8
   

Universe not expanding

 
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2014 06:44 am
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130610-903915.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 1,862 • Replies: 56
No top replies

 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2014 06:58 am
@gungasnake,

0 Replies
 
newstep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2014 12:13 pm
@gungasnake,
I thought it contracts and expands.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2014 11:06 pm
@newstep,
The idea of an expanding universe was based on a particular interpretation of cosmic redshift, which has been shown to have been wrong.
carloslebaron
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2014 08:45 am
OK, lets review the consequences.

Having that the universe is not expanding, then, Einstein's ideas based on imaginations are proved false one more time. The observation of stars/galaxies traveling faster than light was "justified" with the idea that the universe was expanding. Without this "justification" the statement of Einstein is proved false.

The "anti-gravity" phenomenon in the universe is also disregarded.

The biblical statement that god expanded the heavens with his hand appears not to be affected because the verb is in preterit and it doesn't mean that god still is expanding the universe but that such was a past event.

Reading the article from the link given in the first posting, the organization that made the experiment gave "honor" to Einstein's ideas by keeping the axioms made by this famous individual. Reality is that after his "photo-electric" this dude Einstein showed his true mentality of a guy who suffered retardation, autism and/or Attention Deficit Disorder (Recent studies show that he suffered on or more of these three conditions).

His new ideas after the photo-electric became not only imaginations but fantasies, like saying that time is flexible to the point of being affected by the motion of objects or the gravity of bodies. Even when "numbers in a piece of paper" can fit the observation, a true theory of science -according to the scientific method- must show the mechanism that is acting in the phenomenon. The hypothesis of relativity never presented any mechanism of how time is affected, by consequence, the lunatic ideas of Einstein are not even science.

(By the way, clocks themselves are affected by changes in the environment that surrounds them, and instead of "time dilatation" the affected data given of these devices is caused by malfunction when exposed to an environment different to the one where the clocks were calibrated)

There is no reason of trying to "survive" as a valid organization working on science with this action of kissing the butts of relativists -who control the media in science to protect their fantasy of relativity-. The experiment itself proves Einstein as a complete idiot, his theories are false because time doesn't exist as a physical entity but is merely a measurement as it is weight, volume, longitude, etc.

The experiment is great and won't be rare that relativists will try to diminish it one of these days, as soon as people starts to realize that Einstein was not a genius but a retarded dude with zero knowledge about reality but with lots and lots of imagination.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2015 10:26 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The idea of an expanding universe was based on a particular interpretation of cosmic redshift, which has been shown to have been wrong.
     Yes, besides the 'expansion' of the Universe, the red shift may have a lot of other plausible explanations - like for example blue shift in (shrinking of) the particles with the time, fading away of the photon with the time - nobody could guarantee that the photon will not lose part of its energy after 'hanging up in the space' for 14.28 BN years ... especially when passing over a distance of 14.28 light years (in non-ideal vacuum and non-zero gravity).
0 Replies
 
Hillrowie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2016 11:53 pm
@carloslebaron,
Don't knock Einstein, most of his ideas worked out great. He stated many times that he was not happy with his cosmological constant or the red shift/expanding universe theories as well. Knock the people who took his IDEAS as gospel. And how is atomic clock affected by a change of environment?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2016 04:12 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

The idea of an expanding universe was based on a particular interpretation of cosmic redshift, which has been shown to have been wrong.

No it hasn't. It's been speculated to be wrong, not shown to be wrong. There's a big difference between speculated and shown.
Olli S
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2017 01:28 pm
@rosborne979,
What can be an plausible explanation of the red shift without expansion?
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2017 02:08 pm
The universe just tells itself it's not expanding, and its pants are getting tighter because someone washed them in hot water.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2017 03:46 pm
Quote:
What can be an plausible explanation of the red shift without expansion?


What kind of a mean-spirited schlamozzle would down-vote a post for asking a simple question like that??

Halton Arp has shown multiple instances of pairs of cosmic objects which are clearly joined together, one with high and the other with low redshift values; that totally wrecks the idea of interpreting cosmic redshift as velocity or distance.

Cosmic redshift therefore has to be intrinsic, a property of objects themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyREfCOr-Y0



Olli S
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 02:51 pm
@gungasnake,
Are the foundings of Arp still good? Somebody in a forum said that they are not valuable any more.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 04:42 pm
@Olli S,
I am curious Olli.

The people who have trouble with real science, and who gravitate (pun intended) to scientific fringe theories tend to be religious. They believe in a universe that was created by the Judeo-Christian God and non-standard "science" is necessary to explain where real science diverts from religious texts.

Do you fit in this category Olli?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 05:34 pm
@Olli S,
Olli S wrote:
What can be an plausible explanation of the red shift without expansion?

Anything that changes the frequency of the light can cause a shift. But the operative word in your question is "plausible", and for that we need an explanation that not only explains the frequency change, but also doesn't conflict with other observations. And I don't know of any theories that do that except the standard idea of Cosmological Expansion.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 05:43 pm
@rosborne979,
The illusion of accelerating cosmic expansion is caused by the fundamental mistake of assuming that simultaneity is relative, as posited by Al's special theory of relativity.

Understanding and accepting that absolute simultaneity, as posited by Lorentz, Poncaire, and many others, is correct eliminates the whole problem.

Quote:
Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration

Abstract

An alternate Lorentz transformation, Absolute Lorentz Transformation (ALT), has similar kinematics to special relativity yet maintains absolute simultaneity in the context of a preferred reference frame. In this study, it is shown that ALT is compatible with current experiments to test Lorentz invariance only if the proposed preferred reference frame is locally equivalent to the Earth-centered non-rotating inertial reference frame, with the inference that in an ALT framework, preferred reference frames are associated with centers of gravitational mass. Applying this theoretical framework to cosmological data produces a scenario of universal time contraction in the past. In this scenario, past time contraction would be associated with increased levels of blueshifted light emissions from cosmological objects when viewed from our current perspective. The observation that distant Type Ia supernovae are dimmer than predicted by linear Hubble expansion currently provides the most direct evidence for an accelerating universe. Adjusting for the effects of time contraction on a redshift–distance modulus diagram produces a linear distribution of supernovae over the full redshift spectrum that is consistent with a non-accelerating universe.


journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 05:48 pm
@Olli S,
Olli S wrote:
Are the foundings of Arp still good? Somebody in a forum said that they are not valuable any more.

Back in the 1960's Arp and a few other astronomers offered differing opinions on the interpretation of data (related to quasars), which they thought might supersede the implication of Cosmological Expansion. However, over the years, as the data accumulated and as our ability to measure distant objects with increasing precision, his interpretation of the data began to diverge more and more from the evidence. Cosmological Expansion however continued to match the evidence with even greater precision. His ideas were never much accepted even back in the 1960, and by the late 70's they had been pretty much dismissed due to lack of support of fundamental evidence.

Today they are accepted only by a fringe group of pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists desperate to cling to any alternative to the Standard Model they can find, no matter how weak the evidence is.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 05:51 pm
@layman,
This is one of the newer theories floating around lately, isn't it? I thought I read that it had more conflicts with evidence than it has places that fit. Can you provide the source for the quote you gave.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 05:58 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

This is one of the newer theories floating around lately, isn't it? I thought I read that it had more conflicts with evidence than it has places that fit. Can you provide the source for the quote you gave.



Yeah, it's right below the excerpt quoting the abstract, eh. Roz?

PS: It looks like you have to cut and paste it--unless I copied it wrong. I'll try again here:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550

Yeah, that link works---I missed the http part the first time.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 06:00 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Olli S wrote:
What can be an plausible explanation of the red shift without expansion?

Anything that changes the frequency of the light can cause a shift. But the operative word in your question is "plausible", and for that we need an explanation that not only explains the frequency change, but also doesn't conflict with other observations. And I don't know of any theories that do that except the standard idea of Cosmological Expansion.


This is exactly right. We do have plausible explanations as well.

We know that when a phonton moves from a higher gravitational field to a lower field there is redshift seen from the observer on the greater field side of the event. This means frequency dies shift due to gravity.

Dark matter (in my opinion) is gravitational lag. A large mass in motion leaves behind it a wake of gravity that lags behind the object due to gravity being limited to the speed of light. This might seem minute however massive objects can expert gravity fields over many light years in diameter.

As a photon passes into these gravity wakes it is effected by change in trajectory which ultimately stretches its frequency. The further a photon travels the more its frequency is shifted towards the red due to this fact.

The ONLY reason we have not adjusted expansion hypothesis is because we have not correctly deduced dark matter to be nothing more than a gravity wake (lag). When cosmologists and physicists finally conclude this the redshift expansion hypothesis will be re-examined to not be the case.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 07:28 pm
@layman,
Do you believe that the Judeo-Christian God created the Universe Layman?

If so, maybe you can answer my question.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Universe not expanding
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/29/2017 at 11:24:39