lbiar Posted June 3, 2010 Author Report Posted June 3, 2010 I't true, I have made changes that difficult undestand. I would need to make a new redation without the error of the cosmic microwave background radiation. I was oblied the start of my work so I prefer to change the question, later maybe re-write this. So for not make a new thread I put here in next post. Sorry by the errors.
lbiar Posted June 3, 2010 Author Report Posted June 3, 2010 Against the theory that say that the universe “expands uniformly in all directions” I say: According to universe expansion and big-bang theories, the universe “expands uniformly in all directions” and expand at “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc” (1 megaparsec is “3.26 million light-years”) and that “we see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang” these objects in that time (379,000 years after the Big Bang) would be from us for example at 379,000 light years (we see the cosmic background by all sides) (today the expansion is accelerating). This light in a universe without expansion would arrive to us in 379,000 years, in a universe in expansion according to theory for example in 600,000 years, but to arrive to us today the universe need to expand near light speed all this 13.7 billion years (argument 2a). I have put also this in my page how argument 0a : Arguments « The universe is infinite (many of my work start from this but I forget thiis note, and that arguments seem errors without this note). Thanks another time.
modest Posted June 4, 2010 Report Posted June 4, 2010 I'm sorry, Ibiar. I just don't understand what this means: According to universe expansion and big-bang theories, the universe “expands uniformly in all directions” and expand at “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc” (1 megaparsec is “3.26 million light-years”) and that “we see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang” these objects in that time (379,000 years after the Big Bang) would be from us for example at 379,000 light years (we see the cosmic background by all sides) (today the expansion is accelerating). This light in a universe without expansion would arrive to us in 379,000 years, in a universe in expansion according to theory for example in 600,000 years, but to arrive to us today the universe need to expand near light speed all this 13.7 billion years (argument 2a) Maybe somebody else can understand better what you are saying. ~modest
lbiar Posted June 4, 2010 Author Report Posted June 4, 2010 I'm sorry, Ibiar. I just don't understand what this means: Maybe somebody else can understand better what you are saying. ~modest If the universe expand in the past was shorter (less radius, ...) . In big-bang all was near the same place. 379,000 years after the Big Bang (moment of what we see the fartherst objects (the microwave background) the separation between that objects and our position would be for example at 379,000 light years (for example at universe expanded in that time at light speed and by that with a radius of 379,000 light years - really need to be shorter). The separation I put how example probably was less according to the expansion of “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc” (today the expansion is accelerating), but for me is a good example. From this calculate the time that need the light in arrive to us in any simulations: - in a universe without expansion that light only would need 379,000 years to arrive to us (make 13.7 billion light year) and by that not show today that light. - in a universe with expansion at “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc” that light would arrived to our position 379,000 years + any years (supposing in 800,000 years for example - really less) and by that not show today that light. - expansion at near light speed all this time is the only solution: we see that light at a distance of 13.7 billion light year from us, for see that light today (so old how 13.7 billion year) and in the position we see the universe need to expand just at light speed or a few less all this 13.7 billion year. This is the only form that we can see that objects at that position and from that time. In an expanding universe the object we see at 13.7 billion light year at t/2 need to be at half distance, and by that for example the average of 4 and 2 is not 4, the problem is the same, the average of a object separated by expansion can not to be the max distance (If the speed equivalent exceed light speed is not show the object). Thanks. Normally is treat how strange that universe expand increasing and Hubble’s constant decrease. "Hubble's constant does indeed decrease over time" - Talk:Hubble's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "may increase or decrease over various time intervals" - Hubble's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia My web explain it. Thanks. Probably the problem of all it's a error in stretch. By stretch any object expanding at c/2 (1/2 of light speed) with the stretch become to see at c. But a object expanding at c/4 become c/2 and in this form the light become to us without the power of more stretch later. This in a universe how today with a visible radius of c (same years that light speed distance) and expansion speed of c, coincide, from the universe side of c/2 to c is correct, but it's not correct from c/4 to c/2 and so, .. (all less from c/2 of origin). By this, also Homogeneity, Isotropy have the same problem, because that light was arrived and not occurs like say the theory. Thanks.
lbiar Posted June 7, 2010 Author Report Posted June 7, 2010 I have made here a message with errors. (sorry, I treat to no make errors, but not always is possible) I have deleted it. I put new arguments. Thanks.
lbiar Posted June 7, 2010 Author Report Posted June 7, 2010 With error, I make a new post. Sorry. Each time that think in expansion make errors. Thanks.
lbiar Posted June 8, 2010 Author Report Posted June 8, 2010 (this is bad, I need probably to delete this, is speed constant, sorry). I would to remember that my work may have errors and by that write here so you can help me in my errors, critics and feedback in general, only with this help I can repair and advance. Also remember that this note is against the mainstream. Thanks. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I make a new redaction, changing the notes: The theory of expansion say that expansion is in all places the same and double distance, double speed (according to Hubble’s law). So it says according to homogeneity that from an object at s/2 (size of the universe visible) when the light travels to us the universe is expanding and in the next time t (t=time from big-bang) that the space between this object and us, it has grown s/2 and need t to become visible and expanded visible to s – this is according to homogeneity and take homogeneity how an evidence of big-bang (this is how say the theory). For expansion according to Hubble’s law I see 2 options: A – s/4 is 75% and expand 25%, s/2 is 50% and expand 50%: this is not possible: 1/2 x 150% = 75% and not 100% and by that it’s not possible according to homogeneity and Hubble’s law. B – s/4 is 75% and expand 1/4, s/2 is 50% and expand double (50% x 2 = 100%). In this form we can add expansion and stretch: 100+0 or 75+25 or 50+50 or 25+75 or 0+100, but need that the space expand double, so s/4 expand in t/2 at s/2, s/2 expand in t at s, s/8 expand in t/4 at s/4, all double and by that also 1 light year would expand in 2 year at 2 light year – but this is not true and by that this option is not possible (this form would be according to homogeneity). How the 2 options are impossibles the expansion is only an optic effect. More in my page: http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/ Thanks another time.
lbiar Posted June 9, 2010 Author Report Posted June 9, 2010 (this is bad, I need probably to delete this, is speed constant, sorry). Better explanation over last note: The expansion of the universe (and Big-bang) need to be according to Hubble’s law (distance-speed) and homogeneity (both Hubble’s law and homogeneity are facts) and expansion that it’s the same in all point and with equal level. To be according to homogeneity the light that travels to us need compensate the size by less expansion with stretch to level sizes, so the light here have 100% of expansion and 0% of stretch, the light that travels from s/4 (size of visible universe/4) have 75% of expansion and by that need 25% of stretch, the light at s/2 is 50%-50%, the light at 3s/4 is 25%-75% and so, …, s is without expansion in relation at the visible universe and by that need to expand 100%). The only form to see this is (for example) that the light at s/2 (size of universe visible/2) expand 50% of this distance, so if it expands 50% is equivalent at the light of s/4 (25% of distance) that travel to us and stretch 50% of the way. So the light of s/2 is equivalent to the light that begins the travel to us where was in s/4 (is really the same that was at s/4) and in the travel is stretched the 50% of the travel and we see it at s/2. In the same form light of s (not visible) is stretch 2 times or 100%, light of s/4 is stretch 25% (half of the light of s/2). By this: the light of s/2 is the light of s/4 stretch t/2 (t=time of visible universe), light of s is light of s/2 stretch t, light of s/4 is light of s/8 stretch t/4, …. and by that light of 2 light years would be light of 1 light year stretch 2 year. How this last (stretch of 1 light year in 2) is impossible this solution is false and by that it’s not possible that the universe expand according to Hubble’s law and homogeneity, by that the expansion of the universe is only a visual effect). Remember that Hubble’s law and homogeneity are facts. Thanks. (remember, I need your feedback)
lbiar Posted June 10, 2010 Author Report Posted June 10, 2010 (this is bad, I need probably to delete this, is speed constant, sorry). A new Explanation (I think is better): (against the mainstream) Resume of what I say here:The light that travels from s (age of the universe x light speed) is not show because it’s stretch 100% (stretch is at light speed), but according to my calculation is really of 2 x 50%. So I speak better of s/2 (half of distance), here the light travel 50% and is stretched 50% so the stretch would be 150,000 km/s by light year according to homogeneity, but this is not true. (25% is the same stretch and half time, 100% is 2 times 50%). According to Hubble’s law, homogeneity and stretch the universe expand equal in all points and double distance is double speed.The universe far have less expansion, but it’s homogenized by stretch.s/2 is double of distance that s/4 by that has double speed (distance-speed according to Hubble’s law), … t = time from big-bang / s = size of visible universe (in light years) or better = age of the universe x light speed I make this a graphic explanation: 0----s/4---s/2---3s/4--s – in t0 <- 0 is our position, t0 is time initial In the same moment (t0) 2 photons start travel to us, 1 from s/4 and another from s/2, then the expansion is between us (position 0) and the photons. 0----------s/4 <- after t/2 this would be the new position0—--t0--–-x <- the universe expand s/4 in t/2 and this point now is s/2 (t0 is our position in time initial) We see the light at s/2 and have 50% of expansion and is stretch 50% (also travel 50% of original way and 50% of way stretched).0----------------------s/2 <- after t0-—------–t0—----—-x <- the universe expand s/2 in t and this point now is s (t0 is our position in time initial) The light of s have 0% of expansion (or us have expansion of 100% over s) and is stretch 100% (2 times 50%)The light of s is not show, but we show light of a few less distance (it’s not show by stretch of 100%). In t/2 the photon of s/4 arrive to us and we see it how s/2, s/2 have expansion of only 50% and the photon is stretched 50%. So is according to Hubble’s law and homogeneity. In t the photon of s/2 arrive to us and we see it how s, s have expansion of 0% (or we have expansion of 100% over s) and the photon is stretched 100% (2 times 50% in the travel). So is according to Hubble’s law and homogeneity. (the photon of s is not show because it’s light speed, but we show any of a few less distance) The same occurs with s/8, s/16, … s/4 in t/2 take position in s/2, we see the light of s/4 how the light of s/2s/2 in t take position in ss/8 in t/4 take position in s/4 This is the form according to the theory, taking other expansions like t/4 (different of t/2) don’t work, so I think is the only form possible (I search, but without find a description). So we can to see: The light from s/4 travel from there s/4 and stretch s/4, so s/4 + s/4 = s/2 (50% expansion and 50% stretch)s/2 is 50% of size (expansion is growing) and 50% of stretch = 100% of visual size = homogeneity By this: the light of s/2 is the light of s/4 stretch t/2 (t=time of visible universe), light of s is light of s/2 stretch t, light of s/4 is light of s/8 stretch t/4, …. and by that light of 2 light years would be light of 1 light year stretch 2 year or an expansion of half of speed of light, or 150,000 km/s by light year (theory say that expansion is “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc” (1 megaparsec is “3.26 million light-years”). How this last is impossible this solution is false and by that it’s not possible that the universe expand according to Hubble’s law and homogeneity (the expansion of the universe is only a visual effect). Remember that Hubble’s law and homogeneity are facts. links: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/08/redshift_and_distance_in_the_e.php and The Big Bang My page: The universe does not expandlink to this note in my page: http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/expands/bigargs-html/#tag00a Thanks. (remember, I need your feedback)
lbiar Posted June 10, 2010 Author Report Posted June 10, 2010 I have add a resume to better understand. (in post 27 of this thread) (remember, I need your feedback) Thanks.
lbiar Posted June 11, 2010 Author Report Posted June 11, 2010 I add here expansion increased, the last was constant: Explanation 1 (expansion increased) (according to the theory):Here are 2 impossibles: 1 – I put here example of a series of 2-4-6-8-10, … 0 - s/4 – s/2 – 3s/4 -s 10 - 8 - 6 - 4 – 2 – expansion, more at present and by that near us 10 – 10 – 10 – 10 - 10 – visual expansion (100% = 40) adjusting expansion and stretch all give 10 (5 would be 50% and with stretch x2 = 10) s = size of visible universe (in light years) or better = age of the universe x light speed after t/4 the result is: 12 – 10 - 8 - 6 - 4 – expansion, more at present and by that near us 12 – 12 – 12 – 12 - 4 – visual expansion (100% = 40) – we see half of before of the universe s/4 now is show how s/2, is good, the light in t/2 travel s/2 s/2 now would be s, but light can travel from there because it would need t/2 and not t/4 (remember that s really is not show, but it’s showed s-few years), remember that in t/4 less we see all the visual universe (age of the universe x light speed) and the light can’t travel this distance, by this we can only see in the example the 75% of visual universe (age of the universe x 75% of light speed) or 25% less, each t/4 more we will see 25% less: in the example s/2 is 20 and by that in t/4 only can to be visible 30 and not 40. We see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years, so we see 99,999% or more, the relation to light speed is 2.76 e-5 and by that this is impossible (I add here expansion increased, the last was constant: Explanation 1 (expansion increased) (according to the theory): I put here example of double size in each t/4, the result is the same ajusted at any other %. 0 - s/4 – s/2 – 3s/4 -s 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 – 1 – expansion, more at present and by that near us 16 – 16 – 16 – 16 - 16 – visual expansion (100% = 64) 8 (s/4) is 50% so stretch of 50% give 16 // 4 is 25% (s/2) so stretch of 75& give 16 s = size of visible universe (in light years) or better = age of the universe x light speed after t/4 the result is: 32 – 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 – 1 – expansion, more at present and by that near us 32 – 32 – visual expansion (100% = 64) – we see half of before of the universe s/4 now is show how s/2, is good, the light in t/2 travel s/2 s/2 now would be s, but light can travel from there because would need t/2 and not t/4, remember that in t/4 less we see all the visual universe (age of the universe x light speed) and the light can’t travel this distance, by this we can only see in the example the 75% of visual universe (age of the universe x 75% of light speed) or 25% less, each t/4 more we will see 25% less. In this example I work with 100% of expansion, but can make the equivalent in other % of expansion and always there are a % less of visual universe. We see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years, so we see 99,999% or more, the relation to light speed is 2.76 e-5 and by that this is impossible ( http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/expands/bigargs-html/#tag02a ). 2 – In the example: 10 – 10 – 10 – 10 - 10 – visual expansion (100% = 40 = age of the universe x light speed = s) by this 10 is 1/4 but 10 also is t/4 and by that the universe would expand at light speed and this is impossible : this would be at 300,000 km/s against expansion of “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc” Thanks. I need your feedback for help.
lbiar Posted June 11, 2010 Author Report Posted June 11, 2010 I need to say now : sorry for my error in post 25, 26, 27, the speed is constant. Until now I have not see the error, my mind has give me this error, I was sure it's well, but it's a constant speed and against by that with Hubble's law. May have any value or simply I delete it. Sorry for the disturb, I treat to make good, but sometimes say errors. (I need to be sure if post 29 is correct) - please say me erors, ... thanks and sorry for so bad error.
lbiar Posted June 12, 2010 Author Report Posted June 12, 2010 I have arrange post 29 with series correct and a second impossible. Thanks.
lbiar Posted June 13, 2010 Author Report Posted June 13, 2010 Affirmation: The expansion of the universe according to Hubble’s law and homogeneity only would to be at light speed. Resume: In a homogeneous space the distances are equals, so if d/t = expansion + stretch at light speed this is equal to (d/4)/(t/4) = (d/2)/(t/2) = …. Demonstration: t/4 – t/2– 3t/4 -t – t=time of expansion at light speed 25 – 25 – 25 – 25 – according to Hubble’s law and homogeneity (expansion + stretch) the distance in any time is equal (homogeneous), in this example 25+25+25+25=100, where 100% is light speed d/4 + d/4 + d/4 + d/4 = d is distance of universe visible + 1 (d is not visible for expansion at light speed) 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 – 1 – speed (if we now go to 5 in the past go to 4(t/4),3(t/2),2(3t/4),1(t)) 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 – 4 – speed how we see it d/4 – d/2– 3d/4 – d – d=distance of expansion at light speed t/4 – t/2– 3t/4 -t – t=time of expansion at light speed According to this: light speed = 300,000 km/s = d/t = (3d/4) / (3t/4) = (d/2)/(t/2) = (d/4)/(t/4) = ….. Why?: According to Hubble’s law distance – speed at double distance the speed is double, according to the theory more distance is more speed, but by adjust to homogeneity this has problem. If we see 4 cars at same time (1 hour) at 10, 20, 30 and 40 km (distance – speed according to Hubble’s law) this can’t to be that at more distance more speed, this is according to 4 cars that start at same time and go at 10 km/hr, 20 km/hr, 30 km/hr, 40 km/hr, in the case the car at 20 km/hr we see 1 hour later that the car at 10 km/hr (more distance is more older) To see according to the theory a car would to go 1 hr at 10 km/hr, hr 2 at 20 km/hr, hr 3 at 30 km/hr, hr 4 at 40 km/hr, by this distance – speed would be 10 km = 10 km/hr, 2o km = 20 km/hr, 30 km = 20 km/hr, 40 km = 30 km/hr and distance by hour, in 1 hour would to be at 10 km, in 2 hours at 30 km, in 3 hour at 60 km, in 4 hours at 100 km. Conclusion: According to Hubble’s law and homogeneity the expansion only would to be at light speed, remember that Hubble’s law and homogeneity are facts or evidences and expansion and Big-bang are theories, by that how expansion is not at light speed there is not expansion. The expansion is only an optic effect (see: The universe does not expand ). In an optic effect, objects at double distance seem half size. more in: Arguments « The universe does not expand Please say me where are the error (this is how a opposite ask: I made a affirmation and want you say the error). Thanks.
lbiar Posted June 14, 2010 Author Report Posted June 14, 2010 I have changed the resume, before was another with errors (with speed/time and not distance/speed = velocity). Thanks.
Recommended Posts