oldcoot <oldcoot7074@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 6, 8:47 am, herbertglaz...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
>>
>> Once Einstein saw the evidence that galaxies were moving away from
>> each other at an accelerating rate he gave up his "static" universe..
>>
>Bert, he gave it up once he saw evidence of the Hubble Constant, which
>is simply the increasing expansion-rate per unit of distance. The idea
>of "ever-accelerating" expansion did not come into vogue until the
>mid-1990s with the observation of the most distant 1a supernova
>"standard candles" appearing dimmer than they 'should be' at a given
>red****ft. This led to the invention of "dark energy" as driving the
>perceived ever-accelerating expansion.
> And it's all predicated on space being isotropically
>and functionally void all the way back to the BB (with the speed of
>light invariant all the way back to the BB). The 'Void' model does not
>recognize the *cosmological density gradient* (CDG) of space itself
>which begins rising exponentially at deep cosmological distances. Once
>the CDG is recognized and factored in, the expansion curve will ****ft
>to DEcelerating expansion and a closed universe. "Ever-accelerating
>expansion" becomes a grand illusion with no need for mythical "dark
>energy".
> And as a side note, the precipitous density-drop
>from the instant off the BB also resolves the Horizon Problem and
>eliminates the need for "inflation". Note the concomitant drop in the
>speed of light across the CDG. This lightspeed drop, Wolter's "c-
>dilation" is _as observed from the 'outside' referance frame_. Yet
>from here 'inside', we observe artifacts such as the 1a supernova
>dimming. From the 'inside' frame, c is always constant 'there' locally
>just as it is constant 'here', locally. Thus there is no violation of
>the Lorentz invariance (or any other constant for that matter). The
>sole variable between 'here' and 'there' is the density value of the
>spatial medium.
>
>> He (Einstein) got swayed with the bad popular
>> theory.(constant) That is the reason I fight bad popular theories.
>
>Well, the presumed "void-ness" of space and the invariance of
>lightspeed all the way back to the BB is a "bad" theory. It's the
>reason Special Relativity is presently 'flat'. SR presently holds c
>constant in all inertial frames. The natural extension/expansion of SR
>is to recognize the CDG.. which will recognize c as constant in all
>*density frames* as well. Updating SR will bring it out of its 'flat'
>status, and grant proper understanding of 'c-dilation'.
>
>And as a further side note, there is a concomitant dilation of the
>clock rate across the CDG. Vastly more 'ticks of the clock' have
>transpired since the BB than allowed under the sitting model. So what
>does this say about the "age of the universe"??
Unfortunately for you, special and general relativity, as well as the
constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, have all been confirmed by
careful experimentation. There is no need to "update" anything.
--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen
|
