| Author | Post |
|---|
cmancone
approved users
| Joined: | Thu Oct 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 1st, 2006 08:43 pm |
|
Interestingly, the value of 'hr/m' itself when converted to SI units has the value of 2.1x10-18 m3s-1. Supernovae data, in astronomical units give H = 64 km/s per Mpc which, when converted to SI units is 2.1x10-18 s-1. We see that supernovae data gives a value of the Hubble constant equal in magnitude to 'hr/m' itself. This is an interesting 'coincidence' and leads to several strange implications. One of these 'strange' implications is that if we are to believe in the expanding Universe, then we must believe that the age of the Universe is related to the electron! Scientists base the age of the Universe on the 'Hubble time' which is just the reciprocal of the Hubble constant. The Hubble time (1/H) is the time since the Universe 'began' if one ignores the effects of gravity and 'acceleration'. Since experimental results are telling us that the magnitude of H is equal to hr/m for the electron then the magnitude of the age of the universe must be the same as m/hr!
Here Lyndon we encounter your biggest assumption. You seem to conclude that because the value of the Hubble Constant is roughly equal to the value of hr/m that the two HAVE to be related. However, this is completely false. The two could be similar in magnitude by sheer coincidence, in fact, this is what has happened. Your claim reminds me of another one I have read about from Richard Hoagland. You can read about his claims and why they are wrong here:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/city.html
Even if the value of the Hubble constant were exactly equal to hr/m (which it isn't) this still would not prove the big bang wrong. Just because you don't think it's a coincidence doesn't mean it isn't a coincidence. It is entirely possible for the two to have similar values by sheer chance. A coincidence of this nature proves nothing. Also, more accurate and recent calculations of the Hubble Constant give a value of 72 km/s/Mpc. I'll post a link to the paper in question once it is published (another month or two probably).
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 10:57 am |
|
Hi Cmancone,
No, it is not a big assumption. In Science, when we meet a coincidence we work out the probability of it happening. If the probability is greater than one in twenty then we say it is just a coincidence and put it to one side. If the probability is less than 1 in 20 then we say that maybe there is something in it.
http://lyndonashmore.com/ashmores_paradox.htm
In tired light, the coincidence that H has the same value as hr/m for the electron in each cubic metre of space is highly probable seeing that the Theory predicts H = 2n(hr/m) and 'n' is thought to have a value somewhere inbetween 0.1 and 10 electrons per cubic metre. So it is just an interesting. fluke result. in Tired Light.
In an expanding universe, H is not supposed to be linked to the electron so it is highly unlikely that it should have the same value as hr/m. Ergo, the Big Bang theory is, and always was, wrong!
I look forward to the link. H = 72 km/s per Mpc is no problem to Tired Light, it just means that n = 1.1 electrons per metre cubed - well within observation.
Cheers,
Lyndon
|
cmancone
approved users
| Joined: | Thu Oct 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 10:48 pm |
|
Ah, now we find the true power of your tired light theory. In your website, you mention that the density of the IGM is measured to be somewhere between .1 and 10 particles/m^3. This means that no matter what value is found for the Hubble Constant, you can use your fudge factor (n) to adjust the predicted value from tired light theory by 2 orders of magnitude!!! A factor of 100 is huge! This fact completely demolishes your claims of "coincidence". The fact that 2nhr/m agrees so exactly with Ho is not in the least bit surprising because your value for 2nhr/m has such huge error bars on it. You can predict a value for Ho anywhere from 6.4 to 640 and still claim coincidence. Your huge error bars let you pick whatever value of n suits your needs to match up with the Hubble Constant. I'm sorry, but that is very bad science.
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 07:42 pm |
|
Hi Cmancone,
So How does the Expanding universe theory compare?
What's the predicted value of the Hubble constant in the expanding universe theory and how does that compare with observation?
I look forward to your reply and link.
Cheers,
Lyndon
|
cmancone
approved users
| Joined: | Thu Oct 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 10:01 pm |
|
Like many things in science, the value for the Hubble constant in an expanding universe can't be predicted. That would be like predicting the speed of light, or the gravitational constant. These things simply are. There is no prediction for the value of the Hubble Constant, because as far as we know there is nothing to constrain it. The Hubble constant simply is whatever it is. There is no reason for it to be 72 as opposed to 383493 or even .00044. The only thing that determines it's value is the value it happened to have when the universe started.
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Sun Nov 5th, 2006 07:26 am |
|
But in tired light we can not only predict a value for H but get it right too!
There is no reason for it to be 72 as opposed to 383493 or even .00044. The only thing that determines it's value is the value it happened to have when the universe started.
This is why "Ashmore's paradox" is so important. If 'H' could have had any value in an expanding universe, why does it just happen to be "hr/m for the electron in each cubic metre of space" if they are not related?
Tired Light explains that too.
If the exdpanding universe theory cannot make predictions that can be tested then it is not much of a theory is it?
Cheers,
Lyndon
|
cmancone
approved users
| Joined: | Thu Oct 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 5th, 2006 08:56 pm |
|
Again Lyndon, the prediction of Ho for tired light just happens to be hr/m because of your huge errors. You can "predict" the correct value of the hubble constant for anything within two orders of magnitude. That is in no way coincidental. It in no way demonstrates a relationship. With your denisty "fudge factor" you can adjust your value for hr/m to suit your needs and any modern research.
Expanding universe theory can't predict a value for Ho, but it can predict many things. It is quite a handy theory. It predicts the distance - redshift relationship, the ratio of the H/He, and the CMB. All observations fit the predictions of an expanding universe precisely.
Tell my Lyndon, do you reject the theory of electro-magnetism because it can't predict the value of the speed of light?
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Wed Nov 8th, 2006 02:27 pm |
|
Expanding universe theory can't predict a value for Ho,
A theory that cannot make predictions that can be tested is not a theory - just a guess.
Tired light predicts a value and gets it right.
but it can predict many things. It is quite a handy theory. It predicts the distance - redshift relationship,
So does tired light and makes numerical predictions and gets it right
the ratio of the H/He,
This is the same ratio as happens in stars so no big deal
and the CMB.
So does Tired Light. Unfortunately for the Bb, Gamow and co, were predicting the temp of the CMB at 50K just before it was rediscovered. On finding a value at 2.7K they went back to predictions from 20years earlier and forgot about the later more'accurate' predicton of 50K
All observations fit the predictions of an expanding universe precisely.
No they don't. The Bb has to introduce 'inflation' to make the distance redshift relation fit, tired light doesn't need it. The clumps in the CMB are symmetrical about our galactic plane and there is no 'shadow' meanng that it is local not in the distance
Cheers,
Lyndon
|
Current time is 04:59 am | |
|
