To Marcel: I am not married to the Big Bang Theory. But it seems to me
that to have a static theory, the first task is to seriously undermine
the redshift interpretation, i.e. redshift = expansion. When the BBT
was first proposed, a tremendous amount of energy and research was done
to dispel the redshift interpretation. Up to now it appears that all
such attempts have failed. When the BBT was first proposed, it met
almost universal distain and not a little scorn.

How do the static model proponents answer these questions?

What is the age of the universe, infinite?

What is the size of the universe, infinite?

What is a more compelling interpretation of the redshift?

(Daniel Weston)
Message-id:

How do the static model proponents answer these questions?

I don't know about "static" model, which is physically
impossible but I happen to know about "stationary"
(neither expanding nor contracting).

What is the age of the universe, infinite?

Most likely, but for the time being unknown.

What is the size of the universe, infinite?

No. It has a fixed size and radius of its space is 4.3 Gpc
(if H = 70 km/s/Mpc). It follows directly from Einsteinian
gravity + conservation of energy via rather simple math.

What is a more compelling interpretation of the redshift?

The direct reason for the Hubble's redshift seems to be
so called "general time dilation" which is a short name
of a phenomenon that in curved space time runs slower
at greater distance (for any observer of course) according
to Z = exp(r/R) - 1, where Z is "redshift" (time dilation), r
is distance, and R is accidentally (just numbers agree)
the radius of curvature of space. This dependence of time
dilation on distance simulates accelerating expansion, as
well as it simulates so called "tired light effect". So "tired
light" proponents had it partly right. Only partly since
Hubble's redshift turned out to be metric redshift consistent
with Einstein's theory and not "tiring of photons". Hubble's
constant at observer comes out from the above of course
as H_o=c/R, and its acceleration as (H_o^2)/2.
Acceleration (called for some reason "anomalous") of space
probes comes out as ~7x10^(-10) m/s^2.

It all is a necessity if energy is conserved and I personally
don't see any reason why it might not be. The derivation
was done 18 years ago, seen by many editors and referees,
never falsified, and never published since all editors and
referees believed that the universe is expanding and so
they expected some difficult to find error in it. Yet the whole
math consists of six lines of high school calculus, so hidden
error is highly unlikely, however one can never tell and as far
as I know our friend Bilge is still looking for one but nobody
else so I'm afraid that even if there is one (error) it might be
overlooked. If you want to volunteer to help him, you're
welcome.

-- Jim

(Daniel Weston) wrote in message ...
To Marcel: I am not married to the Big Bang Theory. But it seems to me
that to have a static theory, the first task is to seriously undermine
the redshift interpretation, i.e. redshift = expansion. When the BBT
was first proposed, a tremendous amount of energy and research was done
to dispel the redshift interpretation. Up to now it appears that all
such attempts have failed. When the BBT was first proposed, it met
almost universal distain and not a little scorn.

How do the static model proponents answer these questions?

What is the age of the universe, infinite?

What is the size of the universe, infinite?

What is a more compelling interpretation of the redshift?

I have proposed an interpretation in the article
PIONEER ANOMALY: NEW PHYSICS?, that can be found at
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/

Here is an excerpt from that article:

ARGUMENTS

John D. Aderson et al. [i]

- Conclude to the existence of a radial acceleration aP
aP = (8.74 +- 1.25) x 10^-8 in order to explain the observed
redshift deficit:

"Our previous analyses of radio Doppler and ranging data from
distant spacecraft in the solar system indicated that an apparent
anomalous acceleration is acting on Pioneer 10 and 11,
with supporting data from the Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft."

"The observed two-way anomalous effect may be expressed
by the following simple expression:
NUobs(t) = NUmodel(t) [1 - 2aP*t/c],
where NUobs is the two-way Doppler frequency shift of the
re-transmitted signal observed by a DSN antennae, while
NUmodel is the predicted frequency shift of that signal."

- But the so-called radial acceleration is not necessarily sunward:

"We only measure Earth-spacecraft Doppler frequency and, as
we will discuss in Sec. 8.1, the down link antenna yields a conical
beam of width 3.6 degrees at half-maximum power.
Therefore, between Pioneer 10's past and present (May 2001)
distances of 20 to 78 AU, the Earth-spacecraft line and Sun-spacecraft
line are so close that one can not resolve whether the force direction
is towards the Sun or if the force direction is towards the Earth.
If we could have used a longer arc fit that started earlier and hence
closer, we might have been able to separate the Sun direction from
the Earth direction."

They also wrote: "The anomalous acceleration is too large to have
gone undetected in planetary orbits, particularly for Earth and Mars."

In conclusion, the observed acceleration can be opposite the velocity
rather than sunward.

- Don't find a convincing explanation for the observed acceleration,
and consider that "the possibility remains that the effect
is real, and could even be related to cosmological quantities."

Indeed, it is in good accordance with cH, where c is the speed
of light and H a Hubble constant of 82 km/s/Mpc.

- Don't exclude that the anomly could lead to a new physics:

" If one has to consider new physics one should be open to both
points of view. In the unlikely event that there is new physics, one
does not want to miss it because one had the wrong mind set."

PROPOSED BASE OF A NEW PHYSICS

- The observed acceleration is real.

- It is equal to cH, hence it is a cosmological phenomenon,
that affects all moving bodies. In other words, it is related to
the Universe as a whole, not to the Sun or its environment
in particular.

- Consequently, planets experience a tangential deceleration,
and light undergoes a red shift in proportion to the distance
of its source.

- Assuming that the acceleration is constant, the simplest
explanation is that the Universe is Euclidian, homogeneous,
static and infinite, and that every point of the Universe is the
center of a sphere of radius c/H.

Marcel Luttgens

(Daniel Weston) wrote in message ...
To Marcel: I am not married to the Big Bang Theory. But it seems to me
that to have a static theory, the first task is to seriously undermine
the redshift interpretation, i.e. redshift = expansion. When the BBT
was first proposed, a tremendous amount of energy and research was done
to dispel the redshift interpretation. Up to now it appears that all
such attempts have failed. When the BBT was first proposed, it met
almost universal distain and not a little scorn.

How do the static model proponents answer these questions?

What is the age of the universe, infinite?

What is the size of the universe, infinite?

What is a more compelling interpretation of the redshift?

I have proposed an interpretation in the article
PIONEER ANOMALY: NEW PHYSICS?, that can be found at
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/

Here is an excerpt from that article:

ARGUMENTS

John D. Aderson et al. [i]

- Conclude to the existence of a radial acceleration aP
aP = (8.74 +- 1.25) x 10^-8 in order to explain the observed
redshift deficit:

"Our previous analyses of radio Doppler and ranging data from
distant spacecraft in the solar system indicated that an apparent
anomalous acceleration is acting on Pioneer 10 and 11,
with supporting data from the Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft."

"The observed two-way anomalous effect may be expressed
by the following simple expression:
NUobs(t) = NUmodel(t) [1 - 2aP*t/c],
where NUobs is the two-way Doppler frequency shift of the
re-transmitted signal observed by a DSN antennae, while
NUmodel is the predicted frequency shift of that signal."

- But the so-called radial acceleration is not necessarily sunward:

"We only measure Earth-spacecraft Doppler frequency and, as
we will discuss in Sec. 8.1, the down link antenna yields a conical
beam of width 3.6 degrees at half-maximum power.
Therefore, between Pioneer 10's past and present (May 2001)
distances of 20 to 78 AU, the Earth-spacecraft line and Sun-spacecraft
line are so close that one can not resolve whether the force direction
is towards the Sun or if the force direction is towards the Earth.
If we could have used a longer arc fit that started earlier and hence
closer, we might have been able to separate the Sun direction from
the Earth direction."

They also wrote: "The anomalous acceleration is too large to have
gone undetected in planetary orbits, particularly for Earth and Mars."

In conclusion, the observed acceleration can be opposite the velocity
rather than sunward.

- Don't find a convincing explanation for the observed acceleration,
and consider that "the possibility remains that the effect
is real, and could even be related to cosmological quantities."

Indeed, it is in good accordance with cH, where c is the speed
of light and H a Hubble constant of 82 km/s/Mpc.

- Don't exclude that the anomly could lead to a new physics:

" If one has to consider new physics one should be open to both
points of view. In the unlikely event that there is new physics, one
does not want to miss it because one had the wrong mind set."

PROPOSED BASE OF A NEW PHYSICS

- The observed acceleration is real.

- It is equal to cH, hence it is a cosmological phenomenon,
that affects all moving bodies. In other words, it is related to
the Universe as a whole, not to the Sun or its environment
in particular.

- Consequently, planets experience a tangential deceleration,
and light undergoes a red shift in proportion to the distance
of its source.

- Assuming that the acceleration is constant, the simplest
explanation is that the Universe is Euclidian, homogeneous,
static and infinite, and that every point of the Universe is the
center of a sphere of radius c/H.

Marcel Luttgens

(Daniel Weston) wrote in message ...
To Marcel: I am not married to the Big Bang Theory. But it seems to me
that to have a static theory, the first task is to seriously undermine
the redshift interpretation, i.e. redshift = expansion. When the BBT
was first proposed, a tremendous amount of energy and research was done
to dispel the redshift interpretation. Up to now it appears that all
such attempts have failed. When the BBT was first proposed, it met
almost universal distain and not a little scorn.

How do the static model proponents answer these questions?

What is the age of the universe, infinite?

What is the size of the universe, infinite?

What is a more compelling interpretation of the redshift?

I have proposed an interpretation in the article
PIONEER ANOMALY: NEW PHYSICS?, that can be found at
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/

Here is an excerpt from that article:

ARGUMENTS

John D. Aderson et al. [i]

- Conclude to the existence of a radial acceleration aP
aP = (8.74 +- 1.25) x 10^-8 in order to explain the observed
redshift deficit:

"Our previous analyses of radio Doppler and ranging data from
distant spacecraft in the solar system indicated that an apparent
anomalous acceleration is acting on Pioneer 10 and 11,
with supporting data from the Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft."

"The observed two-way anomalous effect may be expressed
by the following simple expression:
NUobs(t) = NUmodel(t) [1 - 2aP*t/c],
where NUobs is the two-way Doppler frequency shift of the
re-transmitted signal observed by a DSN antennae, while
NUmodel is the predicted frequency shift of that signal."

- But the so-called radial acceleration is not necessarily sunward:

"We only measure Earth-spacecraft Doppler frequency and, as
we will discuss in Sec. 8.1, the down link antenna yields a conical
beam of width 3.6 degrees at half-maximum power.
Therefore, between Pioneer 10's past and present (May 2001)
distances of 20 to 78 AU, the Earth-spacecraft line and Sun-spacecraft
line are so close that one can not resolve whether the force direction
is towards the Sun or if the force direction is towards the Earth.
If we could have used a longer arc fit that started earlier and hence
closer, we might have been able to separate the Sun direction from
the Earth direction."

They also wrote: "The anomalous acceleration is too large to have
gone undetected in planetary orbits, particularly for Earth and Mars."

In conclusion, the observed acceleration can be opposite the velocity
rather than sunward.

- Don't find a convincing explanation for the observed acceleration,
and consider that "the possibility remains that the effect
is real, and could even be related to cosmological quantities."

Indeed, it is in good accordance with cH, where c is the speed
of light and H a Hubble constant of 82 km/s/Mpc.

- Don't exclude that the anomly could lead to a new physics:

" If one has to consider new physics one should be open to both
points of view. In the unlikely event that there is new physics, one
does not want to miss it because one had the wrong mind set."

PROPOSED BASE OF A NEW PHYSICS

- The observed acceleration is real.

- It is equal to cH, hence it is a cosmological phenomenon,
that affects all moving bodies. In other words, it is related to
the Universe as a whole, not to the Sun or its environment
in particular.

- Consequently, planets experience a tangential deceleration,
and light undergoes a red shift in proportion to the distance
of its source.

- Assuming that the acceleration is constant, the simplest
explanation is that the Universe is Euclidian, homogeneous,
static and infinite, and that every point of the Universe is the
center of a sphere of radius c/H.

Marcel Luttgens

(Daniel Weston) wrote in message ...
To Marcel: I am not married to the Big Bang Theory. But it seems to me
that to have a static theory, the first task is to seriously undermine
the redshift interpretation, i.e. redshift = expansion. When the BBT
was first proposed, a tremendous amount of energy and research was done
to dispel the redshift interpretation. Up to now it appears that all
such attempts have failed. When the BBT was first proposed, it met
almost universal distain and not a little scorn.

How do the static model proponents answer these questions?

What is the age of the universe, infinite?

What is the size of the universe, infinite?

What is a more compelling interpretation of the redshift?

I have proposed an interpretation in the article
PIONEER ANOMALY: NEW PHYSICS?, that can be found at
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/

Here is an excerpt from that article:

ARGUMENTS

John D. Aderson et al. [i]

- Conclude to the existence of a radial acceleration aP
aP = (8.74 +- 1.25) x 10^-8 in order to explain the observed
redshift deficit:

"Our previous analyses of radio Doppler and ranging data from
distant spacecraft in the solar system indicated that an apparent
anomalous acceleration is acting on Pioneer 10 and 11,
with supporting data from the Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft."

"The observed two-way anomalous effect may be expressed
by the following simple expression:
NUobs(t) = NUmodel(t) [1 - 2aP*t/c],
where NUobs is the two-way Doppler frequency shift of the
re-transmitted signal observed by a DSN antennae, while
NUmodel is the predicted frequency shift of that signal."

- But the so-called radial acceleration is not necessarily sunward:

"We only measure Earth-spacecraft Doppler frequency and, as
we will discuss in Sec. 8.1, the down link antenna yields a conical
beam of width 3.6 degrees at half-maximum power.
Therefore, between Pioneer 10's past and present (May 2001)
distances of 20 to 78 AU, the Earth-spacecraft line and Sun-spacecraft
line are so close that one can not resolve whether the force direction
is towards the Sun or if the force direction is towards the Earth.
If we could have used a longer arc fit that started earlier and hence
closer, we might have been able to separate the Sun direction from
the Earth direction."

They also wrote: "The anomalous acceleration is too large to have
gone undetected in planetary orbits, particularly for Earth and Mars."

In conclusion, the observed acceleration can be opposite the velocity
rather than sunward.

- Don't find a convincing explanation for the observed acceleration,
and consider that "the possibility remains that the effect
is real, and could even be related to cosmological quantities."

Indeed, it is in good accordance with cH, where c is the speed
of light and H a Hubble constant of 82 km/s/Mpc.

- Don't exclude that the anomly could lead to a new physics:

" If one has to consider new physics one should be open to both
points of view. In the unlikely event that there is new physics, one
does not want to miss it because one had the wrong mind set."

PROPOSED BASE OF A NEW PHYSICS

- The observed acceleration is real.

- It is equal to cH, hence it is a cosmological phenomenon,
that affects all moving bodies. In other words, it is related to
the Universe as a whole, not to the Sun or its environment
in particular.

- Consequently, planets experience a tangential deceleration,
and light undergoes a red shift in proportion to the distance
of its source.

- Assuming that the acceleration is constant, the simplest
explanation is that the Universe is Euclidian, homogeneous,
static and infinite, and that every point of the Universe is the
center of a sphere of radius c/H.

Marcel Luttgens

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om...
(Jim Jastrzebski) wrote in message ...
(Daniel Weston)
Message-id:


You wrote

"My paper can make only the work of astronomers easier
giving them a simple picture of the universe that Einstein's
theory + conservation of energy predicts and observations
like "accelerating expansion" and "anomalous" acceleration of space
probes confirm?
Acceleration (called for some reason "anomalous") of space
probes comes out as ~7x10^(-10) m/s^2."

I agree with you, but my explanation is simpler:

The Universe is Euclidian, homogeneous, "static" and infinite, and
every of its points is the center of a sphere of radius c/H.

It can't do baby algebra
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...SRSymbols.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Relations.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...RLuttgens.html
but it has its own private Universe.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message om...
(Jim Jastrzebski) wrote in message ...
(Daniel Weston)
Message-id:


You wrote

"My paper can make only the work of astronomers easier
giving them a simple picture of the universe that Einstein's
theory + conservation of energy predicts and observations
like "accelerating expansion" and "anomalous" acceleration of space
probes confirm?
Acceleration (called for some reason "anomalous") of space
probes comes out as ~7x10^(-10) m/s^2."

I agree with you, but my explanation is simpler:

The Universe is Euclidian, homogeneous, "static" and infinite, and
every of its points is the center of a sphere of radius c/H.

It can't do baby algebra
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../IfOnlyIf.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...SRSymbols.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Relations.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...RLuttgens.html
but it has its own private Universe.

Dirk Vdm

Stupid troll.

Marcel Luttgens

(Marcel Luttgens)
Message-id:

[Jim]
Acceleration (called for some reason "anomalous") of space
probes comes out as ~7x10^(-10) m/s^2."
[Marcel]
I agree with you, but my explanation is simpler:

The Universe is Euclidian, homogeneous, "static" and infinite, and
every of its points is the center of a sphere of radius c/H.

It is also a center of a sphere of any other radius:
1 inch, 2 inches, ... so what's the point?

How is it simpler? How an infinite universe, with no
gravity in it (Euclidean), is simpler than a finite one
with gravitational phenomena as they are observed?

What I was talking about was that if the principle of
conservation of energy is valid (i.e. the nature is
unable to produce energy from nothing, which I
believe is the case) then the space of "Einstein's
universe" (stationary one) has radius c/H. It follows
from Einsteinian gravity + conservation of energy via
a couple of lines of high school calculus. So Big Bang
folks either don't agree on Einsteinian gravity (but they
do), or high school calculus (they agree as well), or
the principle of conservation of energy.

It turns out that the basis of their belief in BB is their
disbelief in the principle of conservation of energy.
They say (through John Baez): "Jim, it [energy] is not
conserved". So for BB folks the universe may have
different radius that it follows from Einsteinian gravity
+ conservation of energy. In fact their radius of
space increases while we speak. It's weird but we
have to respect other people's beliefs. A lot of
people still believe in Santa and we respect their
beliefs too, so BB crowd is at least a little bit more
sophisticated. Imagine the life if you could discuss
only with those who still believe in Santa as it
happens on sci.philosophy.meta where some folks
still believe even in existence of "absolute time"
(almost 100 years after Einstein)?

-- Jim

Marcel Luttgens

(Jim Jastrzebski) wrote in message ...
(Marcel Luttgens)
Message-id:

[Jim]
Acceleration (called for some reason "anomalous") of space
probes comes out as ~7x10^(-10) m/s^2."
[Marcel]
I agree with you, but my explanation is simpler:

The Universe is Euclidian, homogeneous, "static" and infinite, and
every of its points is the center of a sphere of radius c/H.

It is also a center of a sphere of any other radius:
1 inch, 2 inches, ... so what's the point?

Yes, but the radius c/H corresponds to that of our "visible"
universe. Ouside such radius, one can as well claim that nothing exists.
If you calculate the acceleration of gravity at the surface of
such universe, you would find cH. If an object or a light beam
starts from its center, a negative acceleration will reduce
the speed of the object or increase the wavelength of the light.
Of course, the acceleration is only cH at the center.
But if the universe is infinite, one can consider that each of its points
is the center of the visible universe, hence that the value of the
negative acceleration is always cH. Note that if 1/H = 12.5 billion
light-years, cH = 7.6E-10 m/s^2, a value which is rather close to the
"anomalous" acceleration.


How is it simpler? How an infinite universe, with no
gravity in it (Euclidean), is simpler than a finite one
with gravitational phenomena as they are observed?

By Euclidian, I mean an universe for which Euclid's parallel postulate
holds. I don't see why gravitation could not exist in such universe.


What I was talking about was that if the principle of
conservation of energy is valid (i.e. the nature is
unable to produce energy from nothing, which I
believe is the case) then the space of "Einstein's
universe" (stationary one) has radius c/H. It follows
from Einsteinian gravity + conservation of energy via
a couple of lines of high school calculus. So Big Bang
folks either don't agree on Einsteinian gravity (but they
do), or high school calculus (they agree as well), or
the principle of conservation of energy.

It turns out that the basis of their belief in BB is their
disbelief in the principle of conservation of energy.
They say (through John Baez): "Jim, it [energy] is not
conserved". So for BB folks the universe may have
different radius that it follows from Einsteinian gravity
+ conservation of energy. In fact their radius of
space increases while we speak. It's weird but we
have to respect other people's beliefs.

Yes, and it is as difficult to understand why the BBists
still consider that their universe is younger than stars
it contains.

A lot of
people still believe in Santa and we respect their
beliefs too, so BB crowd is at least a little bit more
sophisticated. Imagine the life if you could discuss
only with those who still believe in Santa as it
happens on sci.philosophy.meta where some folks
still believe even in existence of "absolute time"
(almost 100 years after Einstein)?

-- Jim


Marcel Luttgens