Expansion of Light Waves verses Expansion of Space

[Mike C]

What do you base this assumption on? The BB is not synonymous with expansion, but expansion theory was both a precursor to the BB theory and is predicted by the BB theory.

 

I do wonder how your theory differs from that of, say, William J Mitchell? I assume you have read his books.

 

The 'expansion of space' was presented by a catholic priest named Georges Lemaitrae. This was simultaneous during the Slipher, Hubble and Humason observations (late 1920's) of the redshifts of galaxies that implied that they were moving away from our local space.

He also promoted the idea of an expanding universe.

 

I do not know anything about Mitchell. What was his books about?

 

NS

[Mike C]

There are according the BB theory two factors of (1 + z). One is for the redshift itself, while the other factor is for time dilation, due also to the so-called expansion. There is an apparent magnitude decrease as well; obviously a galaxy located twice as far has a lower apparent magnitude, generally.

 

All points in the BB are considered to be identical regardless of where you are located. So how can you have time dilation in the region where the SN1a is?

 

The expansion is uniform throughout space but is additive with the depth of the observation. But in all local regions, it is the same to an observer. So the expansion is 'uniform'.

 

{quote}

The expansion is non-uniform. The expansion is thought to be accelerating. I have no idea where you get your information but it is in stark contrast with all of the literature that can be found regarding BB cosmology. And finally, what evidence have you that SNe Type Ia are not good standard candles?

 

I mentioned that white dwarf stars are not identical in mass or temperature. The range of their temperatures are from 3000K to 100,000K.

So they cannot be exploding at the same exact solar mass of 1.44.

Also, they are considered to be 'skimming' hydrogen from their companion stars. These SN's show very little if any hydrogen or none in the spectrums.

 

This contradicts everything you wrote in the quote above. How can that be?

Perhaps we refer to different versions of the BB: the standard models, the new standard model, lambda-CDM, with or without inflation, the hot big bang, the cold big bang, eternal inflation, chaotic inflation, dark energy-WIMPs, or DE-WIMPS, MACHO-WIMP, DE-MACHO-WIMP, LAMBDA-WIMP-MACHO-CDM. From which version, exactly, do you derive your arguments?

 

What model do you believe in?

I am talking about the standard(?) model.

 

See my new post on the Hubble Constant.

 

NS

[Tormod]

The 'expansion of space' was presented by a catholic priest named Georges Lemaitrae.

 

Lemaitre introduced the concept of expanding space, which led to the Big Bang theory (it was coined "Big Bang" by Fred Hoyle around 1950 as a satirical term, he did not like the idea that the universe could have a beginning. Thus he favored the steady state theory...).

 

What is remarkable is that when Hubble made his discovery of the redshift, he in fact confirmed (unwittingly) the prediction Lemaitre made - that the universe was expanding. So the "Hubble Law" was actually formulated two years before Hubble wrote it.

 

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

But to the point: This does not, however, mean that the Big Bang *is* expansion. It only means that expansion theory supports a Big Bang event.

 

Redshift does not prove that there was a cataclysmic event at the beginning of the universe. The cosmic temperature, however (as studied by the WMAP project) does provide strong evidence of a hot, dense period in the early universe.

 

I do not know anything about Mitchell. What was his books about?

 

"Cosmology".

 

the observers hunch: Cranks Emails - 3 - Or William C. Mitchell Knows Nothing About Cosmology/Astronomy

[Mike C]

Tormod

 

Hoyle accepted the expansion of space and tried to maintain a balanced density by introducing the 'creation' of new matter.

 

This is where I disagree with his 'creation' of matter idea.

 

My post above explains that the expansion rate of the BB is LESS than the 'expansion of the light waves' that seems ludicrous.

 

Since the two sources of objects observed are at different distances, that than adaquately explains why the expansion rates are different.

The HDFN has penetrated deep into space that suggests 'high energy objects' whereas the Virgo Cluster objects are very close by.

The VCO are close by and are regular galaxies with lower energies than the 'deep' space objects.

 

So therefore, I conclude that the 'expansion of space' is not the space but the 'expansion of the light waves'. Does it make sense that the EoS is less than the EoLWs? Absolutely not!

 

So this is just another example to support the SSU rather than the BBU that has so many unexplained problems?

 

NS