lbiar Posted June 14, 2010 Author Report Posted June 14, 2010 A universe in expansion according to Hubble’s law is impossible. Hubble’s law say that at double distance double speed. Here I make an example with 1,2,3 km/hour where we need 1 hour to see each km (suppose they are light years, we need 1 year more to see each light year more). So in 1 hour we see only object at 1 km, to see the object at 2 km we need 2 hours, … (you can change km/hour by lightyear/year but I think is more easy work in km/hr). So objects with speed of 1,2,3 km/hr are at 1,2,3 km according to Hubble’s law. In 1 hour we see the object that expands at 1 km/hr (in the universe the distance and time are also in relation). The object that travel at 2 km/hr need 2 hours to see it, so in that time (2 hour) it would see visible at 2×2+2 = 6 km (2 km x 2 hr + 2 km for initial distance). But how it’s at 6 km we need 6 hour to see, in that time (6 hour) it would be at 6×2+2 = 14 km. By that that object (light, ..) never would be showed. Also we need to add the speed in any distance (distance – speed according to Hubble’s law): the object at 2 km, travel 1/2 hour at 2 km/hour, then it’s already at 3 km and by that travel at 3 km/hour near half hour, then it’s a 4 km and by that travel 1/4 hour at 4 km/hour, then it’s at 5 km and travel at 5 km/hour and so, …. so really in 2 hour it would be at more that 6 km. By that Hubble’s law is incompatible with expansion. How I say in point 1, 1 object that travel at 1 km/hour, in 1 hour is at 1 km, in 2 hour is at 2 km and by that would be compatible with Hubble’s law, but don’t increase the speed, by that also incompatible with Hubble’s law that relations distance – speed. 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. (I need your help to find errors).
Pyrotex Posted June 16, 2010 Report Posted June 16, 2010 Okay, lbiar, I **think** I understand enough of your last post to attempt a response. Hubble's Law is simply v = H*D where v is the receding velocity of the galaxy, H is the Hubble Constant and D is the galaxy distance in millions of parsecs. v is determined by the redshift of the observed galaxy. What you're saying is that if D is large enough then v will be larger than c, the speed of light. Am I right? Does that sentence say what you mean? The first thing to understand is that Hubble originally thought that v was a real velocity of the observed galaxy, as if it were a fragment of a huge explosion. V could never by observed as greater than c, because as v increases, the light from the galaxy drops in wavelength and gets dimmer and redder. At some large v still less than c, the light becomes microwaves, radio waves, and then becomes unobservable. So a v > c would never happen. The second thing to understand is that after Hubble, the concept of v was changed. Now it is not a real velocity, but a "virtual velocity" of the expansion of space itself. Think of space as a lump of bread dough, and the galaxies are raisins mixed in the dough. When the dough is baked, and expands, the raisins all move away from each other. However, they are not "moving" through the dough! They are stationary in the dough. It's the dough that is expanding. So, the distant galaxies are not "moving" through space. They are as stationary as our galaxy is stationary. But space itself is expanding. Again, v will never be observed as greater than c -- the light from distant galaxies at a distance D = v/H will never reach us. There is no reason to assume that space cannot expand faster than light. Perhaps it can. We will never see it anyway, so it doesn't matter. The third thing to understand is that Hubble's Law has gotten more complicated because of Special and General Relativity. If z is the redshift factor that we observe in the light from distant galaxies, then: Strictly speaking, neither v nor D in the formula are directly observable, because they are properties now of a galaxy, whereas our observations refer to the galaxy in the past, at the time that the light we currently see left it. For relatively nearby galaxies (redshift z much less than unity), v and D will not have changed much, and v can be estimated using the formula v = zc where c is the speed of light. This gives the empirical relation found by Hubble. For distant galaxies, v (or D) cannot be calculated from z without specifying a detailed model for how H changes with time. The redshift is not even directly related to the recession velocity at the time the light set out, but it does have a simple interpretation: (1+z) is the factor by which the universe has expanded while the photon was travelling towards the observer.
lbiar Posted June 16, 2010 Author Report Posted June 16, 2010 Okay, lbiar, I **think** I understand enough of your last post to attempt a response. Hubble's Law is simply v = H*D Hubble's law is a fact and by that I'm according to it (I'm according with all facts and evidences, but against universe expansion theory). I say that in an homogeneous expansion, this is equal in all points, by that the expansion in 2 light years is double to 1 light years, but in universe distance is also time, so expansion of 2 light years / 2 years = expansion of 1 light year / 1 year. The problem is that in an homogeneous expansion the speed is equal in all points and by that if between 2 points exceed light speed this is exceed in all points, and also that the redshift in relation with distance is against a homogeneous expansion. Thanks.
Pyrotex Posted June 17, 2010 Report Posted June 17, 2010 Hubble's law is a fact and by that I'm according to it (I'm according with all facts and evidences, but against universe expansion theory). I say that in an homogeneous expansion, this is equal in all points, by that the expansion in 2 light years is double to 1 light years, but in universe distance is also time, so expansion of 2 light years / 2 years = expansion of 1 light year / 1 year. The problem is that in an homogeneous expansion the speed is equal in all points and by that if between 2 points exceed light speed this is exceed in all points, and also that the redshift in relation with distance is against a homogeneous expansion. Thanks.Sorry, once again I do not understand anything you say. 2nd paragraph> "this is equal in all points". What is "this"?What is "equal in all points"? 3rd paragraph?> What is "the speed is equal in all points"?Sorry, but I cannot make sense of this.You say, "redshift in relation with distance is against..."What relation?Redshift = z = v/c but only for small z. Your examples of 1 lightyear in 1 year and 2 lightyears in 2 yearsmake no sense at all. You're just saying 1 = 1. That doesnt mean anything that I can see.So, if the redshift relation is against something,WHY is it against something?
lbiar Posted June 18, 2010 Author Report Posted June 18, 2010 Thank to this note. I understand I have 2 problems to repare: what I write and how I write. This note is good for me in this moment. Sorry, once again I do not understand anything you say. 2nd paragraph> "this is equal in all points". What is "this"?What is "equal in all points"? 3rd paragraph?> What is "the speed is equal in all points"?Sorry, but I cannot make sense of this.You say, "redshift in relation with distance is against..."What relation?Redshift = z = v/c but only for small z. Your examples of 1 lightyear in 1 year and 2 lightyears in 2 yearsmake no sense at all. You're just saying 1 = 1. That doesnt mean anything that I can see.So, if the redshift relation is against something,WHY is it against something? I explain down here, after answer: 2nd paragraph> "this is equal in all points". The expansion is equal in all points. 3rd paragraph?> What is "the speed is equal in all points"? In a homogeneous expansion the mainstream say that expand according to Hubble's law and Redshift, but this is not possible, why? In a expansion the stretch is double at double distance, but in a homogeneous expansion this is not possible, in this expansion + stretch add always the same quantity. So 100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 0+100 - all need add 100% 100+0 is present (here) where expansion is 100% and stretch is 075+25 is at d/4 where expansion is 75% and stretch is 25%50+50 is a d/2 where expansion is 50% and stretch is 50%25+75 is a 3d/4 where expansion is 25% and stretch is 75%0+100 is a d where expansion is 0% and stretch is 100% (=light speed = not vision) (if not add 100% the expansion is not homogenous, nee to add 100% all theirs) The expansion cannot to be at same time homogeneous: 50-50-50-50 (need for homogeneity and isotropy - 50 is expansion+stretch and at doble distance the speed is the same) and incremental 50-40-30-20-10 or 10-20-30-40 (need for Hubble’s law and redshift in relation with distance). In a homogeneous expansion what is a double distance is double stretch but has half expansion and by that all the distances show equals and by that is homogeneous (the universe is homogeneous and isotropy and this are facts. How the expansion is homogeneous the speed of expansion is equal in all the points : the universe “expands uniformly in all directions” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space and by that the speed is the same in all points. So: the speed grow but always is the same in all the points, speed = distance / time and in the universe distance is also time, so d /t = (d/2) / (t/2) = (d/4) / (t/4), .... If between 2 points of the universe the speed of light is exceed, by this the speed is exceed in all points. (the mainstream has error here). Look in other form: e= expansion + strechd + e /t = ((d/2) + (e/2)) /(t/2) By this a homogeneous expansion is against the exceed of light speed because this is in all the points and also is against redshift ("redshift in relation with distance") and hubble's law, all theirs need that speed is more at more distance. "Your examples of 1 lightyear in 1 year and 2 lightyears in 2 yearsmake no sense at all. You're just saying 1 = 1. " Is the problem that has the mainstream and expansion theory, that don't have in consideration that 1 lightyear in 1 year and 2 lightyears in 2 years and by that the expansion homogeneous has the same speed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This note is very important for me, please say me problems, if I don't explain well I can't arrive to any place. I have made later this another post, more explain (with error) and explain also why the homogeneous is against hubble's law - http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-and-cosmology/23492-the-evidences-for-the-big-bang.html#post299132 (I need to repair it with this new information, later), remember: redshift, hubble's law, homogeneity are facts (evidences), the expansion theory and big-bang are theories, the visual expansion you can consider also a fact (evidence) but not the real expansion, this is against that I write here, All my work is according to visual expansion and against real expansion, a universe without expansion (only visual) is according with Hubble's law and redshift (more distance is more stretch [double time in double distance] and is homogeneous without need of expansion). Thanks. Please, say me more errors, here or by private. I need more help.
modest Posted June 19, 2010 Report Posted June 19, 2010 In a homogeneous expansion the mainstream say that expand according to Hubble's law and Redshift, but this is not possible, why? Because you are using light travel time distance when you should be using proper distance in Hubble's law. Hubble's law will not work and should not work with light travel time distance. The universe is not and should not be homogeneous in light travel time distance. So: the speed grow but always is the same in all the points, speed = distance / time and in the universe distance is also time, so d /t = (d/2) / (t/2) = (d/4) / (t/4), .... If the universe is expanding then the light travel time is not equal to the current distance times the speed of light. Your posts are not understandable. Try to limit them to only a few sentences with one question. Also, please keep your posts on this topic in one thread. Please stop creating new threads on this topic. ~modest
lbiar Posted June 21, 2010 Author Report Posted June 21, 2010 I put here my new work:I put here my new work: 2 – The Hubble’s law only is possible how an optic effect d /t = (d/2) / (t/2) = (d/4) / (t/4) = constant speed According to Hubble’s law more distance more speed, but in universe the distance also is time. A star at (d/4) need (t/4) to arrive the light to us (d/4 = lightyears of visual universe/4 = 13.7 billion lightyears that need t/4 to arrive to us = 13.7 billion years. The star a (d/2) would to have double speed of that of (d/4) (distance - speed) and so how speed is d/t it need to be at double speed (d/4) / (t/4) = (d/2)/(t/2) so 2x is d/(t/2) how by light speed we can only to see distance of (d/2) this light would be not visible. Also with another relation (d/8), … and by that hubble’s law only can to be in a universe without expansion how an optic effect. ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————- 3 – The expansion of the universe according to Hubble’s law and homogeneity only would to be at light speed The Hubble’s law relation distance with speed, the mainstream admit it for expansion, but admit for expansion incremental and homogeneous, here the mainstream has an error. The expansion of the universe cannot be at same time homogeneous: 50-50-50-50 (need for homogeneity and isotropy – 50 is expansion + stretch and at double distance the speed is the same) and incremental speed: 5-4-3-2-1 (next t/4: 6-5-4-3-2) or visual: 1-2-3-4 (need for Hubble’s law and redshift in relation with distance). Incremental expansion is how 4 cars at 1,2,3,4 km/hr, incremental is according to Hubble’s law (distance-speed) and redshift with distance, but it’s against homogeneity (more distance more little and less distances). Homogeneous expansion is according to homogeneity, but against to Hubble’s law and redshift, in this the distances and size are equals, but all with the same speed: is how 4 cars all at 5 km/hr at distances of 5,10,15 and 20 km. This takes the actual expansion 5 and homogenize all equals with relation expansion + stretch, all add equal 100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 0+100 = 100, so distances are 5-5-5-5, all have the same speed = 5/(t/4) (next t/4: 6-6-6-6). Speed = distance/time = 5/(t/4)= 10/(t/2)=15/(3t/4)=20/t = constant speed. In homogeneous only stretch can to be according to Hubble’s law, but this also is not possible: Stretch possibles: (considering 100-100-100-100 for easy adjust). 25-50-75-100% – this seem ok but here 100% is not c (light speed), is speed, so the only form possible would be if speed is light speed, but in this case the speed is in all points and we don’t see any star. Really incremental expansion also cannot be according to Hubble’s law how I write in 2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks.
lbiar Posted June 22, 2010 Author Report Posted June 22, 2010 Please close this thread, I prefer to continue in:http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-and-cosmology/23492-the-evidences-for-the-big-bang.html#post299132 Thanks
Recommended Posts