So Le Sage particles as carrier of EM radiation simplifies a lot
and no extra silly dimensions needed like many universes some
in which you have 3 legs... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
I could be wrong, but its the simplest answer.
Dear Jan Panteltje:
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 12:40:43 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote: ...
So Le Sage particles as carrier of EM radiation simplifies a lot
and no extra silly dimensions needed like many universes some
in which you have 3 legs... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
I could be wrong, but its the simplest answer.
Here is the thing... you MUST have at least 11 dimensions, even if they are compactified. Spacetime is 4, charge is one more, quantum spin, quantum color, and so on. So a quest to reduce dimensionality by paving over things is what classical theories always do. It keeps us crippled.
If:
* mass is the product of a quantum number and magnetic moment;
* reducing physical size of a system reduces its magnetic moment;
* photons interfere with themselves when they pass on both sides of a planet; then
... the LeSage particles are the sea of "propagating photons", no matter where situate.
Gravitational potential energy conversion to kinetic energy then is just reducing the physical size of the system, and the energy comes from "scattering" light (and matter for that matter) passing transverse to the "midpoint" of the system in every location in the Universe. The vector component is altered, but the magnitude is not. The "energy" comes from that stored in the system's magnetic moment.
Or not...
David A. Smith
On Dec 29, 2021, dlzc wrote on sci.astro:
(in article<3fc0795e-1bfe-4ae5-82b8-5fa5dd476603n@googlegroups.com>):
Dear Jan Panteltje:
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 12:40:43 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote: >> ...
So Le Sage particles as carrier of EM radiation simplifies a lot
and no extra silly dimensions needed like many universes some
in which you have 3 legs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
I could be wrong, but its the simplest answer.
Here is the thing... you MUST have at least 11 dimensions, even if they are >> compactified. Spacetime is 4, charge is one more, quantum spin, quantum
color, and so on. So a quest to reduce dimensionality by paving over things >> is what classical theories always do. It keeps us crippled.
If:
* mass is the product of a quantum number and magnetic moment;
* reducing physical size of a system reduces its magnetic moment;
* photons interfere with themselves when they pass on both sides of a planet;
then
... the LeSage particles are the sea of "propagating photons", no matter
where situate.
Gravitational potential energy conversion to kinetic energy then is just
reducing the physical size of the system, and the energy comes from
"scattering" light (and matter for that matter) passing transverse to the
"midpoint" of the system in every location in the Universe. The vector
component is altered, but the magnitude is not. The "energy" comes from that >> stored in the system's magnetic moment.
Or not...
David A. Smith
I copied this to sci.physics soJan Panteltje will see it,
since dlzc posted just to sci.astro .
I’ll have to look into the LeSage theory, but not tonight.
--
David Dalton dalton@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
On a sunny day (Wed, 29 Dec 2021 02:04:17 -0330) it happened David Dalton <da.com> wrote in
<0001HW....>:
On Dec 21, 2021, Jan Panteltje wrote on sci.physics
(in article 1...@>):
Are black holes and dark matter the same?
https://www.scienc..../2021/12/211220120813.htm
From a post by me on January 5, 1995 on the.
Ni text :-)
In the above the small bright flame is the 3-D intersectionThere is string theory, a mathematical journey to explain everything by adding
and the tall dark candle is in higher dimensions, I think.
ever more dimensions (if I got it right).
My job was fault finding in complex systems (electronics) for many years..
I cannot help seeing faults in today's physics.
If you look at gravity and electromagnetism and the fact the physics current hero Albert E.
could not unite those:
how about if Le Sage theory is basically (I say basically because many had a go at it and failed
or ran into contradictions) was right and electromagnetism is just a state of the Le Sage particle?
I have read gravity moves at the speed of light, now that IS a clue.
When we found out how the atom works (electrons spinning around a core) things became a lot simpler
when we found that the planets orbited the sun things became a lot simpler (epicycles fell).
So Le Sage particles as carrier of EM radiation simplifies a lot
and no extra silly dimensions needed like many universes some in which you have 3 legs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
I could be wrong, but its the simplest answer.
On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 07:40:43 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 29 Dec 2021 02:04:17 -0330) it happened David Dalton<da.com> wrote in
<0001HW....>:ever more dimensions (if I got it right).
On Dec 21, 2021, Jan Panteltje wrote on sci.physics
(in article 1...@>):
Are black holes and dark matter the same?
https://www.scienc..../2021/12/211220120813.htm
From a post by me on January 5, 1995 on the.
Ni text :-)
In the above the small bright flame is the 3-D intersectionThere is string theory, a mathematical journey to explain everything by adding
and the tall dark candle is in higher dimensions, I think.
My job was fault finding in complex systems (electronics) for many years.. >>I cannot help seeing faults in today's physics.
If you look at gravity and electromagnetism and the fact the physics current >hero Albert E.became a lot simpler
could not unite those:
how about if Le Sage theory is basically (I say basically because many had >a go at it and failed
or ran into contradictions) was right and electromagnetism is just a state >of the Le Sage particle?
I have read gravity moves at the speed of light, now that IS a clue.
When we found out how the atom works (electrons spinning around a core) things
when we found that the planets orbited the sun things became a lot simpler >(epicycles fell).
So Le Sage particles as carrier of EM radiation simplifies a lot
and no extra silly dimensions needed like many universes some in which you >have 3 legs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
I could be wrong, but its the simplest answer.
Lesage will never work because it=E2=80=99s particulate. I think LeSage will >work without any of the
Problems noted in wiki or by its critics elsewhere if we assume that LeSage >is emr. And
that emr is wave only. Not hard considering there is no evidence for emr now >that
cannot be explained using waves. (All observed Particle paths including pos/neg
straight,curved
and spiral now seen in colliders can also be modelled by using
just 3
overlapping wavefronts. And we know for centuries that atoms, ie protons, >emit
emr radiation.If you have cgi software you can simulate all these
types of CERN paths with just 3 overlapping wavefronts.)
So for instance one big problem with LeSage as a particulate theory is the atom
gains
mass over time. Using push waves only, gets rid of this problem and solves >many
others. Including explaining the fundamental forces. This is done by
having
the Push wave gravity that is coming from *any one direction*
and incident on the atom, pass straight through the atom. Except for a small >part of
that push wave gravity which interacts and pushes the atom in that same direction.
But
most importantly, this part of the wave energy still passes through the
atom.
But is *reradiated isotropically in all directions*. Explaining the strong >repulsive
force between atoms. (As well as magnetism)
On a sunny day (Thu, 30 Dec 2021 03:03:26 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou <noewrote inInteresting reference. Thank you.. It’s close to what I am saying. In
<1abfb5d4-e3d2.com>:
On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 07:40:43 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 29 Dec 2021 02:04:17 -0330) it happened David Dalton >><da.com> wrote in
<0001HW....>:ever more dimensions (if I got it right).
On Dec 21, 2021, Jan Panteltje wrote on sci.physics
(in article 1...@>):
Are black holes and dark matter the same?
https://www.scienc..../2021/12/211220120813.htm
From a post by me on January 5, 1995 on the.
Ni text :-)
In the above the small bright flame is the 3-D intersectionThere is string theory, a mathematical journey to explain everything by adding
and the tall dark candle is in higher dimensions, I think.
My job was fault finding in complex systems (electronics) for many years..I cannot help seeing faults in today's physics.
If you look at gravity and electromagnetism and the fact the physics currenthero Albert E.
could not unite those:a go at it and failed
how about if Le Sage theory is basically (I say basically because many had
or ran into contradictions) was right and electromagnetism is just a stateof the Le Sage particle?
I have read gravity moves at the speed of light, now that IS a clue.became a lot simpler
When we found out how the atom works (electrons spinning around a core) things
when we found that the planets orbited the sun things became a lot simpler(epicycles fell).
So Le Sage particles as carrier of EM radiation simplifies a lothave 3 legs...
and no extra silly dimensions needed like many universes some in which you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
I could be wrong, but its the simplest answer.
Lesage will never work because it=E2=80=99s particulate. I think LeSage will >work without any of theA while back somebody from CERN (Jeroen Belleman IIRC) pointed me to a paper that
Problems noted in wiki or by its critics elsewhere if we assume that LeSage >is emr. And
that emr is wave only. Not hard considering there is no evidence for emr now
that
cannot be explained using waves. (All observed Particle paths including pos/neg
straight,curved
and spiral now seen in colliders can also be modelled by using
just 3
overlapping wavefronts. And we know for centuries that atoms, ie protons, >emit
emr radiation.If you have cgi software you can simulate all these
types of CERN paths with just 3 overlapping wavefronts.)
So for instance one big problem with LeSage as a particulate theory is the atom
gains
mass over time. Using push waves only, gets rid of this problem and solves >many
others. Including explaining the fundamental forces. This is done by >having
the Push wave gravity that is coming from *any one direction*
and incident on the atom, pass straight through the atom. Except for a small
part of
that push wave gravity which interacts and pushes the atom in that same direction.
But
most importantly, this part of the wave energy still passes through the >atom.
But is *reradiated isotropically in all directions*. Explaining the strong >repulsive
force between atoms. (As well as magnetism)
explains _all_ particles we now know as resonances in a cavity http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf
(51p, 3.3MB).
He does the math for all? the stuff CERN found.
The amazing thing is that the math works!
Reading the abstract on page 1 is interesting even without going into the
On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 12:15:00 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 30 Dec 2021 03:03:26 -0800 (PST)) it happened Louwill
<noewrote in
<1abfb5d4-e3d2.com>:
On Wednesday, 29 December 2021 at 07:40:43 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 29 Dec 2021 02:04:17 -0330) it happened David Dalton >>
<da.com> wrote in
<0001HW....>:ever more dimensions (if I got it right).
On Dec 21, 2021, Jan Panteltje wrote on sci.physics
(in article 1...@>):
Are black holes and dark matter the same?
https://www.scienc..../2021/12/211220120813.htm
From a post by me on January 5, 1995 on the.
Ni text :-)
In the above the small bright flame is the 3-D intersectionThere is string theory, a mathematical journey to explain everything by >adding
and the tall dark candle is in higher dimensions, I think.
My job was fault finding in complex systems (electronics) for many years..
I cannot help seeing faults in today's physics.
If you look at gravity and electromagnetism and the fact the physics current
hero Albert E.
could not unite those:a go at it and failed
how about if Le Sage theory is basically (I say basically because many >had
or ran into contradictions) was right and electromagnetism is just a state
of the Le Sage particle?
I have read gravity moves at the speed of light, now that IS a clue.
When we found out how the atom works (electrons spinning around a core) >things
became a lot simpler
when we found that the planets orbited the sun things became a lot simpler
(epicycles fell).
So Le Sage particles as carrier of EM radiation simplifies a lothave 3 legs...
and no extra silly dimensions needed like many universes some in which >you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
I could be wrong, but its the simplest answer.
Lesage will never work because it=3DE2=3D80=3D99s particulate. I think LeSage
reference. Thank you.. It=E2=80=99s close to what I am saying. Inwork without any of theis emr. And
Problems noted in wiki or by its critics elsewhere if we assume that LeSage >>
that emr is wave only. Not hard considering there is no evidence for emr >now
that
cannot be explained using waves. (All observed Particle paths including pos/neg
straight,curved
and spiral now seen in colliders can also be modelled by usingemit
just 3
overlapping wavefronts. And we know for centuries that atoms, ie protons, >>
emr radiation.If you have cgi software you can simulate all thesemany
types of CERN paths with just 3 overlapping wavefronts.)
So for instance one big problem with LeSage as a particulate theory is the >atom
gains
mass over time. Using push waves only, gets rid of this problem and solves >>
others. Including explaining the fundamental forces. This is done by
having
the Push wave gravity that is coming from *any one direction*
and incident on the atom, pass straight through the atom. Except for a small
part of
that push wave gravity which interacts and pushes the atom in that same direction.
But
most importantly, this part of the wave energy still passes through the
atom.
But is *reradiated isotropically in all directions*. Explaining the strong >>repulsive
force between atoms. (As well as magnetism)A while back somebody from CERN (Jeroen Belleman IIRC) pointed me to a paper >that
explains _all_ particles we now know as resonances in a cavity
http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf
(51p, 3.3MB).
He does the math for all? the stuff CERN found.
The amazing thing is that the math works!
Reading the abstract on page 1 is interesting even without going into the >Interesting
that
he suggests the vacuum only has one property which is its
ability to hold at any time one or more magnetic polarities at any point in >space.
And from this assumption one can model particles, emr waves, gravity, magnetic >Fields
of atoms, strong force etc.
But he makes a fundamental theoretical error. Modelling particles seen in >CERN
using the maths he supplies cannot be done successfully.
Take for instance two expanding wavefronts from 2 colliding protons >travelling at c.
Where the waves intersect is called an expanding annulus ring.
Add a third expanding wavefront from a third proton involved in the collision >and
this 3rd wave intersects at only *2 points* in space at any one time with
the
expanding annulus ring generated by the 1st two colliding protons.
(I can email you a video attachment of a computer simulation
showing this if you would like)
Over time those *two points* from the 3 expanding wavefronts trace
out only two paths in 3D space.
From which one can replicate all observed curved, straight, spiral and >pos/neg =E2=80=9Cparticle=E2=80=9D paths, depending on the orientation of the >3 expanding waves
relative to each other.
The maths he supplies cannot explain this.
On a sunny day (Fri, 31 Dec 2021 06:52:21 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou <noeuk> wrote in
<05b31.com>:
On Thursday, 30 December 2021 at 12:15:00 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
willever more dimensions (if I got it right).
My job was fault finding in complex systems (electronics) for many years..
I cannot help seeing faults in today's physics.
If you look at gravity and electromagnetism and the fact the physics current
hero Albert E.
could not unite those:a go at it and failed
how about if Le Sage theory is basically (I say basically because many >had
or ran into contradictions) was right and electromagnetism is just a state
of the Le Sage particle?
I have read gravity moves at the speed of light, now that IS a clue. >>When we found out how the atom works (electrons spinning around a core) >things
became a lot simpler
when we found that the planets orbited the sun things became a lot simpler
(epicycles fell).
So Le Sage particles as carrier of EM radiation simplifies a lothave 3 legs...
and no extra silly dimensions needed like many universes some in which >you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
I could be wrong, but its the simplest answer.
Lesage will never work because it=3DE2=3D80=3D99s particulate. I think LeSage
atomwork without any of the
Problems noted in wiki or by its critics elsewhere if we assume that LeSage
is emr. And
that emr is wave only. Not hard considering there is no evidence for emr >now
that
cannot be explained using waves. (All observed Particle paths including pos/neg
straight,curved
and spiral now seen in colliders can also be modelled by using
just 3
overlapping wavefronts. And we know for centuries that atoms, ie protons,
emit
emr radiation.If you have cgi software you can simulate all these
types of CERN paths with just 3 overlapping wavefronts.)
So for instance one big problem with LeSage as a particulate theory is the
thatgains
mass over time. Using push waves only, gets rid of this problem and solves
many
others. Including explaining the fundamental forces. This is done by
having
the Push wave gravity that is coming from *any one direction*
and incident on the atom, pass straight through the atom. Except for a small
part of
that push wave gravity which interacts and pushes the atom in that same direction.
But
most importantly, this part of the wave energy still passes through the >>atom.
But is *reradiated isotropically in all directions*. Explaining the strong
repulsive
force between atoms. (As well as magnetism)A while back somebody from CERN (Jeroen Belleman IIRC) pointed me to a paper
explains _all_ particles we now know as resonances in a cavityreference. Thank you.. It=E2=80=99s close to what I am saying. In
http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf
(51p, 3.3MB).
He does the math for all? the stuff CERN found.
The amazing thing is that the math works!
Reading the abstract on page 1 is interesting even without going into the >Interesting
that
he suggests the vacuum only has one property which is its
ability to hold at any time one or more magnetic polarities at any point in >space.
And from this assumption one can model particles, emr waves, gravity, magnetic
Fields
of atoms, strong force etc.
But he makes a fundamental theoretical error. Modelling particles seen in >CERN
using the maths he supplies cannot be done successfully.
Take for instance two expanding wavefronts from 2 colliding protons >travelling at c.
Where the waves intersect is called an expanding annulus ring.
Add a third expanding wavefront from a third proton involved in the collision
and
this 3rd wave intersects at only *2 points* in space at any one time with >the
expanding annulus ring generated by the 1st two colliding protons.
(I can email you a video attachment of a computer simulation
showing this if you would like)
Over time those *two points* from the 3 expanding wavefronts traceIndeed there are limitations in his reasoning I think.
out only two paths in 3D space.
From which one can replicate all observed curved, straight, spiral and >pos/neg =E2=80=9Cparticle=E2=80=9D paths, depending on the orientation of the
3 expanding waves
relative to each other.
The maths he supplies cannot explain this.
My first impression was he is looking at the perspective of his instruments sort of speaking.
Basically everything CERN measures is measured in a cavity ;-)
Long time ago, in the time of 5 1/4 inch floppies, I wrote a simulation for Le Sage for a 3 body system
and was amazed it worked!
I no longer have that code, but the idea seems solid.
As to that things we observe, like internal heating of planets
like for example Pluto seems to be warmer than it should be due to its large distance from the sun...?
I wrote
Here is the thing... you MUST have at least 11 dimensions, even if they are
compactified. Spacetime is 4, charge is one more, quantum spin, quantum
color, and so on. So a quest to reduce dimensionality by paving over things
is what classical theories always do. It keeps us crippled.
OK, if you want to call those properties 'dimensions', sure.
Is the color of a snooker ball a dimension?
I'd call it a property... but
Le Sage particles could have states like we have spin and charge,
even have a more complex structure.
I copied this to sci.physics soJan Panteltje will see it,
since dlzc posted just to sci.astro .
Dear Jan Panteltje:
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 10:48:44 PM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
I wrote
Here is the thing... you MUST have at least 11 dimensions, even if they are
compactified. Spacetime is 4, charge is one more, quantum spin, quantum >> >> color, and so on. So a quest to reduce dimensionality by paving over things
is what classical theories always do. It keeps us crippled.
OK, if you want to call those properties 'dimensions', sure.
Is the color of a snooker ball a dimension?
I'd call it a property... but
Le Sage particles could have states like we have spin and charge,
even have a more complex structure.
Pauli exclusion extends across space. That would put the lie to "property".
I copied this to sci.physics soJan Panteltje will see it,
since dlzc posted just to sci.astro .
Google Groups only permits response to one newsgroup.
David A. Smith
On a sunny day (Mon, 3 Jan 2022 06:13:41 -0800 (PST)) it happened dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote in...
OK, if you want to call those properties 'dimensions', sure.
Is the color of a snooker ball a dimension?
I'd call it a property... but
Le Sage particles could have states like we have spin and charge,
even have a more complex structure.
Pauli exclusion extends across space. That would put the
lie to "property".
Not sure what you mean by that..
There is an other very strong argument for Le Sage
IF the Le Sage particles originate in for example black holes,
then the 'universe' as we know it would expand ever faster,
Big question is of course IF Le Sage type of particles exist,
_where_ do those come from?
I did think at some moment perhaps in processes in stars
and posted that to I think it was sci.physics
That was long ago, and somebody then objected with:
"If that was true then the universe would expand ever faster
(push itself outwards)"
A year or so later it was shown the universe indeed does
expand ever faster. I like predictive theories.
I copied this to sci.physics soJan Panteltje will see it,
since dlzc posted just to sci.astro .
Google Groups only permits response to one newsgroup.
I wrote my own newsreader back around 1999 and am still
using it, see headers.
Dear Jan Panteltje:
On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 7:37:19 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 3 Jan 2022 06:13:41 -0800 (PST)) it happened dlzc...
<dl...@cox.net> wrote in
OK, if you want to call those properties 'dimensions', sure.
Is the color of a snooker ball a dimension?
I'd call it a property... but
Le Sage particles could have states like we have spin and charge,
even have a more complex structure.
Pauli exclusion extends across space. That would put the
lie to "property".
Not sure what you mean by that..
Pauli exclusion controls "state" across an atom or molecule. So what does "property"
affected over distance mean, if itself is not a dimension?
There is an other very strong argument for Le Sage
IF the Le Sage particles originate in for example black holes,
then the 'universe' as we know it would expand ever faster,
It inflated, came to a near standstill for 12 billion years, then began to accelerate.
Ostensibly, the number of black holes "decreased" (evaporation
of low-mass primordials, and mergers), if the mass involved probably increased.
All
the while, "G" has not changed in the last 2 billion or more years that
we can verify (tidal rhythmites).
Big question is of course IF Le Sage type of particles exist,
_where_ do those come from?
I did think at some moment perhaps in processes in stars
and posted that to I think it was sci.physics
That was long ago, and somebody then objected with:
"If that was true then the universe would expand ever faster
(push itself outwards)"
Fails the 12 billion years of near stagnation. As I was originally saying, >the particles in the Universe (you, me, the Sun, all the light and matter) >can do what LeSage particles are supposed to do. No sourcing problem, no sinking
problem. All it takes is diffraction. Which has been shown in molecules
of more than 1000 atoms, I believe.
A year or so later it was shown the universe indeed does
expand ever faster. I like predictive theories.
General Relativity predicted the WRONG rate of expansion "originally". "Prediction
of sign" is only part of the problem.
I copied this to sci.physics soJan Panteltje will see it,
since dlzc posted just to sci.astro .
Google Groups only permits response to one newsgroup.
I wrote my own newsreader back around 1999 and am still
using it, see headers.
I wrote a tax form language, and gave it up when I was the only one using it.
I was just letting "you" know I can only respond to one group at a time,
because I am using a standard browser.
David A. Smith
Does not an ever faster expanding universe require an energy source ?
On a sunny day (Mon, 3 Jan 2022 11:51:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened dlzc wrote in...
Fails the 12 billion years of near stagnation. As I was originally saying, >the particles in the Universe (you, me, the Sun, all the light and matter) >can do what LeSage particles are supposed to do. No sourcing problem,
no sinking problem. All it takes is diffraction. Which has been shown in >molecules of more than 1000 atoms, I believe.
Does not an ever faster expanding universe require an energy source?
As to a Le Sage particle, what fascinates me,
PSI Thought maybe you might be able to help with this question.
Just did read this: https://www.space.com/testable-primordial-black-holes-theory
I Thought maybe you might be able to help with this question.
How does one calculate distance in a non expanding
universe using observed redshift,
So for instance z=8 means an emitted wavelength of 300nm
is seen by us as redshifted to 2400 nm.
And z= 4 means an emitted wavelength of 300 nm is seen by
us as redshifted to 1200nm
Does that mean that in a non expanding universe model, a galaxy
at z=8 is twice as far away as a galaxy at z=4?
On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 07:45:50 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
PSI Thought maybe you might be able to help with this question.
Just did read this:
https://www.space.com/testable-primordial-black-holes-theory
How does one calculate distance in a non expanding universe using
observed redshift,
So for instance z=8 means an emitted wavelength of 300nm
is seen by us as redshifted to 2400 nm.
And z= 4 means an emitted wavelength of 300 nm is seen by
us as redshifted to 1200nm
Does that mean that in a non expanding universe model, a galaxy
at z=8 is twice as far away as a galaxy at z=4?
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 06:24:58 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou <nco.uk> wrote in
.@.com>:
On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 07:45:50 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:Interesting question, again I am no astrophysicist,
PSI Thought maybe you might be able to help with this question.
Just did read this:
https://www.space.com/testable-primordial-black-holes-theory
How does one calculate distance in a non expanding universe using
observed redshift,
So for instance z=8 means an emitted wavelength of 300nm
is seen by us as redshifted to 2400 nm.
And z= 4 means an emitted wavelength of 300 nm is seen by
us as redshifted to 1200nm
Does that mean that in a non expanding universe model, a galaxy
at z=8 is twice as far away as a galaxy at z=4?
but if light speed is _constant_ then in a non-expanding universe there should be no redshift (apart from stars moving towards you and away from you for other reasons such as orbits etc.
Redshift comes from the Doppler effect AFAIK.
If however light speed changes over time then the whole picture changes.Yes. This is what I was wondering.
Dear Lou:
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 7:24:59 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
...
I Thought maybe you might be able to help with this question.... do you mean "non-accelerating"? Because the question doesn't make sense as written.
How does one calculate distance in a non expanding
universe using observed redshift,
A "Hubble constant" assumes no acceleration, is a straight line "curve fit" to a more interesting curve.
So for instance z=8 means an emitted wavelength of 300nmFor non-accelerating, yes. For non-expanding, there would be no red shift. For the displayed Universe, from 13.5 to >about 1.2 billion years ago, there was little acceleration, so a "Hubble constant" for that period would provide a good >fit.
is seen by us as redshifted to 2400 nm.
And z= 4 means an emitted wavelength of 300 nm is seen by
us as redshifted to 1200nm
Does that mean that in a non expanding universe model, a galaxy
at z=8 is twice as far away as a galaxy at z=4?
On Friday, 14 January 2022 at 17:12:02 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 06:24:58 -0800 (PST)) it happened Loushould be no redshift (apart from stars moving towards you and away from you >>
<nco.uk> wrote in
.@.com>:
On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 07:45:50 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:Interesting question, again I am no astrophysicist,
PSI Thought maybe you might be able to help with this question.
Just did read this:
https://www.space.com/testable-primordial-black-holes-theory
How does one calculate distance in a non expanding universe using
observed redshift,
So for instance z=3D8 means an emitted wavelength of 300nm
is seen by us as redshifted to 2400 nm.
And z=3D 4 means an emitted wavelength of 300 nm is seen by
us as redshifted to 1200nm
Does that mean that in a non expanding universe model, a galaxy
at z=3D8 is twice as far away as a galaxy at z=3D4?
but if light speed is _constant_ then in a non-expanding universe there
for other reasons such as orbits etc.
Redshift comes from the Doppler effect AFAIK.
If however light speed changes over time then the whole picture changes. >Yes. This is what I was wondering.If light did redshift without expansion how could one quantify distance v >observed lengthening of wavelength. Parralax probably wouldn=E2=80=99t work >on such
a large distance needed even for low redshifted local galaxies. Quasars?
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened LouI bet Webb will show that there are old large metal rich galaxies at z=15.
wrote in
I am thinking about a Le Sage theory of gravity, and if those Le Sage particles exist,If however light speed changes over time then the whole picture changes. >Yes. This is what I was wondering.If light did redshift without expansion how could one quantify distance v >observed lengthening of wavelength. Parralax probably wouldn=E2=80=99t work >on such
a large distance needed even for low redshifted local galaxies. Quasars? Right, parallax is difficult for far away objects.
if those can also be the carrier of EM waves, as it seems gravity moves at the speed of light.
*If* those particles originate from processes in stars then the universe would indeed expand ever faster, push itself apart.
Same process, same energy release, same speed ...?
But then why should not those particles eventually slow down or have an other speed
after if for example coming from an other big bang far away.
or are some absorbed and changed to an other form of matter / energy when interacting with objects?
All assumptions, but Le Sage predicts the ever faster expanding universe in that specific case.
1) ever faster expanding universe.
2) light and gravity move at the same speed.
3) internal healing of planets,
Maybe he new Webb telescope will show us more,
We have have made big ways in technology since the Greek
Bit of exponential grows of knowledge, who knows what's next.
I we get a collapse of the current society due to wars it may however take thousands of
years before they dig up our smart phones and wonder 'how did they do that?'
On Saturday, 15 January 2022 at 12:15:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
wrote in
exist,Yes. This is what I was wondering.If however light speed changes over time then the whole picture changes. >>
If light did redshift without expansion how could one quantify distance v >>observed lengthening of wavelength. Parralax probably wouldn=3DE2=3D80=3D99t >work
on suchRight, parallax is difficult for far away objects.
a large distance needed even for low redshifted local galaxies. Quasars?
I am thinking about a Le Sage theory of gravity, and if those Le Sage particles
if those can also be the carrier of EM waves, as it seems gravity moves at >the speed of light.indeed expand ever faster, push itself apart.
*If* those particles originate from processes in stars then the universe would
Same process, same energy release, same speed ...?speed
But then why should not those particles eventually slow down or have an other
after if for example coming from an other big bang far away.bet Webb will show that there are old large metal rich galaxies at z=3D15. >Not
or are some absorbed and changed to an other form of matter / energy when >interacting with objects?
All assumptions, but Le Sage predicts the ever faster expanding universe in >that specific case.
1) ever faster expanding universe.
2) light and gravity move at the same speed.
3) internal healing of planets,
Maybe he new Webb telescope will show us more,
We have have made big ways in technology since the Greek
Bit of exponential grows of knowledge, who knows what's next.
I we get a collapse of the current society due to wars it may however take >thousands of
years before they dig up our smart phones and wonder 'how did they do that?' >I
possible in an expanding universe. Experts already admit current galaxies >seen
in HST deep field surveys are too old for current modelling.
And we already have Quasars which not only show no time dilation at all, but >also
appear in the deepest oldest earliest BBT epoch imaging so far made. There is >not
enough time according to theory, for Quasars to form in the early universe. >And
as NASA itself admits...these facts are impossible to reconcile with any
BB
universe.
Not to mention very distant surveys of SN1a show insufficient time dilation. >Which
of course is why the theorists =E2=80=98made up=E2=80=99 the early acceleration
of
the universe. To account for the fact that the SN1a data contradicted the >theory.
And
not least is a question not addressed by anyone I believe. Which is that
in
the early epoch Big Bang, galaxy surveys show similar densities and >distribution of galaxies as seen now in our nearby local universe.
How is that possible? Expansion would show up in our deep field images as very >few
galaxies spread sparsely across the HST field of view.
n a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2022 10:45:07 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
<wrote in
<48bf...googlegroups.com>:
On Saturday, 15 January 2022 at 12:15:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
wrote in
There will be more tests on cosmic inflation perhaps: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220112121542.htmworkIf however light speed changes over time then the whole picture changes.
Yes. This is what I was wondering.
If light did redshift without expansion how could one quantify distance v
observed lengthening of wavelength. Parralax probably wouldn=3DE2=3D80=3D99t
exist,on suchI am thinking about a Le Sage theory of gravity, and if those Le Sage particles
a large distance needed even for low redshifted local galaxies. Quasars? >> Right, parallax is difficult for far away objects.
if those can also be the carrier of EM waves, as it seems gravity moves atthe speed of light.
*If* those particles originate from processes in stars then the universe wouldindeed expand ever faster, push itself apart.
Same process, same energy release, same speed ...?speed
But then why should not those particles eventually slow down or have an other
after if for example coming from an other big bang far away.that specific case.
or are some absorbed and changed to an other form of matter / energy when >interacting with objects?
All assumptions, but Le Sage predicts the ever faster expanding universe in
1) ever faster expanding universe.thousands of
2) light and gravity move at the same speed.
3) internal healing of planets,
Maybe he new Webb telescope will show us more,
We have have made big ways in technology since the Greek
Bit of exponential grows of knowledge, who knows what's next.
I we get a collapse of the current society due to wars it may however take
years before they dig up our smart phones and wonder 'how did they do that?'I
bet Webb will show that there are old large metal rich galaxies at z=3D15. >Not
possible in an expanding universe. Experts already admit current galaxies >seen
in HST deep field surveys are too old for current modelling.
And we already have Quasars which not only show no time dilation at all, but
also
appear in the deepest oldest earliest BBT epoch imaging so far made. There is
not
enough time according to theory, for Quasars to form in the early universe. >And
as NASA itself admits...these facts are impossible to reconcile with any >BB
universe.
Not to mention very distant surveys of SN1a show insufficient time dilation.
Which
of course is why the theorists =E2=80=98made up=E2=80=99 the early acceleration
of
the universe. To account for the fact that the SN1a data contradicted the >theory.
And
not least is a question not addressed by anyone I believe. Which is that >in
the early epoch Big Bang, galaxy surveys show similar densities and >distribution of galaxies as seen now in our nearby local universe.
How is that possible? Expansion would show up in our deep field images as very
few
galaxies spread sparsely across the HST field of view.
Dear Lou:Thanks. Although I think Reiss thought acceleration started 4 billion years ago.
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 7:24:59 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
...
I Thought maybe you might be able to help with this question.... do you mean "non-accelerating"? Because the question doesn't make sense as written.
How does one calculate distance in a non expanding
universe using observed redshift,
A "Hubble constant" assumes no acceleration, is a straight line "curve fit" to a more interesting curve.
So for instance z=8 means an emitted wavelength of 300nmFor non-accelerating, yes. For non-expanding, there would be no red shift. For the displayed Universe, from 13.5 to >about 1.2 billion years ago, there was little acceleration, so a "Hubble constant" for that period would provide a good >fit.
is seen by us as redshifted to 2400 nm.
And z= 4 means an emitted wavelength of 300 nm is seen by
us as redshifted to 1200nm
Does that mean that in a non expanding universe model, a galaxy
at z=8 is twice as far away as a galaxy at z=4?
On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 08:42:34 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
n a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2022 10:45:07 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
<wrote in
<48bf...googlegroups.com>:
On Saturday, 15 January 2022 at 12:15:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
wrote in
If however light speed changes over time then the whole picture changes.
Yes. This is what I was wondering.
If light did redshift without expansion how could one quantify distance >v
observed lengthening of wavelength. Parralax probably wouldn=3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D99t
work
Right, parallax is difficult for far away objects.on such
a large distance needed even for low redshifted local galaxies. Quasars? >>
I am thinking about a Le Sage theory of gravity, and if those Le Sage particles
exist,
interacting with objects?if those can also be the carrier of EM waves, as it seems gravity moves >atthe speed of light.
*If* those particles originate from processes in stars then the universe >wouldindeed expand ever faster, push itself apart.
Same process, same energy release, same speed ...?speed
But then why should not those particles eventually slow down or have an >other
after if for example coming from an other big bang far away.
or are some absorbed and changed to an other form of matter / energy when >>
All assumptions, but Le Sage predicts the ever faster expanding universe >inthat specific case.
1) ever faster expanding universe.
2) light and gravity move at the same speed.
3) internal healing of planets,
Maybe he new Webb telescope will show us more,
We have have made big ways in technology since the Greek
Bit of exponential grows of knowledge, who knows what's next.
I we get a collapse of the current society due to wars it may however take
thousands of
years before they dig up our smart phones and wonder 'how did they do that?'
I
bet Webb will show that there are old large metal rich galaxies at z=3D3D15.
Not
possible in an expanding universe. Experts already admit current galaxies >>seen
in HST deep field surveys are too old for current modelling.And
And we already have Quasars which not only show no time dilation at all, >but
also
appear in the deepest oldest earliest BBT epoch imaging so far made. There >is
not
enough time according to theory, for Quasars to form in the early universe. >>
as NASA itself admits...these facts are impossible to reconcile with any
BB
universe.
Not to mention very distant surveys of SN1a show insufficient time dilation.
Which
of course is why the theorists =3DE2=3D80=3D98made up=3DE2=3D80=3D99 the >early accelerationtheory.
of
the universe. To account for the fact that the SN1a data contradicted the >>
And
not least is a question not addressed by anyone I believe. Which is that
in
the early epoch Big Bang, galaxy surveys show similar densities andThere will be more tests on cosmic inflation perhaps:
distribution of galaxies as seen now in our nearby local universe.
How is that possible? Expansion would show up in our deep field images as >very
few
galaxies spread sparsely across the HST field of view.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220112121542.htm
Inflation: A theory devised to prove why imaginary particles ( monopoles) >that
have never been observed,... are not imaginary particles that have
never been observed.
And as for acceleration,...notice it is only an excuse by Reiss et al
to explain why more cosmologically distant Sn1a lightcurves do
not decay as slowly as the expanding model predicts. In other
words distant SN1a show no time dilation as predicted by BBT.
It=E2=80=99s amazing how a complete failure of predictions by BBT gets
the failed theorists...a nobel prize for inventing a new excuse
as to why the BBT once again, failed to correctly predict the
subsequent observations.
On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Jan 2022 03:25:30 -0800 (PST)) it happened LouIf there was a Big Bang or if black holes exist. Yes, your suggestion
<noe wrote in
<64.com>:
On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 08:42:34 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
n a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2022 10:45:07 -0800 (PST)) it happened Louv
<wrote in
<48bf...googlegroups.com>:
On Saturday, 15 January 2022 at 12:15:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou >>wrote in
If however light speed changes over time then the whole picture changes.
Yes. This is what I was wondering.
If light did redshift without expansion how could one quantify distance
would
observed lengthening of wavelength. Parralax probably wouldn=3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D99t
work
on such
a large distance needed even for low redshifted local galaxies. Quasars?
Right, parallax is difficult for far away objects.
I am thinking about a Le Sage theory of gravity, and if those Le Sage particles
exist,
if those can also be the carrier of EM waves, as it seems gravity moves >atthe speed of light.
*If* those particles originate from processes in stars then the universe
inindeed expand ever faster, push itself apart.
Same process, same energy release, same speed ...?speed
But then why should not those particles eventually slow down or have an >other
after if for example coming from an other big bang far away.
or are some absorbed and changed to an other form of matter / energy when
interacting with objects?
All assumptions, but Le Sage predicts the ever faster expanding universe
isthat specific case.
1) ever faster expanding universe.
2) light and gravity move at the same speed.
3) internal healing of planets,
Maybe he new Webb telescope will show us more,
We have have made big ways in technology since the Greek
Bit of exponential grows of knowledge, who knows what's next.
I we get a collapse of the current society due to wars it may however take
thousands of
years before they dig up our smart phones and wonder 'how did they do that?'
I
bet Webb will show that there are old large metal rich galaxies at z=3D3D15.
Not
possible in an expanding universe. Experts already admit current galaxies >>seen
in HST deep field surveys are too old for current modelling.
And we already have Quasars which not only show no time dilation at all, >but
also
appear in the deepest oldest earliest BBT epoch imaging so far made. There
not
enough time according to theory, for Quasars to form in the early universe.
And
as NASA itself admits...these facts are impossible to reconcile with any >>BB
universe.
Not to mention very distant surveys of SN1a show insufficient time dilation.
Which
of course is why the theorists =3DE2=3D80=3D98made up=3DE2=3D80=3D99 the >early accelerationtheory.
of
the universe. To account for the fact that the SN1a data contradicted the >>
Andin
not least is a question not addressed by anyone I believe. Which is that >>
the early epoch Big Bang, galaxy surveys show similar densities andThere will be more tests on cosmic inflation perhaps:
distribution of galaxies as seen now in our nearby local universe.
How is that possible? Expansion would show up in our deep field images as >very
few
galaxies spread sparsely across the HST field of view.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220112121542.htm
Inflation: A theory devised to prove why imaginary particles ( monopoles) >thatI just found this
have never been observed,... are not imaginary particles that have
never been observed.
And as for acceleration,...notice it is only an excuse by Reiss et al
to explain why more cosmologically distant Sn1a lightcurves do
not decay as slowly as the expanding model predicts. In other
words distant SN1a show no time dilation as predicted by BBT.
It=E2=80=99s amazing how a complete failure of predictions by BBT gets
the failed theorists...a nobel prize for inventing a new excuse
as to why the BBT once again, failed to correctly predict the
subsequent observations.
"There are 40 billion billions of black holes in the universe": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220119155213.htm
maybe all those black holes are just fragments of the big bang?
On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 05:10:47 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Jan 2022 03:25:30 -0800 (PST)) it happened LouIf there was a Big Bang or if black holes exist. Yes, your suggestion
<noe wrote in
<64.com>:
On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 08:42:34 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:I just found this
n a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2022 10:45:07 -0800 (PST)) it happened Louv
<wrote in
<48bf...googlegroups.com>:
On Saturday, 15 January 2022 at 12:15:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou >> >>wrote in
If however light speed changes over time then the whole picture changes.
Yes. This is what I was wondering.
If light did redshift without expansion how could one quantify distance
at
observed lengthening of wavelength. Parralax probably wouldn=3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D99t
work
on such
a large distance needed even for low redshifted local galaxies. Quasars?
Right, parallax is difficult for far away objects.
I am thinking about a Le Sage theory of gravity, and if those Le Sage particles
exist,
if those can also be the carrier of EM waves, as it seems gravity moves
wouldthe speed of light.
*If* those particles originate from processes in stars then the universe
otherindeed expand ever faster, push itself apart.
Same process, same energy release, same speed ...?
But then why should not those particles eventually slow down or have an
inspeed
after if for example coming from an other big bang far away.
or are some absorbed and changed to an other form of matter / energy when
interacting with objects?
All assumptions, but Le Sage predicts the ever faster expanding universe
isthat specific case.
1) ever faster expanding universe.
2) light and gravity move at the same speed.
3) internal healing of planets,
Maybe he new Webb telescope will show us more,
We have have made big ways in technology since the Greek
Bit of exponential grows of knowledge, who knows what's next.
I we get a collapse of the current society due to wars it may however take
thousands of
years before they dig up our smart phones and wonder 'how did they do that?'
I
bet Webb will show that there are old large metal rich galaxies at z=3D3D15.
Not
possible in an expanding universe. Experts already admit current galaxies
seen
in HST deep field surveys are too old for current modelling.
And we already have Quasars which not only show no time dilation at all, >> >but
also
appear in the deepest oldest earliest BBT epoch imaging so far made. There
verynot
enough time according to theory, for Quasars to form in the early universe.
And
as NASA itself admits...these facts are impossible to reconcile with any >> >>BB
universe.
Not to mention very distant surveys of SN1a show insufficient time dilation.
Which
of course is why the theorists =3DE2=3D80=3D98made up=3DE2=3D80=3D99 the >> >early acceleration
of
the universe. To account for the fact that the SN1a data contradicted the
theory.
Andin
not least is a question not addressed by anyone I believe. Which is that >> >>
the early epoch Big Bang, galaxy surveys show similar densities and
distribution of galaxies as seen now in our nearby local universe.
How is that possible? Expansion would show up in our deep field images as
fewThere will be more tests on cosmic inflation perhaps:
galaxies spread sparsely across the HST field of view.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220112121542.htm
Inflation: A theory devised to prove why imaginary particles ( monopoles) >> >that
have never been observed,... are not imaginary particles that have
never been observed.
And as for acceleration,...notice it is only an excuse by Reiss et al
to explain why more cosmologically distant Sn1a lightcurves do
not decay as slowly as the expanding model predicts. In other
words distant SN1a show no time dilation as predicted by BBT.
It=E2=80=99s amazing how a complete failure of predictions by BBT gets
the failed theorists...a nobel prize for inventing a new excuse
as to why the BBT once again, failed to correctly predict the
subsequent observations.
"There are 40 billion billions of black holes in the universe":
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220119155213.htm
maybe all those black holes are just fragments of the big bang?
could be a good possibility and a reasonable explanation. I agree.
Maybe your black holes could be the original BBT singularity splintering
out into billions of new singularities. Pushing space apart. Yet Keeping
the expanding density of universe uniform, to match observations.
But respected astrophysicist Reiss himself, as I pointed out in
another post, admits there is no observed time dilation in
Supernova lightcurves.
Which rules out any expansion of space.
And one only has to look at the closest of so called black
holes in sag x. Notice it failed to do what it was predicted to do.
A massive firework display was expected as a large cloud of gas and
dust was supposed to be torn apart by the black hole.
Nothing happened to the cloud. Probably because there was no
black hole.
Not to mention... >https://www.wionews.com/science/a-supermassive-black-hole-suddenly-vanished-scientists-think-its-floating-through-space-356261
On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Jan 2022 01:28:47 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou <co.uk> wrote inHow about this addition to your BH -Big Bang idea. The initial singularity is made up of trillions
<googlegroups.com>:
On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 05:10:47 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Jan 2022 03:25:30 -0800 (PST)) it happened LouIf there was a Big Bang or if black holes exist. Yes, your suggestion >could be a good possibility and a reasonable explanation. I agree.
<noe wrote in
<64.com>:
On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 08:42:34 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:I just found this
n a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2022 10:45:07 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou >> >> <wrote inv
<48bf...googlegroups.com>:
On Saturday, 15 January 2022 at 12:15:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
wrote in
If however light speed changes over time then the whole picture changes.
Yes. This is what I was wondering.
If light did redshift without expansion how could one quantify distance
at
observed lengthening of wavelength. Parralax probably wouldn=3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D99t
work
on such
a large distance needed even for low redshifted local galaxies. Quasars?
Right, parallax is difficult for far away objects.
I am thinking about a Le Sage theory of gravity, and if those Le Sage particles
exist,
if those can also be the carrier of EM waves, as it seems gravity moves
wouldthe speed of light.
*If* those particles originate from processes in stars then the universe
otherindeed expand ever faster, push itself apart.
Same process, same energy release, same speed ...?
But then why should not those particles eventually slow down or have an
inspeed
after if for example coming from an other big bang far away.
or are some absorbed and changed to an other form of matter / energy when
interacting with objects?
All assumptions, but Le Sage predicts the ever faster expanding universe
butthat specific case.
1) ever faster expanding universe.
2) light and gravity move at the same speed.
3) internal healing of planets,
Maybe he new Webb telescope will show us more,
We have have made big ways in technology since the Greek
Bit of exponential grows of knowledge, who knows what's next.
I we get a collapse of the current society due to wars it may however take
thousands of
years before they dig up our smart phones and wonder 'how did they do that?'
I
bet Webb will show that there are old large metal rich galaxies at z=3D3D15.
Not
possible in an expanding universe. Experts already admit current galaxies
seen
in HST deep field surveys are too old for current modelling.
And we already have Quasars which not only show no time dilation at all,
isalso
appear in the deepest oldest earliest BBT epoch imaging so far made. There
early accelerationnot
enough time according to theory, for Quasars to form in the early universe.
And
as NASA itself admits...these facts are impossible to reconcile with any
BB
universe.
Not to mention very distant surveys of SN1a show insufficient time dilation.
Which
of course is why the theorists =3DE2=3D80=3D98made up=3DE2=3D80=3D99 the
veryof
the universe. To account for the fact that the SN1a data contradicted the
theory.
And
not least is a question not addressed by anyone I believe. Which is that
in
the early epoch Big Bang, galaxy surveys show similar densities and >> >> >distribution of galaxies as seen now in our nearby local universe.
How is that possible? Expansion would show up in our deep field images as
fewThere will be more tests on cosmic inflation perhaps:
galaxies spread sparsely across the HST field of view.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220112121542.htm
Inflation: A theory devised to prove why imaginary particles ( monopoles)
that
have never been observed,... are not imaginary particles that have
never been observed.
And as for acceleration,...notice it is only an excuse by Reiss et al
to explain why more cosmologically distant Sn1a lightcurves do
not decay as slowly as the expanding model predicts. In other
words distant SN1a show no time dilation as predicted by BBT.
It=E2=80=99s amazing how a complete failure of predictions by BBT gets >> >the failed theorists...a nobel prize for inventing a new excuse
as to why the BBT once again, failed to correctly predict the
subsequent observations.
"There are 40 billion billions of black holes in the universe":
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220119155213.htm
maybe all those black holes are just fragments of the big bang?
Maybe your black holes could be the original BBT singularity splintering >out into billions of new singularities. Pushing space apart. Yet Keeping >the expanding density of universe uniform, to match observations.
But respected astrophysicist Reiss himself, as I pointed out in
another post, admits there is no observed time dilation in
Supernova lightcurves.
Which rules out any expansion of space.
And one only has to look at the closest of so called black
holes in sag x. Notice it failed to do what it was predicted to do.
A massive firework display was expected as a large cloud of gas and
dust was supposed to be torn apart by the black hole.
Nothing happened to the cloud. Probably because there was no
black hole.
Not to mention... >https://www.wionews.com/science/a-supermassive-black-hole-suddenly-vanished-scientists-think-its-floating-through-space-356261
When I use google to search for 'no time deletion'Easy. Notice they didn’t do what all good science does. A control sample Where the same SN1a are fitted to a non expanding z=0 template.
then I find among other papers this one:
TIME DILATION IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA SPECTRA AT HIGH REDSHIFT https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3595.pdf
<quote>
We use the Supernova Identification (SNID) code of Blondin & Tonry to determine the spectral ages in the supernova rest frame. Comparison with the observed elapsed time
yields an apparent aging rate consistent with the 1/(1 + z) factor (where z is the redshift) expected
in a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. These measurements thus confirm the expansion
hypothesis, while unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation, such as Zwicky's
"tired light" hypothesis. We also test for power-law dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The
best-fit exponent for these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 + z) factor.
<end quote>
?
On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 10:58:31 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Jan 2022 01:28:47 -0800 (PST)) it happened Louan
<co.uk> wrote in
<googlegroups.com>:
On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 05:10:47 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Jan 2022 03:25:30 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
<noe wrote in
<64.com>:
On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 08:42:34 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
n a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2022 10:45:07 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou >><wrote in
<48bf...googlegroups.com>:
On Saturday, 15 January 2022 at 12:15:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened >Lou
wrote in
If however light speed changes over time then the whole picture >changes.
Yes. This is what I was wondering.
If light did redshift without expansion how could one quantify distance
v
observed lengthening of wavelength. Parralax probably wouldn=3D3D3DE2=3D3D3D80=3D3D3D99t
workat
on such
a large distance needed even for low redshifted local galaxies. >Quasars?
Right, parallax is difficult for far away objects.
I am thinking about a Le Sage theory of gravity, and if those Le >Sage particles
exist,
if those can also be the carrier of EM waves, as it seems gravity >moves
the speed of light.
*If* those particles originate from processes in stars then the universe
would
indeed expand ever faster, push itself apart.
Same process, same energy release, same speed ...?
But then why should not those particles eventually slow down or have
whenother
speed
after if for example coming from an other big bang far away.
or are some absorbed and changed to an other form of matter / energy
take
interacting with objects?
All assumptions, but Le Sage predicts the ever faster expanding universe
in
that specific case.
1) ever faster expanding universe.
2) light and gravity move at the same speed.
3) internal healing of planets,
Maybe he new Webb telescope will show us more,
We have have made big ways in technology since the Greek
Bit of exponential grows of knowledge, who knows what's next.
I we get a collapse of the current society due to wars it may however
the
thousands of
years before they dig up our smart phones and wonder 'how did they >do that?'
I
bet Webb will show that there are old large metal rich galaxies at >z=3D3D3D15.
Not
possible in an expanding universe. Experts already admit current galaxies
seenbut
in HST deep field surveys are too old for current modelling.
And we already have Quasars which not only show no time dilation at >all,
isalso
appear in the deepest oldest earliest BBT epoch imaging so far made. >There
not
enough time according to theory, for Quasars to form in the early universe.
And
as NASA itself admits...these facts are impossible to reconcile with >any
BB
universe.
Not to mention very distant surveys of SN1a show insufficient time >dilation.
Which
of course is why the theorists =3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D98made up=3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D99
Howearly acceleration
of
the universe. To account for the fact that the SN1a data contradicted >the
theory.
And
not least is a question not addressed by anyone I believe. Which is >that
in
the early epoch Big Bang, galaxy surveys show similar densities and >>distribution of galaxies as seen now in our nearby local universe.
How is that possible? Expansion would show up in our deep field images >asvery
fewThere will be more tests on cosmic inflation perhaps:
galaxies spread sparsely across the HST field of view.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220112121542.htm
Inflation: A theory devised to prove why imaginary particles ( monopoles)
that
have never been observed,... are not imaginary particles that have
never been observed.
And as for acceleration,...notice it is only an excuse by Reiss et al
to explain why more cosmologically distant Sn1a lightcurves doIf there was a Big Bang or if black holes exist. Yes, your suggestion
not decay as slowly as the expanding model predicts. In otherI just found this
words distant SN1a show no time dilation as predicted by BBT.
It=3DE2=3D80=3D99s amazing how a complete failure of predictions by BBT >gets
the failed theorists...a nobel prize for inventing a new excuse
as to why the BBT once again, failed to correctly predict the
subsequent observations.
"There are 40 billion billions of black holes in the universe":
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220119155213.htm
maybe all those black holes are just fragments of the big bang?
could be a good possibility and a reasonable explanation. I agree.
Maybe your black holes could be the original BBT singularity splintering
out into billions of new singularities. Pushing space apart. Yet Keeping
the expanding density of universe uniform, to match observations.
But respected astrophysicist Reiss himself, as I pointed out in
another post, admits there is no observed time dilation in
Supernova lightcurves.
Which rules out any expansion of space.
And one only has to look at the closest of so called black
holes in sag x. Notice it failed to do what it was predicted to do.
A massive firework display was expected as a large cloud of gas and
dust was supposed to be torn apart by the black hole.
Nothing happened to the cloud. Probably because there was no
black hole.
Not to mention...
https://www.wionews.com/science/a-supermassive-black-hole-suddenly-vanished-scientists-think-its-floating-through-space-356261
about this addition to your BH -Big Bang idea. The initial singularity is >made up of trillions
of black holes squeezed together. They push apart in one massive explosion and >become
galaxies. They Zoom apart slow down contract into another singularity
Explode
again etc etc.
When I use google to search for 'no time deletion'z is the redshift) expected
then I find among other papers this one:
TIME DILATION IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA SPECTRA AT HIGH REDSHIFT
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3595.pdf
<quote>
We use the Supernova Identification (SNID) code of Blondin & Tonry to
determine the spectral ages in the supernova rest frame. Comparison with the >observed elapsed time
yields an apparent aging rate consistent with the 1/(1 + z) factor (where
in a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. These measurements thus confirmthe expansion
hypothesis, while unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation,such as Zwicky's
"tired light" hypothesis. We also test for power-law dependencies of the agingrate on redshift. The
best-fit exponent for these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 + >z) factor.Easy. Notice they didn=E2=80=99t do what all good science does. A control sample
<end quote>
?
Where
the same SN1a are fitted to a non expanding z=3D0 template.
If they did they would find no dilation fits as well or better.
There are numerous SN1a and only some have had a z=3D0 fit made but >here=E2=80=99s one:
1998ax .Undilated arguably fits better than dilated. Yet Knop didn=E2=80=99t >even
bother to check. !
Dilated s=3D1.15 z=3D0.5
Undilated s=3D 1.19 z=3D0
And as I already pointed out. Reiss et al in his 1998 paper admits there
is no dilation in any hi redshifted SN1a data. That=E2=80=99s why he made up >the
anomalous acceleration. To try to explain why hi redshifted supernovae
show no time dilation.
On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Jan 2022 04:36:14 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 7:32:51 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Jan 2022 04:36:14 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
I like this one, gives a more 'instantaneous slope' H0 with as little as 30 days path-travel time:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0306040.pdf
No point in concentrating only on supernovae.
David A. Smith
On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Jan 2022 04:36:14 -0800 (PST)) it happened LouAn additional variation to your Black hole - BBT idea.
wrote ingooglegroups.com>:
On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 10:58:31 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:Yes, or those black holes were part the big thing that 'exploded'.
On a sunny day (Thu, 20 Jan 2022 01:28:47 -0800 (PST)) it happened Louchanges.
<co.uk> wrote in
<googlegroups.com>:
On Thursday, 20 January 2022 at 05:10:47 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 16 Jan 2022 03:25:30 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou >><noe wrote in
<64.com>:
On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 08:42:34 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
n a sunny day (Sat, 15 Jan 2022 10:45:07 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
<wrote in
<48bf...googlegroups.com>:
On Saturday, 15 January 2022 at 12:15:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>
On a sunny day (Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)) it happened >Lou
wrote in
If however light speed changes over time then the whole picture
moves
Yes. This is what I was wondering.
If light did redshift without expansion how could one quantify distance
v
observed lengthening of wavelength. Parralax probably wouldn=3D3D3DE2=3D3D3D80=3D3D3D99t
work
on such
a large distance needed even for low redshifted local galaxies. >Quasars?
Right, parallax is difficult for far away objects.
I am thinking about a Le Sage theory of gravity, and if those Le >Sage particles
exist,
if those can also be the carrier of EM waves, as it seems gravity
anat
the speed of light.
*If* those particles originate from processes in stars then the universe
would
indeed expand ever faster, push itself apart.
Same process, same energy release, same speed ...?
But then why should not those particles eventually slow down or have
whenother
speed
after if for example coming from an other big bang far away.
or are some absorbed and changed to an other form of matter / energy
take
interacting with objects?
All assumptions, but Le Sage predicts the ever faster expanding universe
in
that specific case.
1) ever faster expanding universe.
2) light and gravity move at the same speed.
3) internal healing of planets,
Maybe he new Webb telescope will show us more,
We have have made big ways in technology since the Greek
Bit of exponential grows of knowledge, who knows what's next.
I we get a collapse of the current society due to wars it may however
do that?'
thousands of
years before they dig up our smart phones and wonder 'how did they
all,
I
bet Webb will show that there are old large metal rich galaxies at >z=3D3D3D15.
Not
possible in an expanding universe. Experts already admit current galaxies
seen
in HST deep field surveys are too old for current modelling.
And we already have Quasars which not only show no time dilation at
Therebut
also
appear in the deepest oldest earliest BBT epoch imaging so far made.
anyis
not
enough time according to theory, for Quasars to form in the early universe.
And
as NASA itself admits...these facts are impossible to reconcile with
the
BB
universe.
Not to mention very distant surveys of SN1a show insufficient time >dilation.
Which
of course is why the theorists =3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D98made up=3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D99
theearly acceleration
of
the universe. To account for the fact that the SN1a data contradicted
that
theory.
And
not least is a question not addressed by anyone I believe. Which is
as
in
the early epoch Big Bang, galaxy surveys show similar densities and
distribution of galaxies as seen now in our nearby local universe. >>
How is that possible? Expansion would show up in our deep field images
getsvery
fewThere will be more tests on cosmic inflation perhaps:
galaxies spread sparsely across the HST field of view.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220112121542.htm
Inflation: A theory devised to prove why imaginary particles ( monopoles)
that
have never been observed,... are not imaginary particles that haveto explain why more cosmologically distant Sn1a lightcurves do
never been observed.
And as for acceleration,...notice it is only an excuse by Reiss et al >>
not decay as slowly as the expanding model predicts. In other
words distant SN1a show no time dilation as predicted by BBT.
It=3DE2=3D80=3D99s amazing how a complete failure of predictions by BBT
Howout into billions of new singularities. Pushing space apart. Yet Keeping >>If there was a Big Bang or if black holes exist. Yes, your suggestionthe failed theorists...a nobel prize for inventing a new excuseI just found this
as to why the BBT once again, failed to correctly predict the
subsequent observations.
"There are 40 billion billions of black holes in the universe":
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220119155213.htm
maybe all those black holes are just fragments of the big bang?
could be a good possibility and a reasonable explanation. I agree.
Maybe your black holes could be the original BBT singularity splintering >>
the expanding density of universe uniform, to match observations.
But respected astrophysicist Reiss himself, as I pointed out in
another post, admits there is no observed time dilation in
Supernova lightcurves.
Which rules out any expansion of space.
And one only has to look at the closest of so called black
holes in sag x. Notice it failed to do what it was predicted to do.
A massive firework display was expected as a large cloud of gas and
dust was supposed to be torn apart by the black hole.
Nothing happened to the cloud. Probably because there was no
black hole.
Not to mention...
https://www.wionews.com/science/a-supermassive-black-hole-suddenly-vanished-scientists-think-its-floating-through-space-356261
about this addition to your BH -Big Bang idea. The initial singularity is >made up of trillions
of black holes squeezed together. They push apart in one massive explosion and
become
galaxies. They Zoom apart slow down contract into another singularity >Explode
again etc etc.
When I use google to search for 'no time deletion'observed elapsed time
then I find among other papers this one:
TIME DILATION IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA SPECTRA AT HIGH REDSHIFT
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3595.pdf
<quote>
We use the Supernova Identification (SNID) code of Blondin & Tonry to
determine the spectral ages in the supernova rest frame. Comparison with the
yields an apparent aging rate consistent with the 1/(1 + z) factor (where >z is the redshift) expectedthe expansion
in a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. These measurements thus confirm
hypothesis, while unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation,such as Zwicky's
"tired light" hypothesis. We also test for power-law dependencies of the agingrate on redshift. The
best-fit exponent for these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 + >z) factor.
<end quote>
Yes that’s the paper. Notice it’s central finding hilited in italics at one point isEasy. Notice they didn=E2=80=99t do what all good science does. A control sampleI have a reference problem here, did you mean Adam G. Riess?
Where
the same SN1a are fitted to a non expanding z=3D0 template.
If they did they would find no dilation fits as well or better.
There are numerous SN1a and only some have had a z=3D0 fit made but >here=E2=80=99s one:
1998ax .Undilated arguably fits better than dilated. Yet Knop didn=E2=80=99t >even
bother to check. !
Dilated s=3D1.15 z=3D0.5
Undilated s=3D 1.19 z=3D0
And as I already pointed out. Reiss et al in his 1998 paper admits there
is no dilation in any hi redshifted SN1a data. That=E2=80=99s why he made up >the
anomalous acceleration. To try to explain why hi redshifted supernovae >show no time dilation.
Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
Adam G. Riess, Alexei V. Filippenko1, Peter Challis2,
Alejandro Clocchiatti3, Alan Diercks4, Peter M. Garnavich2, Ron L. Gilliland5, Craig J. Hogan4, Saurabh Jha2, Robert P. Kirshner2
I downloaded that paper from here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/300499
pdf 30 pages, lots of data.
Quote from page 1
<quote>
Different light curve fitting methods, SN Ia subsamples and prior constraints
unanimously favor eternally expanding models with positive cosmological constant
(i.e., ) [ 0) and a current acceleration of the expansion (i.e., q \ 0). <end quote>
?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 292 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 194:02:42 |
| Calls: | 6,616 |
| Files: | 12,166 |
| Messages: | 5,315,385 |