lbiar Posted June 11, 2010 Report Posted June 11, 2010 (I need your feedback for errors, ...) (against the mainstream) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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” xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxExplanation 2 (expansion constant): (this is bad, I need probably to delete this, is speed constant, sorry). 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 (or by any distance) 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 and theory that say that theory is the same in all places the speed of expansion need to be constant and not accelerated (in accelerated, near to us the expansion would be more). 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”). Also according to Hubble’s law (distance-speed) maybe accelerating : 1-2-4-8-16 but also 2 objects at different speed 1-2 in distance is 1-2 and at double distance is 2-4 (also is according to Hubble’s law) but theory say that expansion is the same in all places, by that accelerating is not possible because in this case the near universe would expand more quickly that farther universe (present-pass). If the expansion is accelerated by distance (more distance more speed, growing : 1-2-4-8 in this case bettween 2 point expansion would be 1-2-4 [4 is difference 8-4]and against the theory that say that expansion is equal in all places) the note of “70.6 ± 3.1 (km/sec)/Mpc” would need to say at what speed is in 2 mpc, … but if it’s constant don’t need to say by /Mpc because is how say that any car travel at 80 km/hora by km (mpc is unit of distance). A car traveling to us at 100 km/hour not arrive never if the road expand at 100 km/hour. In the example with expansion constant: s/2 is double distance and speed that s/4 and s is double that s/2. To obtain that a car traveling to us at 80 km/hour, the only solution is expand the road at 80 km/hour. 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. references: Redshift and Distance in the Expanding Universe : Starts With A Bang and http://nrumiano.free.fr/Ecosmo/cg_bb.html My page: The universe does not expandlink to this note in my page: Arguments « The universe does not expand Thanks. (remember, I need your feedback)
Pyrotex Posted June 11, 2010 Report Posted June 11, 2010 Ibair,I am a physicist and an aerospace engineer. I have studied astronomy and cosmology most of my adult life. I am very open-minded. I cannot disagree with what you said. But that is because I do not understand what you said. I cannot even understand a single sentence. I know you are trying very hard to explain yourself, but obviously your command of English is not good enough to explain such a complex subject. What do you mean by "stretch"? Your use of that word is incomprehensible.
lbiar Posted June 11, 2010 Author Report Posted June 11, 2010 Ibair,I am a physicist and an aerospace engineer. I have studied astronomy and cosmology most of my adult life. I am very open-minded. I cannot disagree with what you said. But that is because I do not understand what you said. I cannot even understand a single sentence. I know you are trying very hard to explain yourself, but obviously your command of English is not good enough to explain such a complex subject. What do you mean by "stretch"? Your use of that word is incomprehensible. Sorry for my poor english. "stretch" - every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being "stretched" - Curious About Astronomy: What is the universe expanding into? stretch - WordReference.com Dictionary of English Many of the problem is my bad english, but by now I can arrange it. 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 ( 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.
Pyrotex Posted June 11, 2010 Report Posted June 11, 2010 [EDITORIAL] You know, if I were a suspicious person, the kind of person who believed in "conspiracies", I could imagine there might be people out there, people who were entertained and amused by the idea of making a group of intelligent folks run around madly, trying to understand declarations and arguements that *almost* but not quite made sense, trying to figure out the odd usage of ordinary words, and bizarre phrases that somehow just don't fit. It would be as if these "people" were foreigners with a less than adequate mastery of English -- but in reality, they are carefully crafting their "pidgin English" so that it almost makes sense -- enough so that the intelligent folks assume that it does, or it should... Now THAT would be quite a game! Intelligent folks would easily identify an ordinary troll. Their declarations are obviously wrong and their logic is bogus, their agenda is evident. But this NEW kind of troll... Their declarations are not obviously wrong, because no one can quite understand them. Their logic may or may not be drivel -- or genius -- if only we could figure out exactly what was meant. And so we fall over ourselves and strain at gnats and spend vasts amount of time and energy, and ask over and over and over, "what do you mean by this... ", "what do you mean by that...", "what do you mean by...", ... We become like a room full of cats frantically chasing the glowing red bug that crawls on the floor and up the walls, never knowing that we chase an illusion, all for the amusement of the guy holding the laser pointer. Of course, I'm NOT a suspicious person at all. :hihi: And that's a good thing, right?
lbiar Posted June 11, 2010 Author Report Posted June 11, 2010 [EDITORIAL] You know, if I were a suspicious person, the kind of person who believed in "conspiracies", I could imagine there might be people out there, people who were entertained and amused by the idea of making a group of intelligent folks run around madly, trying to understand declarations and arguements that *almost* but not quite made sense, trying to figure out the odd usage of ordinary words, and bizarre phrases that somehow just don't fit. I understand you. Is a well logical, but I'm sorry, my english is bad, I like to make this in english. I treat to demonstrate that expanion of the universe is not possible, maybe my work is bad, I can to have errors, .... Sorry for my errors and my bad english. I would like feedback to learn of my errors, ...
lbiar Posted June 11, 2010 Author Report Posted June 11, 2010 I need to say now : sorry for my error in post 1, 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 4 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 4 with series correct and a second impossible. Thanks.
Boerseun Posted June 12, 2010 Report Posted June 12, 2010 Ibiar, I have to agree with Pyrotex on this. We are a bunch of volunteers, and we're doing our moderating and discussing on these forums in our spare time. We appreciate your willingness to discuss, but we cannot engage any of your posts or topics on the level you require, because we simply cannot understand them. The mere fact that you want to do this in English is immaterial - I might want to discuss relativity in Sanskrit, but if I cannot make myself be understood in that language, it's a hopeless case. Here's a thought - and one that I've given you before: Find a science forum somewhere that runs in your language. Discuss and fine-tune your arguments. Once you have your thesis complete, take it to a skilled translator. Have it professionally translated into English by someone who does have a good and solid grasp on the language. You can find freelance translators online at ten a penny. Kick a tree and at least three will fall out. And then post your thesis here. Who knows - you might be the next Einstein. But we will never know if you insist on proving your geniality in a language you have a very bad grip on. And seeing as our time is limited and we honestly cannot attempt to slog through your posts and linked pages (I tried that - I gave up after about the fifth sentence), the only option will be to ban you. Honestly. We can't engage you on this basis. A fruitful discussion depends on both parties having a roughly equal command of a common language. If you're Spanish, we have a Spanish forum where you can continue. What is your home language, after all? I can go and look for a suitable forum in your language for you. Hypo clearly isn't it.
lbiar Posted June 13, 2010 Author Report Posted June 13, 2010 Ibiar, I have to agree with Pyrotex on this. Sorry.
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.
Boerseun Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 Great! Then you can explain your hypothesis in our Spanish Forum - I'm sure our other Spanish speaking members will be more than happy to help you out.
lbiar Posted June 14, 2010 Author Report Posted June 14, 2010 Great! Then you can explain your hypothesis in our Spanish Forum - I'm sure our other Spanish speaking members will be more than happy to help you out. Thanks, probably I try there, but also here. (with your permission).
Recommended Posts