The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Insight Welcome

[SpeedFreek]

<p>I have no opinion, as it is impossible for us to tell if the universe even has a shape at all. The universe might be infinite - what shape would <em>that</em> be? </p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>lol, that is for sure the smartest answer I've heard yet. I hear people predict what shape the universe "must" be. But really that can only be a prediction of the "visible universe". That cannot speak for what's beyond that. We may be only looking at a small peice of the pie. I've taken everything I thought I knew and plugged it into this theory which only started as an initial thought. In reality, the universe is too vast for any of us to truely grasp a full and complete understanding of it. I almost guarentee that in the next year something else will be discovered that cannot be readily explained by current theories. Only when something like this happens are theories adjusted or added onto. But predict it as an amature, lol sometimes you could be walking into a hungry lions den, if you catch my drift. I personally have seen things as a kid that I am absolutely curtain cannot be explained then or even now. That is what first interested me in space, other then looking at the stars on moonless nights.</p><p>Here is a thought for my theory of the universe being round. Matter naturally collects together given the right conditions in space. When that matter gains enough mass it forms a spherical shape. When stars collapse and turn into neutron stars, their spherical, black holes, galaxies form a spherical shape... weither oval, spiral, etc.... it's still spherical. Almost everything we have found so far in space has a spherical shape to it. Might the universe follow this pattern? (Purposly did not include nebulea as they are a cloud of gas & matter).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>I think discussing the "shape" of the Universe will lead to misconceptions.&nbsp; Giving something a shape gives it dimensions that lead to centers and edges.&nbsp; It is probably more appropriate to discuss the topology of the Universe.</p><p>It's kinda hard to ask a 2 dimensional flatlander to describe the shape of the surface of a sphere as the flatlander has no concept of what's inside or outside.&nbsp; Much is the same as asking us 3 dimensional folks to describe the shape of the Universe that has no center or edge.&nbsp; However, we can describe the topology given enough information. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I guess that is what I was trying to do with my theory... explain how the universe is shaped; and how it is possible it acquired it's size & shape while staying within the perameters of the speed of light. I know that I have heard theories on how in the early universe it might have been possible for matter to have accelerated faster then the speed of light, but I gave at little credit to our forefathers of astro-physics on that one (mainly Einstein). However I do feel that Time & space are two seperate entities, and did not develop at the same time. If my theory could be proven, the you could literally have more the one "universe" within space. Yes, I am saying that there would be vacant space far beyond what we see, until you reach another such "big bang" occurrance. Surely there is many things about the universe going on right now that we don't understand, and won't for maybe centuries. But that's the wonderful thing about space; there are alaways new discoveries, and new mysteries. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Well, matter is not supposed to have <strong>accelerated</strong> faster than the speed of light (which would violate Special Relativity), but space was, and still is, expanding such that the separation between distant objects increases faster than light. We can see the photons that were emitted from galaxies that were, and still are, apparently receding faster than light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess that is what I was trying to do with my theory... explain how the universe is shaped; and how it is possible it acquired it's size & shape while staying within the perameters of the speed of light. I know that I have heard theories on how in the early universe it might have been possible for matter to have accelerated faster then the speed of light, but I gave at little credit to our forefathers of astro-physics on that one (mainly Einstein). However I do feel that Time & space are two seperate entities, and did not develop at the same time. If my theory could be proven, the you could literally have more the one "universe" within space. Yes, I am saying that there would be vacant space far beyond what we see, until you reach another such "big bang" occurrance. Surely there is many things about the universe going on right now that we don't understand, and won't for maybe centuries. But that's the wonderful thing about space; there are alaways new discoveries, and new mysteries. <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>As a big fan of GR, I personally think you're going to have a tough time demonstrating that space and time are separate entities.&nbsp; &nbsp; About the only way you would be able to demonstrate that the universe can achieve it's current shape and size in the absense of superluminal expansion is to demonstrate that redshift is a phenomenon that is not related to acceleration or movement, but rather it is due to some sort of "tired light" process.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; The debate between "Hubble's law" and tired light theories is probably as old as Hubble's law itself.&nbsp; Arp's work for instance would suggest that there is a problem with simply *assuming* that redshift is completely related to movement. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>Well, as many of us know we are currently passing through a cloud of "space dust" right now and have been for quite some time and will be for many years to come. If the density of this dust is equal throughout, then it would definately have an affect on the light we see, and possibly "slow it down". Also, we are rotating within our own galaxy. Given the relative distance light has to travel to reach us, is it not possible that light is "bent" about time it reaches us? There is also dark energy to consider. We don't know what role it plays on light. Say for instance if our galaxy was surrounded in dark energy, and the energy has a relative density & movement. Then as light passes through it, it would then become "bent". If it is surrounding our galaxy & meets these conditions, then we would see it appear as equally affecting everything else we see outside our galaxy and possibly within it as well.</p><p>" As with all dark matter, dark galaxies and MACHOs are both hard to detect, as we can't see them. But a surprising solution comes from the amazing effect that gravity has on the fabric of space. Everything with mass has a gravitational field, even you and me. The bigger you are, the more gravity you wield. In respect to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity actually bends the fabric of space and the more gravity an object has, the more it warps space. This was proved by Arthur Eddington on an expedition to the Amazonian forest in 1919. Now couldn't the redshift also be affected by dark matter particles that may be spread throughout the cloud were sailing through? </p><p>I'm also not saying space & time don't interact... however I do believe for the most part they are two seperate entities. Space itself could very well be bent in curtain areas, we don't know. Black holes is one example of where space & time would interact as both are affected by the entity. To prove or disprove that space & time are one, I think it would take more then the past or current theories to acheive that. There are just too many factors to consider. It's the universe after all, and we are merely about 1-100000000th of the size of a grain of sand within it </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As a big fan of GR, I personally think you're going to have a tough time demonstrating that space and time are separate entities.&nbsp; &nbsp; About the only way you would be able to demonstrate that the universe can achieve it's current shape and size in the absense of superluminal expansion is to demonstrate that redshift is a phenomenon that is not related to acceleration or movement, but rather it is due to some sort of "tired light" process.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; The debate between "Hubble's law" and tired light theories is probably as old as Hubble's law itself.&nbsp; Arp's work for instance would suggest that there is a problem with simply *assuming* that redshift is completely related to movement. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Arp's work for instance would suggest that there is a problem with simply *assuming* that redshift is completely related to movement. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Arp's work has been considered and found lacking in light of overwhelming, recent data supporting cosmological redshift.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, as many of us know we are currently passing through a cloud of "space dust" right now and have been for quite some time and will be for many years to come. If the density of this dust is equal throughout, then it would definately have an affect on the light we see, and possibly "slow it down".</DIV></p><p>As far as I know, this is always considered and taken into account.&nbsp; It's a well known phenomena:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(astronomy) </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, we are rotating within our own galaxy. Given the relative distance light has to travel to reach us, is it not possible that light is "bent" about time it reaches us?</DIV></p><p>Are you referring to the differential rotation from the inner part of the galaxy compared to the outer edges?&nbsp; Not really sure what you mean here. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is also dark energy to consider. We don't know what role it plays on light.</DIV></p><p>Actually, we do:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs-Wolfe_effect</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm also not saying space & time don't interact... however I do believe for the most part they are two seperate entities. Space itself could very well be bent in curtain areas, we don't know. Black holes is one example of where space & time would interact as both are affected by the entity. To prove or disprove that space & time are one, I think it would take more then the past or current theories to acheive that. There are just too many factors to consider. It's the universe after all, and we are merely about 1-100000000th of the size of a grain of sand within it &nbsp; <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>Space and time don't interact with each other.&nbsp; In Relativity, they are one single continuum.&nbsp; One can not be described without the other.&nbsp; You can not travel through space at a certain distance without noticing different times via various reference frames.&nbsp; You can not travel through space in a certain amount of time without noticing different distances via various reference frames.&nbsp; They are intrisic to each other.&nbsp; It's been proven as well as science is capable of "proving" things. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>I am quite aware science is capable of proving things. However science does have it's limitations. What I meant by "Also, we are rotating within our own galaxy. Given the relative distance light has to travel to reach us, is it not possible that light is "bent" about time it reaches us?" was that if our area of the galaxy is moving throught this "cloud", we are also rotating within our galaxy. Could this not cause the redshift we see as light may be bent as it passes through the cloud to reach us, or has it been considered? I know what your saying that it's always considered... but in Extinction there is a reddening affect that can be caused on distant objects. Could this affect also cause redshift? or at least be a contributer of it?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am quite aware science is capable of proving things. However science does have it's limitations. </DIV></p><p>One must also be aware that "intepretation" plays a large role in some issues, particularly the redshift debate (and yes, there is still a debate about this observation). </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I meant by "Also, we are rotating within our own galaxy. Given the relative distance light has to travel to reach us, is it not possible that light is "bent" about time it reaches us?" was that if our area of the galaxy is moving throught this "cloud", we are also rotating within our galaxy. Could this not cause the redshift we see as light may be bent as it passes through the cloud to reach us, or has it been considered? I know what your saying that it's always considered... but in Extinction there is a reddening affect that can be caused on distant objects. Could this affect also cause redshift? or at least be a contributer of it? <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1</p><p>The link above will take you to papers that describe a modern day "tired light" theory.&nbsp; Most such theories insist that there is some kind of interplay between the interstellar/intergalactic medium, and the photons that traverse space. &nbsp; Galaxy movement would not cause the "amount" of redshift that we observe.&nbsp; In order to explain that much redshifting based on movement alone, superluminal expansion would be required.&nbsp; No amount of galaxy movement would or could account for that much redshift because nothing with mass can move faster than light. &nbsp; Only "space expansion" would be able to explain that much redshift due to expansion. &nbsp;</p><p> The "most common" way that tired light theories approach this redshift issue is to suggest that there are multiple interactions between photons and the ions and atoms in the intergalactic medium that cause this redshift to occur, not the movement of objects or the expansion of space.</p><p>Since nothing made of matter can move (expand) faster than light, no amount of movement of material objects could generate a redshift pattern that requires superluminal expansion. &nbsp;&nbsp; Only the expansion of "space" (not spacetime expansion of material objects) could account for that much redshift if redshift is indeed caused by expansion.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most tired light theories presume that *no* movement occurs, and redshift is caused by interaction in the medium of space.&nbsp; I'm not even aware of any tired light theories that required any sort of expansion, either expansion of objects or the expansion of space.&nbsp; I'm sure it could be done mind you, it's just that most tired light theories presume a static, non expanding universe rather than an expanding one. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am quite aware science is capable of proving things. However science does have it's limitations.</DIV></p><p>That was my point of placing 'prove' in quotes.&nbsp; Science doesn't actually prove anything with 100% certainty. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I meant by "Also, we are rotating within our own galaxy. Given the relative distance light has to travel to reach us, is it not possible that light is "bent" about time it reaches us?" was that if our area of the galaxy is moving throught this "cloud", we are also rotating within our galaxy. Could this not cause the redshift we see as light may be bent as it passes through the cloud to reach us, or has it been considered? I know what your saying that it's always considered... but in Extinction there is a reddening affect that can be caused on distant objects. Could this affect also cause redshift? or at least be a contributer of it? <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>Not really sure what you are asking.&nbsp; Any redshifting within the galaxy is due to the doppler effect for which there is a distinct difference between the cosmological redshift of distant galaxies.&nbsp; As far as I know, the cosmological redshift considers both the doppler effect and extinction to be statistically insignificant. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1The link above will take you to papers that describe a modern day "tired light" theory.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'd just like to point out that folks are welcome to consider Brynjolfsson's work.&nbsp; However, they should keeep in mind that this work has remained unpublished for several years now and is not considered a valid approach within the mainstream community... as with all tired light theories.&nbsp; Modern or not.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd just like to point out that folks are welcome to consider Brynjolfsson's work.&nbsp; However, they should keeep in mind that this work has remained unpublished for several years now and is not considered a valid approach within the mainstream community... as with all tired light theories.&nbsp; Modern or not. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It should noted that any paper which attempts to refute Hubble's "law" is bound to be difficult to publish, particularly in mainstream publications.&nbsp; It should also be noted that there is no lack of a mathematical alternative to superliminal expansion theories, and to my knowledge, no one has ever raised a legitimate objection to Ari's matieral based strictly upon it's actual content.</p><p>It is also important to realize that this theory, like all tired light theories, tends to do away with the need for expansion of any sort.&nbsp; It is therefore not necessarily a theory that would support a "subliminal" expansion, or an "objects in motion stay in motion" type of spacetime expansion.&nbsp; This paper would in fact support a 'static' universe model, not an expanding universe model. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>I think any theory should be published regardless of what theories it goes against. This would also allow others in the field to review the work, and possibly lead to new discoveries. Not only those were excellent links, and of course I learned something new. (That's why I love this site), however, I'm wondering if the numerous immitions from neutron stars, interstellar dust (besides our own cloud were passing through), dark matter, etc... are also taken into consideration. I was also thinking about space density. Does space contain density, and if so is it even throughout? If what we see is a even redshift, then I&nbsp;suppose it would be in our local area. But then there is the question about the Ort Cloud. This area as we all know contains all the left-overs of the birth of the solar system. If there is an even distribution of particles, then could the red-shift also be caused from a sort of lensing affect by these ice & dust particles? Given the sun's gavity appears equal on all sides, I would have to say the particles would also be evenly distributed at the same distance from the sun. There seems to be a lot of factors that "could" explain the red-shift we see. What is your opinion?</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It should noted that any paper which attempts to refute Hubble's "law" is bound to be difficult to publish, particularly in mainstream publications.&nbsp; It should also be noted that there is no lack of a mathematical alternative to superliminal expansion theories, and to my knowledge, no one has ever raised a legitimate objection to Ari's matieral based strictly upon it's actual content.It is also important to realize that this theory, like all tired light theories, tends to do away with the need for expansion of any sort.&nbsp; It is therefore not necessarily a theory that would support a "subliminal" expansion, or an "objects in motion stay in motion" type of spacetime expansion.&nbsp; This paper would in fact support a 'static' universe model, not an expanding universe model. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think any theory should be published regardless of what theories it goes against. This would also allow others in the field to review the work, and possibly lead to new discoveries. Not only those were excellent links, and of course I learned something new. (That's why I love this site), however, I'm wondering if the numerous immitions from neutron stars, interstellar dust (besides our own cloud were passing through), dark matter, etc... are also taken into consideration. I was also thinking about space density. Does space contain density, and if so is it even throughout? If what we see is a even redshift, then I&nbsp;suppose it would be in our local area. But then there is the question about the Ort Cloud. This area as we all know contains all the left-overs of the birth of the solar system. If there is an even distribution of particles, then could the red-shift also be caused from a sort of lensing affect by these ice & dust particles? Given the sun's gavity appears equal on all sides, I would have to say the particles would also be evenly distributed at the same distance from the sun. There seems to be a lot of factors that "could" explain the red-shift we see. What is your opinion? <br />Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV><br /><br />Of course all of that stuff is taken into account to the best of our understanding. IMHO, and please don't take this the wrong way, but you need to educate yourself a bit more about what the current understanding of the Universe is. All other redshift "theories" have been pretty well proven to be untrue by current measurements and physics.</p><p>I'd address each issue you mentioned, but all the ideas you suggested have been considered and rejected by overwhelming evidence.</p><p>It's great to have new ideas, but you need to fill in your background understanding a little.</p><p>Again, I am not trying to be flip, you you have to do a little work to grasp where our understanding is right now before throwing ideas at the wall to see if any stick.</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think any theory should be published regardless of what theories it goes against. This would also allow others in the field to review the work, and possibly lead to new discoveries.</DIV></p><p>Well, I guess the objection to this idea would be that someone is bound to try to publish stuff that simply doesn't jive with actual observations.&nbsp; I can see the wisdom of allowing for multiple "interpretations" of the same observation, in this case redshift. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not only those were excellent links, and of course I learned something new. (That's why I love this site), however, I'm wondering if the numerous immitions from neutron stars, interstellar dust (besides our own cloud were passing through), dark matter, etc... are also taken into consideration.</DIV></p><p>"MECO" theory is something you might check out sometime. That type of feature isn't really taken into account in most redshift theories, but such theories suggest that objects themselves can have a specific redshift.&nbsp; Most "tired light" type theories are based on Compton scattering theories within the medium rather than being intrinsic to the object.&nbsp;&nbsp; You might also note that Rhessi has observed redshift patterns that are not easily explained by Doppler movements. </p><p>http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html</p><p>http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/Hubble_latest_web.htm</p><p>http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/2003_ajl_L81.pdf </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was also thinking about space density. Does space contain density, and if so is it even throughout?</DIV></p><p>Yes and no.&nbsp; If you look at many of the Hubble images you will often find "dense clouds" in the images, not to mention areas with galaxies and areas without galaxies.&nbsp; At very large scales the universe is thought to be homogeneously distrubuted, but at smaller scales things are quite variable.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If what we see is a even redshift, then I&nbsp;suppose it would be in our local area.</DIV></p><p>No necessarily.&nbsp; It depends I guess on the "cause" of redshift.&nbsp; As I said, most "tired light" explanation of redshift tend to suggest that light interacts with electrons in the atmosphere of stars and in plasma in general.</p><p> There are many possible factors to consider.&nbsp; What you might want to start to think about is how many of them are actually "testable" in a controlled experiment sort of setting.&nbsp; Doppler movements can actually be shown to create "redshift", whereas no one can actually cause "space" to expand in a lab.&nbsp; Some aspects of Doppler movement however are viable and should not be ignored or taken lightly.&nbsp; It's likely to be a complicated explanation involving many influences.&nbsp; Even standard theory involves a lot of different types of redshift. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>MeteorWayne, I'm not offended at all by what you say at all. Not sure what IMHO stands for though) In fact there is great wisdom in your words. It is quit obvious that you know a lot more about this subject then what I do. There are in fact a number of theories&nbsp;I have read about on the internet about the universe... however it wasn't until I started more into reading&nbsp;the discussion threads; here on this site did I learn where to go to do some "proper" research. The links you and others provided thus far have greatly improved and continues to expand my understanding. I also recognize that many ppl do not want to go back to what they consider "the basics" of these theories just to explain it to a someone with less understanding, but would rather debate with someone else that is full armed with a complete history of the subject. I do appreciate you taking the time you have, and sharing your wisdom fellas. I knew many think "must" have been taken into consideration... but not nearly as must as what I learned about here. We all learn somewhere... even some of the greats like&nbsp;Mr. Albert Einstein, Mr. Edwin hubble, and Sir Isaac Newton had mentors... which infact I have to be greatful to Sir Isaac newton the most for designing the Reflector telescope. Otherwise my telescope would need to be around 30m to get the picture I want, and color, lol.</p><p>Michaelmozina, Speedfreek, derekmcd and others... also thanks goes to you for providing your insights and wisdom on this subject. Your information has been most useful in expanding my knowledge. It is good to have various points of view about any subject. Actually it's a must to have a complete understanding. You all make great teachers. Thanks again. I will take a look at these links as well when I have some free time.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <br />Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV><br /><br />IMHO means In My Humble Opinion, BTW (By the Way)</p><p>I've been searching for a particularly good link posted in another thread discussiong tired light, but I haven't found it yet. When I di, I'll be sure to post it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It should noted that any paper which attempts to refute Hubble's "law" is bound to be difficult to publish, particularly in mainstream publications.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Why do you think this is?&nbsp; I can think of two reasons:</p><p>1.&nbsp; There are flaws and/or unanswered questions that need to be addressed prior to publication.</p><p>2.&nbsp; There is conspiracy against anything that calls into question anything mainstream.&nbsp; I'll address this one.&nbsp; Let's assume I am on the peer review board reviewing Ari's paper.&nbsp; I see no flaws and find merits in it's proposals.&nbsp; Now, either I personally wish to not see it published, or the powers that be instruct me to not approve it.&nbsp; The 'who' doesn't matter.&nbsp; What matters is that it is a public paper.&nbsp; If it truely has merits and may be a valid approach, I (or whomever) run the risk of forever ruining the credibility of the journal to which it was submitted.</p><p>Ari's papers have been public for quite some time now.&nbsp; If there were merit and validity to them, there would be a major stink in the entire astrophysical community that they were not published.&nbsp; Something as profound as what Ari is proposing does not go unnoticed.&nbsp; There would be a rush by other journals to get his work published.&nbsp; There would be physicists citing his work and attempting to further his proposals.&nbsp; Surely, the peer review board that he submitted his papers to are not the only folks reading them. </p><p>I'll stick with #1.&nbsp; I've looked through his papers several years ago, but quite honestly didn't grasp them.&nbsp; Not to mention that, IIRC, he has 3 or 4 papers approaching 100 pages.&nbsp; No easy task for the layman to critique. &nbsp; I understand much more these days.&nbsp; I have some free time this weekend and will give them another whirl.&nbsp; No promises, though...<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think any theory should be published regardless of what theories it goes against.<br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>A weekly or monthly journal that is 2 feet thick... not gonna help advance science that way. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"MECO" theory is something you might check out sometime. That type of feature isn't really taken into account in most redshift theories, but such theories suggest that objects themselves can have a specific redshift.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>MECO theories have larger holes in them than black holes.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MECO theories have larger holes in them than black holes. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Can someone translate MECO for me. I'm sure it's not Main Engine Cut Off <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can someone translate MECO for me. I'm sure it's not Main Engine Cut Off <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Magnetospheric Eternally Contracting Object.&nbsp; It is yet another failed attempt at disproving black holes by Abhas Mitra.&nbsp; There have been several such attempts recently revolving around the Schwarzschild solutions.&nbsp; Most notably, by Stephen J. Crothers, Leonard S. Abrams, and Salvatore Antoci have all been soundly rejected by relativists with a far deeper mathematical understanding than what I posses. </p><p>If there was any merit to their work, physicists would be flocking en masse like ants to honey to have their names associated with such a profound paradigm shift. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetospheric Eternally Contracting Object.&nbsp; It is yet another failed attempt at disproving black holes by Abhas Mitra.&nbsp; There have been several such attempts recently revolving around the Schwarzschild solutions.&nbsp; Most notably, by Stephen J. Crothers, Leonard S. Abrams, and Salvatore Antoci have all been soundly rejected by relativists with a far deeper mathematical understanding than what I posses. If there was any merit to their work, physicists would be flocking en masse like ants to honey to have their names associated with such a profound paradigm shift. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Thank woo very much! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>