"Spoonfed" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
| Spoonfed wrote:
| The diagrams you have drawn show a Galilean Transformation,
showing a
| fairly small change in speed, less than ten percent of the speed
of
| light. This would cover the area within a billion light years of
| Earth; within 10% of the radius of the universe.
|
| First, that's the radius of the *visible* universe; nobody knows how
big the
| whole universe is. Second, in terms of comoving distance the radius
of the
| visible universe is about 47 billion light years, so one billion
light years
| is a lot less than 10%.


You have some evidence for this? Please cite the astronomer's name,
I'd be interested. 47 billion ly sounds rather a lot.



| When we get outside that range, if Hubble's Law still holds true,
we
| need to use a Lorentz Transformation, as the Galilean
transformation is
| only an approximation.
|
| As I've said before, the Galilean transformation is a better
approximation
| than the Lorentz transformation in this situation. More precisely,
fix an
| object O which is roughly stationary with respect to the CMBR, and
choose
| coordinates such that time is cosmological time and distance from
the origin
| is comoving distance from O. The coordinate systems so obtained, for
| different objects O, are related by a coordinate transformation
which is
| similar to the Galilean transformation.
|
| I know we've talked about this before, and I recall you said that
you were
| aware that your ideas were different from mainstream cosmology. If
so, I
| think you should tag your posts with "this is just my personal
theory,
| but...". And you should be aware that your model, if I understand it
| correctly, is a special case of the standard big bang model with
Omega ~ 0,
| but Omega has been known to be about 1 for a long time. For as long
as I can
| remember, the only debate has been over whether it is slightly
larger or
| slightly smaller than one. Zero is way outside the error bars.
|
| -- Ben
|
| Actually, my idea is that k=0 and a(t)=1. These are terms from the
| FLRW metric. As far as the cosmological constant goes, I don't even
| know what it is, let alone what value it might have.
|
| My personal theory,



Ahhh..... a personal theory... they abound. Got any evidence?


Androcles.




though it is a work in progress, is that the
| universe started from (approximately) a point, and expanded outward
| into space. Our local section of the universe underwent a huge
| acceleration from the beginning. In the massive amount of energy
| available in the beginning, Brownian motion caused the primordial
| particles of our local universe to undergo immense acceleration.
|
| By accelerating toward a receding object, but not matching pace with
| it, we enter a frame of reference where the space between us and the
| receding object is length uncontracted. It will be moving away more
| slowly, but also more distant. In this way, the distance will be
| greater than you would expect from its velocity. Likewise, the
| faintness would be more than you would expect from its redshift.
|
| Imagine at the dawn of the universe, we were being pushed HARD from
| below by that hot part of the CMBR. Primordial Andromeda M31 galaxy
| and and Fornax supercluster are right over our heads, and SN1997ff,
| M87, and Virgo are at our feet. We are forced up, accelerating, and
| with each change in velocity, the universe under us is scrunched by
| length contraction, while overhead, distances to receding particles
are
| Lorentz "uncontracted" until we match pace with them... but there are
| always more particles outpacing us, so as we continue to accelerate,
| the region above us expands to an ancient sphere (as old as it is
big),
| while we accelerate away from the very edge of that sphere, receding
| right under our feet.
|
| Millions of years pass by, and toward the end of our acceleration era,
| we match pace with Andromeda galaxy, and start to overtake it so it
| starts falling "down" towards us.
|
| Because the area below us is length contracted, Hubble's constant
| toward our feet, toward Virgo cluster, is a very tightly packed 55
| km/sec/MPc. Meanwhile, overhead, in the length uncontracted region,
| toward Fornax cluster, Hubble's constant is a much more loosely packed
| 80 km/sec/Mpc. These values for Hubble's constant have been argued,
| but in my theory, they are both right.
|
| Because of "uncontraction" all the stars overhead (toward Andromeda
and
| Fornax) are further away than they would be by the formula,
| distance=rate * time. They are all dimmer than their redshifts would
| indicate. But what about those below?
|
| Our acceleration was right at the beginning of the universe... They
| distances to them contracted at once, while the stars at our feet were
| still nearby. An expansion of a little distance can get HUGE, but a
| contraction of a little distance is still little. These stars may
have
| been delayed a couple million years in taking off away from us, but
| still, they should be very close to matching the distance=rate*time.
|
| They may have even accelerated toward us after we stopped
accelerating,
| meaning they would have a higher average velocity away from us than
| their current velocity away from us... So these stars should also be
| slightly dimmer than their redshifts would indicate, although for
| different reasons.
|
| But where does that leave SN1997ff? It's a supernova that is much
| brighter than it should be, as though it was staying close to us for a
| long time, but then all of a sudden, it took off away from us.
|
| Well, there's room in this model for mysteries. I'm guessing that
| whatever caused it to go supernova also caused it to shoot downward
| toward the near edge of the universe.
|
| That's my theory, as it stands today, after spending most of the day
| looking up Right Ascensions and Declinations for a bunch of those
| objects. As far as whether it comes close to the standard model, I'm
| pretty sure it doesn't, but I'm not 100% certain, because I've never
| heard much about the standard model except that you can't understand
it
| without years of graduate level mathematics.
|
| The neat thing about my explanation, though, is that it fits the data.
|