JDizz on the univese

[Jdizz]

The expansion of the universe is a hypothetical view implying a return to the middle ages with Earth at the center of the universe because the hypothetical expansion and the hypothetical acceleration of the expansion are the same for the same distance in all radial directions from Earth.

 

Additionally, R.M. Santilli has established experimentally, the lack of expansion via spectrographic measurements according to which the redness of the sun itself at sunset experiences a redshift without any relative motion.

 

In other words, redness of direct sunlight, (that without scattering) and not the redness of the atmosphere (which is indeed due to scattering) constitutes visual, let alone experimental evidence that the universe is not expanding.

 

For measurements conducted on two continents, see this powerpoint:

 

http://www.i-b-r.org/IRS-2012.ppt

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Jdizz

 

Please keep fringe science and new theories to the Speculations Board . In future avoid answering questions on the main boards with hypothetical and unsubstantiated ideas. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread. You may report this post if you feel this moderation was unwarranted.

 

[Jdizz]

!

Moderator Note

 

Jdizz

 

Please keep fringe science and new theories to the Speculations Board . In future avoid answering questions on the main boards with hypothetical and unsubstantiated ideas. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread. You may report this post if you feel this moderation was unwarranted.

 

 

I would like to thank the moderator for a very sound and scientifically ethical request.

 

In fact it is the very reason why I only work with clear and repeated experimental measurements.

 

Additionally on the same grounds of scientific ethics, allow me to recommend that in the future the moderators trash comments that criticize new measurements without first conducting counter measurements, particularly when verified in various countries by multiple serious scientists.

 

BTW, dark energy is a hypothetical conjecture.

[justinater22]

Sorry I didn't realise.

[Spyman]

You don't have to be sorry, dark energy is well inside what's considered accepted mainstream cosmology.


"In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass–energy of the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

[Jdizz]

As spyman said, no need to apologize.

 

Also know that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Feynman

[Jdizz]

 

You don't have to be sorry, dark energy is well inside what's considered accepted mainstream cosmology.

 

 

"In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass–energy of the universe."

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

 

 

 

The quotation of wikipedia should be instant disqualification because of its noted bias against anything that surpasses Einstein.

 

What wikipedia intentionally misses is Einstein's law according to which the origin of the gravitational field is energy.

 

Therefore, in the event that the universe was 75% filled up with dark energy, the most dominant prediction by Einsteins field equations is that the universe should contract due to gravitational attraction caused by dark energy.

 

The adulteration of Einstein's field equations in the dream of achieving an expansion against this dominant contraction is a sheer manipulation of scientific facts.

 

In any case ignoring all of the above, the supporters of the ultra far fetched conjecture of dark energy intentionally ignore the real important physical issue, namely, an enormous amount of energy is needed to accelerate billions of galaxies for billions of years all the way to the ultra far fetched extreme that galaxies at the edge of the known universe are said to be traveling faster than the speed of light since v/c must be bigger than one to represent their cosmological redshifts.

 

Under the acceptance of such preposterous and extremely far fetched conjectures, while dismissing IRS measurements on Earth, for the lack of the expansion of the universe sadly confirms that physics is on its death bed of truly rotten crack-pottery.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Jdizz

[ACG52]

Therefore, in the event that the universe was 75% filled up with dark energy, the most dominant prediction by Einsteins field equations is that the universe should contract due to gravitational attraction caused by dark energy.

 

 

 

No, because dark energy is negative, producing a negative pressure, which is expansive.

 

 

 

while dismissing IRS measurements on Earth

 

What measurements?

 

 

 

for the lack of the expansion of the universe

 

 

What lack of expansion?

 

 

 

confirms that physics is on its death bed of truly rotten crack-pottery.

 

Oh, the irony is just too obvious.

[Airbrush]

Yea I figured it wasn't both I just didn't know which one. And is it known yet how the dark energy makes the universe expand?

They don't know and openly admit that. But dark energy does not make the universe expand, it only accelerates the expansion from the Big Bang.

 

[Spyman]

The quotation of wikipedia should be instant disqualification because of its noted bias against anything that surpasses Einstein.

Wrong, Albert Einstein died at the age of 76 in the year 1955 and the nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of an accelerated expansion in 1998 which clearly shows that the notation of dark energy accelerating the expansion of the universe IS something that HAS surpassed Einstein.

 

On 17 April 1955, Albert Einstein experienced internal bleeding caused by the rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, which had previously been reinforced surgically by Dr. Rudolph Nissen in 1948. He took the draft of a speech he was preparing for a television appearance commemorating the State of Israel's seventh anniversary with him to the hospital, but he did not live long enough to complete it. Einstein refused surgery, saying: "I want to go when I want. It is tasteless to prolong life artificially. I have done my share, it is time to go. I will do it elegantly." He died in Princeton Hospital early the next morning at the age of 76, having continued to work until near the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Death

 

The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor has a positive second derivative, so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time. In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since around redshift of z~0.5. The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess for the 1998 discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae.

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

 

 

What wikipedia intentionally misses is Einstein's law according to which the origin of the gravitational field is energy.

 

Therefore, in the event that the universe was 75% filled up with dark energy, the most dominant prediction by Einsteins field equations is that the universe should contract due to gravitational attraction caused by dark energy.

 

The adulteration of Einstein's field equations in the dream of achieving an expansion against this dominant contraction is a sheer manipulation of scientific facts.

Wrong again, a cosmological constant in Einstein's equation could very well power an accelerated expansion.

 

In physical cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is equivalent to an energy density in otherwise empty space. It was originally proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging. However, a number of observations including the discovery of cosmic acceleration in 1998 have revived the cosmological constant, and the current standard model of cosmology includes this term.

 

The cosmological constant Λ appears in Einstein's modified field equation in the form of

 

 

where R and g pertain to the structure of spacetime, T pertains to matter and energy (thought of as affecting that structure), and G and c are conversion factors that arise from using traditional units of measurement. When Λ is zero, this reduces to the original field equation of general relativity. When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum).

 

The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, ρ_vac (and an associated pressure). In this context it is commonly moved onto the right-hand side of the equation, and defined with a proportionality factor of 8π: Λ = 8πρ_vac, where unit conventions of general relativity are used (otherwise factors of G and c would also appear). It is common to quote values of energy density directly, though still using the name "cosmological constant".

 

A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of the universe, as observed.

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

 

 

In any case ignoring all of the above, the supporters of the ultra far fetched conjecture of dark energy intentionally ignore the real important physical issue, namely, an enormous amount of energy is needed to accelerate billions of galaxies for billions of years all the way to the ultra far fetched extreme that galaxies at the edge of the known universe are said to be traveling faster than the speed of light since v/c must be bigger than one to represent their cosmological redshifts.

 

Under the acceptance of such preposterous and extremely far fetched conjectures, while dismissing IRS measurements on Earth, for the lack of the expansion of the universe sadly confirms that physics is on its death bed of truly rotten crack-pottery.

In any case when ignoring your obviously lack of knowledge or intentionally false descriptions above, the supporters of an expanding universe has quite a lot of observational evidence in their favor:

 

Observational evidence

 

Theoretical cosmologists developing models of the universe have drawn upon a small number of reasonable assumptions in their work. These workings have led to models in which the metric expansion of space is a likely feature of the universe. Chief among the underlying principles that result in models including metric expansion as a feature are:

• the Cosmological Principle which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions (isotropic) and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material (homogeneous).
• the Copernican Principle which demands that no place in the universe is preferred (that is, the universe has no "starting point").

Scientists have tested carefully whether these assumptions are valid and borne out by observation. Observational cosmologists have discovered evidence - very strong in some cases - that supports these assumptions, and as a result, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, scientists have tested the properties of the universe and observation provides compelling confirmation. Sources of this confidence and confirmation include:

• Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion. Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogeneous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
• In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters and superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales.
• The isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle.
• The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems were made. A group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory noticed, by measuring the temperature of a distant intergalactic cloud in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background, that the radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is strong and direct observational evidence for metric expansion.

Taken together, these phenomena overwhelmingly support models that rely on space expanding through a change in metric. Interestingly, it was not until the discovery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave background that more bizarre constructions could be ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an assumption that the universe did not behave as one with the Milky Way sitting at the middle of a fixed-metric with a universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne). Yet before this evidence, many rejected the Milne viewpoint based on the mediocrity principle.

 

The spatial and temporal universality of physical laws was until very recently taken as a fundamental philosophical assumption that is now tested to the observational limits of time and space.

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

[MigL]

Good write-up Spyman.

Seems like whenever a newbie asks a question all the crackpots come out and pounce with their 'off-the-beaten-path' ideas.

Good to have people like you and ACG52 keeping it real.

[Dekan]

This "Dark Energy" (DE) is very interesting. It apparently has the negative force, to make huge objects, like galaxies, fly apart from each other in grand and spectacular fashion - completely defying Gravity!

 

This would be highly useful on Earth. Even if used on a smaller scale. For example, in the aircraft industry, or in building. The engineering and architectural advantages are clear. And for sport and leisure.

 

Will scientific research enable us to control and exploit this "DE"? Or should we re-investigate the possibilities of negative-weight Phlogiston.

 

Phlogiston in the 18th Century. Dark Energy in the 21st. Both equally absurd. Nothing really changes, does it?

Edited December 7, 2012 by Dekan

[Dekan]

I agree that Phlogiston wasn't really absurd. It was a rational theory. After all, why shouldn't "negative weight" exist, as far as physics is concerned.

 

Lavoisier's physical weighing experiments didn't do the theory in. What made phlogiston redundant, was the superior oxygen-combustion theory. Which was really a chemical explanation.

 

So maybe Dark Matter could be best explained by chemists? Or is that heresy!

[Mordecai]

It is pretty clear that the universe is expanding because of the galaxies moving away from one another. But how does that work? I read that is what dark matter or dark energy does. I'm curious how dark energy could use gravity as a repulsive force, or is there another idea of how this might be happening?

 

 

The expansion of the universe is a hypothetical view implying a return to the middle ages with Earth at the center of the universe because the hypothetical expansion and the hypothetical acceleration of the expansion are the same for the same distance in all radial directions from Earth.

 

Additionally, R.M. Santilli has established experimentally, the lack of expansion via spectrographic measurements according to which the redness of the sun itself at sunset experiences a redshift without any relative motion.

 

In other words, redness of direct sunlight, (that without scattering) and not the redness of the atmosphere (which is indeed due to scattering) constitutes visual, let alone experimental evidence that the universe is not expanding.

 

For measurements conducted on two continents, see this powerpoint:

 

http://www.i-b-r.org/IRS-2012.ppt

 

 

Dears justinater22 and Jdizz,

 

I will try to give you some historical and technical explanations.

 

In 1916, Albert Einstein released his famous field equations of the gravitational field in the framework of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR). In 1917 he tried to apply them to the whole universe. In that framework, he did not originally understand how such equations work. In fact, he thought that the gravitational force should force the universe to collapse. As he was an endorser of the static universe, he inserted the cosmological constant in the field equations in order to stop the supposed collapse of the universe. In 1925, Alexander Friedmann showed that, by assuming the Cosmological Principle, i.e. the universe is homogeneous and isotropic elsewhere and for every observer put in every point (in other words, observers on Earth do not occupy an unusual or privileged location within the universe as a whole, judged as observers of the physical phenomena produced by uniform and universal laws of physics), a the cosmological solution of GTR implies that, differently from what Einstein thought, not only the universe do not collapse, but, instead, it expands. Clearly, in such a solution, it is not absolutely needed that Earth must be at the centre of the universe. In 1929, the Hubble observations of the cosmological redshift were interpreted like effective expansion of the universe and, in such an interpretation, they were found in perfect agreement with the Friedmann's solution of GRT. At that time, Einstein claimed that the introduction of the cosmological constant was the "biggest blunder" of his life. The model by Friedmann was further refined by Lemaitre, Robertson and Walker in the '30 and now is known like the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model. Lemaitre showed that the model starts with a universe of null dimensions and introduced the term "primordial atom". The term "big-bang" was indeed introduced by Fred Hoyle in the '50, but originally it was a derogatory term, as Hoyle was an opposer of the expansion model.

In the latest '60, Hawking and Penrose showed that all the models which are not too much different from the Friedmann model must start from null dimensions (singularity theorems). The assumptions of the singularity theorems are considered reasonable by the majority of the Scientific Community. Hence, the expansion of the universe is a cosmological solution of GRT.

On the other hand, in 1998, Perlmutter, Schmidt, Riess and collaborators, through observations of distant supernovae, found new data which were interpreted like evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Differently from an uniform expansion with constant velocity, the acceleration of the universe is NOT a cosmological solution of GTR. In order to achieve the acceleration of the universe, theorists usually re-insert the cosmological constant in Einstein field equations. The cosmological constant is interpreted like a "Dark Energy", i.e. an intrinsic curvature of the space-time which is not due to the mass-energy of the galaxies, indeed it is due to an unknown negative energy, the "vacuum energy".

The Iso-Relativity Theory by Santilli is a very good and interesting theory which generalizes Special Relativity (which is surely valid in vacuum), in the material mediums. It admits the existence of a redshift, called iso-redshift by Santilli, which is independent by the motion of both of the source and of the observer. Notice that Santilli was not the first theorist who proposed the presence of a redshift independent by the motion of both of the source and of the observer in cosmology, although he was the first theorist, in the end of '70, who proposed a physical explanation of the effect. Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Following after Zwicky in 1935, Edwin Hubble and Richard Tolman compared recessional redshift with a non-recessional one, writing that they:

 

" ... both incline to the opinion, however, that if the red-shift is not due to recessional motion, its explanation will probably involve some quite new physical principles [... and] use of a static Einstein model of the universe, combined with the assumption that the photons emitted by a nebula lose energy on their journey to the observer by some unknown effect, which is linear with distance, and which leads to a decrease in frequency, without appreciable transverse deflection."

 

I think that Santilli's iso-redshift is an intriguing explanation of Zwicky's idea. In all honesty, I do not know if Santilli iso-redshift, i.e. the presence of a redshift independent by the motion of both of the source and of the observer, could really demonstrate the lack of universe's expansion. I think that it should deserve a better attention by the Scientific Community as it could have, in any case, very important implications in cosmology. For example, the age of the universe could be different, the Dark Energy could be not needed, etc.

On the other and, in my opinion, claiming that the Concordance Model, i.e. the Big-Bang Model plus Dark Energy which theoretically arises from GTR plus the cosmological constant, is a dogma is wrong. It is merely a model constructed to explain the cosmological observations which is founded on various assumptions, the correctness of GTR, the validity of the singularity theorem, the presence of the cosmological constant and the absence of a redshift independent by the motion of both of the source and of the observer. I am all in favour of being open minded about alternatives, but they must be properly formulated and plausible scientific proposals. This is the reason because I think that it could be a good thing to carefully compare all the data by Santilli's experiment, according to which the redness of the sun itself at sunset experiences a redshift without any relative motion, with the cosmological data. Maybe we could obtain new insights on cosmology.

[Jdizz]

Thank you for that summary mordecai, I will attempt to explain this with a drawing.

 

For the serious visitor of this post, that I am sure is the silent majority, I would like again, reproduce the powerpoint summary of lecture's delivered by R.M.Santilli at the 2012 seminal course on the island of Kos, Greece, that I personally attended.

The scientific evidence is crushing for the Doppler interpretation of Hubble's law that would imply Earth at the center of the universe, I beg the moderator for our own dignity as American scientists, vis a vis, in face of the world, to trash comments that lack serious technical content, generally proffered by trolls with sinister minds that will derail scientific evidence for personal gains.

 

 

1. Assume any desired geometry, including spherical geometries, provided they have a local Euclidean geometry in the tangent plane to conform with Hubble's law;

2. Assume that Earth is at position E of the figure and a far away galaxy is at position G;

3. Consider two sets of circles as in the figure with radii R_1, R_2 = 2 R_1 each set concentric with E and G in such a way that the larger circles intersects E and G as shown;

4. Consider two galaxies, one on circle R_1, and the other on circle R_2 from Earth with related cosmological redshifts z_1 and z_2.

5. Confirm that, for the case of an accelerated expansion (that is, from Hubble's law, the cosmological redshift is proportional to the distance from Earth thus implying an acceleration due to the increase of the speed with the distance), when measured from Earth the two redshifts z_1 and z_2 are given from Hubble's law z_2 = 2 z_1, but when measured with respect to Galaxy G, they are the same, z-1 = z_2 because the related galaxies are located on the same circle around the Galaxy G, thus having the same distance from G and, consequently, having the same redshift with respect to G, again, from Hubble's laws.

CONCLUSIONS:
According to Hubble's law, the cosmological redshift is proportional to the distance from Earth in all directions in space. As a consequence, the cosmological redshifts measured from Earth are solely and specifically valid for Earth and cannot possibly be the same for other regions of the universe.

Hence, the current astrophysical measurements of cosmological redshifts, when interpreted as being due to the Doppler's effect (motion of galaxies away from Earth), necessarily imply Earth at the center of the universe. The sole known way to avoid a return to the Middle Ages is the dismissal of the expansion itself, let alone the dismissal of the acceleration of the expansion.

In turn, the only way to achieve this result is Zwicky's idea of Tired Light (light losing energy to intergalactic gases), not realized according to the original scattering origin (that would imply galaxies to be essentially invisible to us), but according to the mechanism of IsoRedShift which has been experimentally verified on Earth.

[WorriedLad]

After reading the various pots in the topic, I must agree with Santilli. As he recalls, one century of astrophysical measurements have established Hubble's law according to which the cosmological redshift is proportional to the distance of galaxies from Earth, thus being the same for all galaxies having the same distance from Earth IN ALL RADIAL DIRECTIONS FROM EARTH.

When (and only when) this experimental evidence is interpreted via the hypothetical validity of the Doppler's shift law within intergalactic physical media (already disproved for physical media on Earth....), it implies, firstly, the conjecture that the universe is expanding and secondly, the additional conjecture that the expansion is accelerating because it increases with the distance from Earth due to the proportionality of the cosmological redshift from the distance.

Besides all sort of consistency problems, Santilli's points out the absence in refereed papers of any hypothesis on the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ENERGY needed to accelerate billions of galaxies for billions of years all the way to incredible speeds (something totally unexplained by the ultra conjecture of dark energy). thus suggesting a moment of reflection on all these unverifiable conjectures followed by conjectures, complemented by additional unverifiable conjectures, etc., all resulting in true fringe science.

The consequential return to the Middle Ages from Hubble's law with Earth at the center of the universe is simply beyond scientific doubts because the expansion and its acceleration have to occur necessarily ALONG ALL POSSIBLE RADIAL DIRECTIONS FROM EARTH.

In the above quoted lecture (which I attended) and the related diagram, Santilli simply clarified that Earth at the center of the universe occurs for whatever geometry you wish to concoct for the universe (including the hyperbola that space itself is expansion), since you need in any case a locally Euclidean tangent plane as a necessary condition to conform with redshift measurements.

Additionally, Santilli clarified that the measured numerical values of cosmological redshifts and their increases with the distance solely occur for Earth since they cannot possibly occur for other observers in the universe, namely, cosmological redshifts are all different for different observers in the universe.

In this way, the MEASUREMENTS of the cosmological redshift remain 100% real, but their hypothetical INTERPRETATION as due to the EXPANSION of the universe is a pure theology disproved in any case by his measurements of the IsoRedShift of the Sun at Sunset without any relative motion, due to the measured loss of energy by light to the medium (and not due to scattering as per the Tired Light).

under such a clear evidence, "physicists" who remain glued to the the theology that the expansion is the same for all observers in the universe, thus believing the cosmological redshift for a given galaxy is the same everywhere in the universe,
EITHER
have been brainwashed by patented crooks
OR
are patented crooks

It papers that dripto bisvas is in good faith, thus deserving respect, but I fear he/she may have been brainwashed to serve hidden agendas because, for his/her theology to pass the boundary of fringe science and become serious science, I have to accept Santilli's request recalled in my preceding post according to which he/she has first to identify the origin of the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ENERGY needed to accelerate billions of galaxies for billions of years all the way to currently believed extreme speeds. Note that, in the event dark energy provides the needed energy, it should have disappeared billions of years ago.

Independently from all that, there are serious difficulties for a serious acceptance of Einstein's GR and the Riemannian geometry for the large scale dynamics of the universe because the gravitational force between galaxies is expected to be virtually null due to the very large mutual distances.

Therefore, it appears I am being asked by "science preachers" first to accept the hyperbolic and unverifiable conjecture of the expansion of the universe, then accept the additional hyperbolic conjecture of the acceleration of the expansion, then accept the further unbelievable, ultra hyperbolic conjecture that space itself is expanding, then I am asked to accept the unbelievable conjecture of the big bang (all implying Earth at the center of the universe). And now in addition to all that, dripto bisvas asks me to believe in the incredible conjecture that the universe is filled up with an invisible form of energy outside any physical reality and, then, in addition to all this huge concoction of unverifiable conjectures, dripto bisvas asks me to believe in yet an additional unverifiable conjecture that dark energy creates the missing gravitational attraction between galaxies so as to please Einstein's fanatics and, then yet in addition dripto bisvas asks me to believe in some hypothetical unverified gravitational solution which is ad hoc set to counterbalance like a rubber band said hypothetical gravitational attraction and actually create the acceleration of the expansion, and then after all this huge concoction, dripto bisvas asks me to look for yet an additional ultra hyperbolic conjecture of some totally unreal events producing the immense energy needed for the continuous acceleration of billions of galaxies for billions and billions of years. Ladies and Gentlemen, is there any serious scientist out these besides Santilli and his associates who at least questions the credibility of this unbelievable concoction of pure fringe science? particularly after knowing that all that has been disproved by the IRS measurements repeated by now in two continents by various independent groups as reported by others?

[ACG52]

 

According to Hubble's law, the cosmological redshift is proportional to the distance from Earth in all directions in space. As a consequence, the cosmological redshifts measured from Earth are solely and specifically valid for Earth and cannot possibly be the same for other regions of the universe.

 

 

 

No the redshift is proportional to the distance from any point in the universe, not just Earth.

[WorriedLad]

WorriedLad stated

According to Hubble's law, the cosmological redshift is proportional to the distance from Earth in all directions in space. As a consequence, the cosmological redshifts measured from Earth are solely and specifically valid for Earth and cannot possibly be the same for other regions of the universe.

 

ACG52 commented

 

No the redshift is proportional to the distance from any point in the universe, not just Earth.

 

This is a purely personal opinion that should be respected when presented as such. By contrast this senior poster presents his personal belief as a physical reality occurring throughout the universe, thus doing theology or fringe science. As well known to serious physicists, the only measurements of the proportionality of the redshift from the distance are those done from Earth. That is serious science.

 

Besides, rather than disproving it, this senior poster mimics lack of inspection of Santilli's diagram posted above by Jdizz establishing beyond possible doubts that the values of redshifts measured from Earth CANNOT be the same for another regions of the universe.

 

Dreaming of doling science via the old trick that, following continued ignorance, dissident evidence eventually disappears for the unspoken aim of maintaining (and abusing) Einstein for personal objectives, is obscurantism very damaging the originators and to American science.

 

[ACG52]

This is a purely personal opinion that should be respected when presented as such. By contrast this senior poster presents his personal belief as a physical reality occurring throughout the universe, thus doing theology or fringe science. As well known to serious physicists, the only measurements of the proportionality of the redshift from the distance are those done from Earth. That is serious science.

 

 

 

Any real physicst also know the theories, it's predictions, and it's confirmations.

[Spyman]

What is a problem in my calculated result?

By my calculation, we can not see 13 billion years ago.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70250-shouldnt-the-universe-be-slowing-down-in-expansion/page-2#entry713048

I am sorry alpha2cen, but I don't understand your calculations, pictures and question.

 

Further more, this thread is not the correct place to ask questions from another thread.

 

I suggest you start fresh in a new thread for your question with a more detailed explanation.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

This thread is not the place for every crank to air out their own ideas about the universe; it is about JDizz's idea only. Could the numerous people who have jumped onto this thread to hijack it with their own speculations please stop and allow the thread to get back on track.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Some posts have been split off to try and clean this up so discussion can proceed.