Starship Asterisk*

mark swain wrote:Unless this quote: By (Brian Greene)

By contrast, the question of dark energy is wide open. What is its origin? What determined its quantity? Does the amount stay constant or vary? These are critical questions. Calculations show that if the amount of dark energy had been slightly larger, the universe would have blown apart so quickly that life as we know it could not exist.

Chris Peterson wrote:To be clear, since the quote is slightly out of context, Greene is contrasting dark energy, which is poorly understood, with dark matter, which pretty obviously exists, and which he points out is likely to be conclusively tied to detectable particles in the near future.

Almost all astronomers now believe that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. It turns out that this common belief is completely false. Those models advocating the idea of an expanding universe are ill-founded on observational grounds. This means that the Hubble recession law is really a working hypothesis. One alternative to the Hubble recession law is the tired-light hypothesis originally proposed by Zwicky (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:773, <CitationRef CitationID="CR28">1929</CitationRef>). This hypothesis leads to a universe that is an eternal cosmos continually evolving without beginning or end. Such a universe exists in a dynamical state of virial equilibrium. Observational studies of the redshift-magnitude relation for Type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies might provide the best observational test for a tired-light cosmology. The present study shows that the model Hubble diagram for a tired-light cosmology gives good agreement with the supernovae data for redshifts in the range 0<z<2. This observational test of a static cosmology shows that the real universe is not necessarily undergoing expansion nor acceleration.

harry wrote:It seems we have a CHRIS Universe and if we have any alternative ideas to the Standard are wrong and should not be discussed.

harry wrote:Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Jul-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s10509-009-0057-z

harry wrote:If I did not post these papers to offer a science opinion we would be left with an opion based on whatever is going round and round.

Almost all astronomers now believe that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. It turns out that this common belief is completely false. Those models advocating the idea of an expanding universe are ill-founded on observational grounds. This means that the Hubble recession law is really a working hypothesis. One alternative to the Hubble recession law is the tired-light hypothesis originally proposed by Zwicky (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:773, <CitationRef CitationID="CR28">1929</CitationRef>). This hypothesis leads to a universe that is an eternal cosmos continually evolving without beginning or end. Such a universe exists in a dynamical state of virial equilibrium. Observational studies of the redshift-magnitude relation for Type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies might provide the best observational test for a tired-light cosmology. The present study shows that the model Hubble diagram for a tired-light cosmology gives good agreement with the supernovae data for redshifts in the range 0<z<2. This observational test of a static cosmology shows that the real universe is not necessarily undergoing expansion nor acceleration.

harry wrote:Mainstream is sometimes used as a word to cover or to enforce science without facts.

Lets look at:
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Jul-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s10509-009-0057-z

Doum wrote:Quote from Harry: "You read my words out of context."

Harry, 2 years ago i told you that you were babling and i still think that you are.

Doum wrote:When will you convince them (Your follower if you have any i mean) to go to an asteroid passing close to earth by killing them all ( So they can join ...?) You are a non sense....

The present paper outlines a cosmological paradigm based upon Dirac’s large number hypothesis and continual creation of matter in a closed static (nonexpanding) universe. The cosmological redshift is caused by the tired-light phenomenon originally proposed by Zwicky. It is shown that the tired-light cosmology together with continual matter creation has a universal Hubble constant H 0=(512 π 2/3)1/6( GC 0)1/3 fixed by the universal rate C 0 of matter creation, where G is Newton’s gravitational constant. It is also shown that a closed static universe has a finite age τ 0=(243 π 5/8 GC 0)1/3 also fixed by the universal rate of matter creation. The invariant relationship H 0 τ 0=3 π 261/2 shows that a closed static universe is much older (≈one trillion years) than any expanding universe model based upon Big-Bang cosmology. It is this property of a static universe that resolves any cosmic age crisis provided that galaxy formation in the universe is a continual recurring process. Application of Dirac’s large number hypothesis gives a matter creation rate C 0=4.6×10‑48 gm cm‑3 s‑1 depending only on the fundamental constants of nature. Hence, the model shows that a closed static universe has a Hubble constant H 0=70 km s‑1 Mpc‑1 in good agreement with recent astronomical determinations of H 0. By using the above numerical value for H 0 together with observational data for elongated cellular-wall structures containing superclusters of galaxies, it is shown that the elongated cellular-wall configurations observed in the real universe are at least one hundred billion years old. Application of the microscopic laws of physics to the large-scale macroscopic universe leads to a static eternal cosmos endowed with a matter-antimatter symmetry. It is proposed that the matter-antimatter asymmetry is continuously created by particle-antiparticle pair annihilation occurring in episodic cosmological gamma-ray bursts observed in the real universe.

harry wrote:So I do not agree with the expanding universe.

So what!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space wrote:It is also possible for a distance to exceed the speed of light times the age of the universe, which means that light from one part of space generated near the beginning of the Universe might still be arriving at distant locations (hence the cosmic microwave background radiation). These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.[1]

Perhaps a more complete assessment is that the interpretation of the metric expansion of space continues to provide paradoxes that are still a matter of debate. The prevailing view is that of Chodorowski: "unlike the expansion of the cosmic substratum, the expansion of space is unobservable".

mark swain wrote:Chodorowski ... cosmic substratum