Post by Keith SteinSearching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
K ~= 10^-10 /year
t = time in years
Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
K = H = Hubble's Constant
and t = -t ( so times past become +ve)
Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!
1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
2. There was no "Big Bang"
3. There was no "Inflation"
4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
5. There is no "Dark Energy"
hanson wrote:
Very nice and cool post, Keith. Kudos!
All of your conclusions, except [ > 1.] are in vogue today.
Also consider that there are very many ways to skin the cat.
IOW, it's story telling about nature... It's all just theorizing.
Just like you using your MO above, all of this was done already
a full century ago, by folks like Hartree-Fock, etc.
<vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/courses/chem6485/pdf/Hartree-Fock>
and <http://www.shodor.org/chemviz/overview/hfa.html> , etc
and even earlier by D'alembert (for black holes), see:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_principle>
and by by others who were gesticulating in/with Gedanken-XPs,
using Nature's -Scaling-Laws- & it's obvious -Self-Similarity-
whose addressed domain or realm does always span many
dozens of orders of magnitudes, up or down... as exampled
by the great old timers of Physics such as Max Planck who
published stuff like the above in 1899... BUT then, unfortunately,
in 1905 Einstein entered and his "Juden physics" got into
the Lime-light with its immense Zionist propaganda machine......
... which was the beginning of the end of the golden age of
physics, which is the science of quantitatively MEASURING
items, events & processes, & it began to decay & to deteriorate
into the current free-for-all socio-physic-philosophy-palaver
that we see to day on social media, TV shows, and here
on Usenet by cranks and crackpots, who proudly state
that they do physics-without-math, & insist that that their
own Weltbild is the absolute truth which they try to cram
and stuff down everybody else's throat. When "dissidents"
laugh at the posted excrements of these Usenet cranks, the
cranks get vicious and criminally homicidal. The cranks
threaten to shit into the mouths of the dissidents and want
them to be murdered so that the cranks can urinate onto
their graves.
So much for the physics-of-the-cranks, which in a way
is reflected in the artistry of, e.g., the melancholy of:
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=dire+straits+lyrics+brothers+in+arms&FORM=AWRE>:
"There's so many different worlds -- So many different suns
And we have just one world -- But we live in different ones..."
Warnings about this sorry trend of real physics came early
on, out of the ivy-league of academia:
by John Beckman, an astronomy prof & Einstein disciple:
"The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
That is more a matter of faith than of proof."
or by Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, who said:
"Einstein didn't know what he was talking about,
or that Einstein was lying, or both".
or Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
who wrote: "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
______ The Dossier _________
So, here is a set of links which belabor such issues:
<http://tinyurl.com/Hubble-Derivtn-Age-of-Universe>
<http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
<http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/electron-is-NOT-ZERO-sized>
<http://tinyurl.com/Pauls-composite-volume-Belief>
<http://tinyurl.com/Drapers-zero-volume-Belief>
<http://tinyurl.com/Electron-core-size-and-charge>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0f1a7daa49aa8cf3>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70e4aba63b7351ba>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2753001d76037d04>
_____ Examples of quantifications: _______
The Proton- and Electron-mass can be expressed in terms
of their measured properties & fundamental Physics constants:
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
or the proton with mass m_p as:
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
Both of these particle masses have characteristics of nucleon-sized
Black holes. See detailed explanation for the above in here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43f>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968>
...of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
mini-black-hole of 1 Planck-mass having the radius of 1 Planck-length,
is manifest/has half-life of only one 1 Planck-time-unit after which
it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable,
charged particles with the average mass of the electron. .. in which
their fundamental electrical charge, will endow them with
"immortality", of a duration that vastly exceeds the life-time
span of our universe.
What "charge" is, or where it comes from, is unknown.
All we know is what the said charge does....
_____________ Up shot: ________________
"The only thing that new changes is Change itself"
IOW no matter how "logical", rigorous one "calculates
solutions, they are always limited to comparatives
relative to each other, at best, but mostly just only
consist of belletristic philosophical palcer.
The Dirty little secret, that nobody likes to admit to,
is that no, none, not a single "absolute" is known to
exist. What is advertised as "absolute/s" is/are
edicts that are arbitrated and issued by human
cabals or committee and declared to be "absolutes"
so that searches and workers can comparatively
well communicate rationally with each other.
Cranks OTOH take refuge and invoke their "god"
of faith as the "real" manifest "absolute", instead of
just humbly admitting to saying: "I don't know"
Interestingly, faith, which is an emotional notion,
is a million times stronger than any obviously rational
logic. The force of Faith and religious beliefs are so
deep that societies and potentates have elected
to protect and enshrine Faith in societies' laws
and its constitutions, even in today's modern society.
hmmm...<snicker>...<chortle>...ahahahAHAHA...ROTFLMAO
