BIG BANG THEORY: M4, the final blow

**Jim Jastrzebski** · #1 July 13th 03 posted to sci.physics.relativity

(Marcel Luttgens)
Message-id:

[...] one should accept that the universe is static.

The universe is obviously not "static" since e.g. the moon
travels around the earth, not to mention other things that
obviously _move_ wrt each other.

It might be _stationary_ though, and most likely it is since
nothing that we observe contradicts such a possibility, and
it may be shown that if principle of conservation of energy
is valid then it is almost surely stationary (if its density is
~6x10^(-27) kg/m^3 then the whole ~70 km/s/Mpc "Hubble's
redshift" is consistent with the principle of conservation of
energy and so no part of it is left for the expansion).

Maybe editors scientific journals should allow printing
papers that assume validity of principle of conservation
of energy? Maybe moderators of moderated sci newsgroups
should allow points of view according to which energy is
conserved? Maybe then a lot of problems disappear
automatically.

After all Einstein's Field Equations conserves energy
automatically and so insisting that the universe is
expanding just to prove that energy is not conserved
doesn't seem to have much sense, and even worse,
it makes astronomers look like idiots (what one
astronomer already noticed appealing some time ago
to late [but not at that time of course] Carl Sagan to
stop somehow this nonsense with "big bang").

If we already have a good theory in which the universe
can be stationary but only looking like expanding with
accelerating expansion, and the same theory explains
"anomalous" accelerations of space probes, and is
basically created by Einstein just with different metric,
why not to stick to it and break for a while with this
creationist nonsense of the universe being created
14 billions years ago?

If the stuff is ready and waiting for astronomers to get
sober, why not to publish it regardless of whether they
want to read it or not? If it is wrong, the big bangers
should be only happy and if it is right, we don't have
any more problems with tough to explain phenomena.
Both possibilities give something good. So what's the
big deal? Why e.g. editors reject without even sending
to referees my paper that 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? Why creation of matter from nothing
is presently the preferred model?

-- (baffled) Jim

**Marcel Luttgens** · #2 July 13th 03 posted to sci.physics.relativity

Tom Roberts wrote in message ...
Jim Jastrzebski wrote:
(Marcel Luttgens)
[...] one should accept that the universe is static.
The universe is obviously not "static" since e.g. the moon
travels around the earth, not to mention other things that
obviously _move_ wrt each other.

Yes.

It might be _stationary_ though, and most likely it is since
nothing that we observe contradicts such a possibility,

Not true. While I am not an expert on cosmological observations, there
are several observations I know of that contradict any reasonable
stationary model of the universe:

1. The redshift of distant galaxies is roughly proportional to their
distance away from us.
2. The CMBR we observe has a temperature of 2.7 K; near distant objects
it is observed to be much hotter.
... there may well be others

AFAIK to explain these in a stationary model requires that one postulate
processes that we don't observe to occur locally (e.g. "tired light").

and
it may be shown that if principle of conservation of energy
is valid then it is almost surely stationary

Not true. GR and the FRW manifolds are a counterexample.

Maybe editors scientific journals should allow printing
papers that assume validity of principle of conservation
of energy?

Huh??? GR contains the local conservation of energy and papers about it
are published quite regularly. Perhaps you don't understand what
"conservation of energy" means in modern physics.... But in GR this is
not an "assumption", it is a conclusion....

After all Einstein's Field Equations conserves energy
automatically and so insisting that the universe is
expanding just to prove that energy is not conserved
doesn't seem to have much sense,

Obviously you don't understand GR. One uses "expanding" models in order
to match observations of our world. The local conservation of energy is
always present in such models, as they are solutions of the Einstein
field equation.

[... sillier stuff omitted]

Tom Roberts

You should at least try to understand what Jim Jastrzebski wrote.
Local conservation doesn't imply global conservation.
You should think "globally", not "locally".
Anyhow, you are outside the point, which is the fact that remote
globular clusters are much older than the GR universe.

Marcel Luttgens

**Marcel Luttgens** · #3 July 13th 03 posted to sci.physics.relativity

Tom Roberts wrote in message ...
Jim Jastrzebski wrote:
(Marcel Luttgens)
[...] one should accept that the universe is static.
The universe is obviously not "static" since e.g. the moon
travels around the earth, not to mention other things that
obviously _move_ wrt each other.

Yes.

It might be _stationary_ though, and most likely it is since
nothing that we observe contradicts such a possibility,

Not true. While I am not an expert on cosmological observations, there
are several observations I know of that contradict any reasonable
stationary model of the universe:

1. The redshift of distant galaxies is roughly proportional to their
distance away from us.
2. The CMBR we observe has a temperature of 2.7 K; near distant objects
it is observed to be much hotter.
... there may well be others

AFAIK to explain these in a stationary model requires that one postulate
processes that we don't observe to occur locally (e.g. "tired light").

and
it may be shown that if principle of conservation of energy
is valid then it is almost surely stationary

Not true. GR and the FRW manifolds are a counterexample.

Maybe editors scientific journals should allow printing
papers that assume validity of principle of conservation
of energy?

Huh??? GR contains the local conservation of energy and papers about it
are published quite regularly. Perhaps you don't understand what
"conservation of energy" means in modern physics.... But in GR this is
not an "assumption", it is a conclusion....

After all Einstein's Field Equations conserves energy
automatically and so insisting that the universe is
expanding just to prove that energy is not conserved
doesn't seem to have much sense,

Obviously you don't understand GR. One uses "expanding" models in order
to match observations of our world. The local conservation of energy is
always present in such models, as they are solutions of the Einstein
field equation.

[... sillier stuff omitted]

Tom Roberts

You should at least try to understand what Jim Jastrzebski wrote.
Local conservation doesn't imply global conservation.
You should think "globally", not "locally".
Anyhow, you are outside the point, which is the fact that remote
globular clusters are much older than the universe.

Sorry for the multiple posting, I have a problem with Google or
my provider!

Marcel Luttgens

**Marcel Luttgens** · #4 July 13th 03 posted to sci.physics.relativity

Tom Roberts wrote in message ...
Jim Jastrzebski wrote:
(Marcel Luttgens)
[...] one should accept that the universe is static.
The universe is obviously not "static" since e.g. the moon
travels around the earth, not to mention other things that
obviously _move_ wrt each other.

Yes.

It might be _stationary_ though, and most likely it is since
nothing that we observe contradicts such a possibility,

Not true. While I am not an expert on cosmological observations, there
are several observations I know of that contradict any reasonable
stationary model of the universe:

1. The redshift of distant galaxies is roughly proportional to their
distance away from us.
2. The CMBR we observe has a temperature of 2.7 K; near distant objects
it is observed to be much hotter.
... there may well be others

AFAIK to explain these in a stationary model requires that one postulate
processes that we don't observe to occur locally (e.g. "tired light").

and
it may be shown that if principle of conservation of energy
is valid then it is almost surely stationary

Not true. GR and the FRW manifolds are a counterexample.

Maybe editors scientific journals should allow printing
papers that assume validity of principle of conservation
of energy?

Huh??? GR contains the local conservation of energy and papers about it
are published quite regularly. Perhaps you don't understand what
"conservation of energy" means in modern physics.... But in GR this is
not an "assumption", it is a conclusion....

After all Einstein's Field Equations conserves energy
automatically and so insisting that the universe is
expanding just to prove that energy is not conserved
doesn't seem to have much sense,

Obviously you don't understand GR. One uses "expanding" models in order
to match observations of our world. The local conservation of energy is
always present in such models, as they are solutions of the Einstein
field equation.

[... sillier stuff omitted]

Tom Roberts

You should at least try to understand what Jim Jastrzebski wrote.
Local conservation doesn't imply global conservation.
You should think "globally", not "locally".
Anyhow, you are outside the point, which is the fact that remote
globular clusters are much older than the GR universe.

Marcel Luttgens

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New theory vs. Big Bang	jaska	Physics - General Discussion	21	December 8th 05 04:55 PM
The Big Bang is not just a theory	Sam Wormley	Physics - General Discussion	4	August 31st 05 04:56 PM
BIG BANG THEORY: M4, the final blow	Daniel Weston	The Theory of Relativity	10	July 19th 03 02:05 AM
BIG BANG THEORY: M4, the final blow	Dirk Van de moortel	The Theory of Relativity	1	July 13th 03 02:49 PM
BIG BANG THEORY: M4, the final blow	Tom Roberts	The Theory of Relativity	0	July 13th 03 12:20 AM