the Universe are also important too.

Is the movement of galaxy around us accelerating recently?

Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric.

 

Local perturbations

The expansion of space is sometimes described as a force which acts to push objects apart. Though this is an accurate description of the effect of the cosmological constant, it is not an accurate picture of the phenomenon of expansion in general. For much of the universe's history the expansion has been due mainly to inertia. The matter in the very early universe was flying apart for unknown reasons (most likely as a result of cosmic inflation) and has simply continued to do so, though at an ever-decreasing rate due to the attractive effect of gravity. In addition to slowing the overall expansion, gravity causes local clumping of matter into stars and galaxies. These stars and galaxies do not subsequently expand, there being no force compelling them to do so. There is no essential difference between the inertial expansion of the universe and the inertial separation of nearby objects in a vacuum; the former is simply a large-scale extrapolation of the latter. A uniform local "explosion" of matter can be locally described by the FLRW geometry, the same geometry which describes the expansion of the universe as a whole. In particular, general relativity predicts that light will move at the speed c with respect to the local motion of the exploding matter, a phenomenon analogous to frame dragging.

 

This situation changes somewhat with the introduction of a cosmological constant. A cosmological constant has the effect of a repulsive force between objects which is proportional (not inversely proportional) to distance. Unlike inertia it actively "pulls" on objects which have clumped together under the influence of gravity, and even on individual atoms. However this does not cause the objects to grow steadily or to disintegrate; unless they are very weakly bound, they will simply settle into an equilibrium state which is slightly (undetectably) larger than it would otherwise have been. As the universe expands and the matter in it thins, the gravitational attraction decreases (since it is proportional to the density), while the cosmological repulsion increases; thus the ultimate fate of the ΛCDM universe is a near vacuum expanding at an ever increasing rate under the influence of the cosmological constant. However the only locally visible effect of the accelerating expansion is the disappearance (by runaway redshift) of distant galaxies; gravitationally bound objects like the Milky Way do not expand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Edited January 24, 2011 by Spyman

[Vak]

I repeat' date=' your concept is NOT accepted mainstream science and should be discussed in the Speculations subforum.[/quote']

I solve where to place my posts.

 

Since you keep on reposting links to your website ...

After all it is necessary to read it!

 

... I suspect ...

Suspiciousness is very bad human property offending other people.

 

... your only purpose is to increase your own traffic.

I have no financial benefit from my traffic.

 

[Spyman]

I solve where to place my posts.

You agreed to the Forum Rules when you signed up, did you bother to read them?

 

As such you are NOT free to place posts as you see fit. These rules sems relevant:

 

5. Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument.

 

7. Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your site in your signature, but don't go around making dozens of threads about it.

 

10. Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

 

 

After all it is necessary to read it!

You still don't need to post more than ONE link for people to be able to read it.

 

 

Suspiciousness is very bad human property offending other people.

Sorry if I offended you but would you rather want me to report you instead of telling you?

 

 

I have no financial benefit from my traffic.

That doesn't remove the fact that you are boosting your site with more than ONE link.

[Vak]

...

Sorry if I offended you but would you rather want me to report you instead of telling you?

...

Spyman, you mock at Truth !

 

Edited January 27, 2011 by Vak

[Mr Skeptic]

!

Moderator Note

Split to speculations, but at this rate it'll end up in the Trash Can soon enough