| Author | Post |
|---|
jollyreaper
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 10:09 am |
|
Dear bangers,
Why don't we just cut to the chase with all this stuff and establish an indepedent test for recession that does not depend on redshift. I suspect the snouts in the trough that control experiments on the hubble telescope will be loathe to take up the challenge as I suspect they are not as sure of their hypotheses as they claim. My proposal is as follows:-
Provide further evidence for expansion by making measurements over a period of time of either angular diameter of galaxies or magnitude(on a linear scale) Over a period of a year we are talking about a reduction to the order of one in ten to thirteen billion squared. Since it's such a small fraction we could just call it two in ten billion. A photometer that measures to several decimal places(more than 11) or a photon counter that operates within a cesium controlled time window. The measurements would have to be taken on the hubble telescope which was in fact set up to establish a constant for hubbles law. Measurements would be taken of as many different objects as possible to rule out local effects(like novas occuring) and the tests could be made once a year for as long as it takes to establish the general trend of recession or not. After all it's the truth that's important, if the bangers were right after all I could live with that.
|
Thomas
approved users
|
Posted: Wed Jan 30th, 2008 05:51 pm |
|
Well, I reckon you would have to wait millions of years to actually prove a recession. Data of extragalactic objects have just too large errors.
It is actually not necessary anyway to do this, because an expanding universe is a logical contradiction in terms (as there is nothing it could expand into).
But even if you don't care about theoretical concepts and dogmatically believe that every scientific statement must be supported by experimental/observational data, it would be easier to have an alternative redshift theory and then a discriminating observational criterion. My own Plasma Theory of the Hubble Redshift of Galaxies would predict for instance that the redshift effect breaks down for sufficiently long wavelengths (probably somewhere in the radio region of the electromagnetic spectrum) which the Big Bang theory would hardly be able to explain (this also might be difficult to prove, but should still be easier than observationally proving/disproving an actual recession).
Thomas
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Sat Feb 9th, 2008 02:42 pm |
|
Hi,
All theories must be backed up with evidence. My guess is that the evidence is actually there - it just needs looking for.
Trouble is, the BB theory only allows expansion effects for galaxies in the 'Hubble flow' about 5 - 20 million light years away. Galaxies nearer to this can be blue shifted due to local gravitational effects in this theory.
So any experiment on the Hubble telescope would have to wait 10 to 40 million years for the results to come in whilst the light goes there and back.
My guess is that the evidence, one way or another, is there and by looking back into time we wil find it.
Cheers,
lyndon
|
Thomas
approved users
|
Posted: Sat Feb 9th, 2008 03:50 pm |
|
Hi Lyndon,
The point is that you can also back up a nonsense theory by evidence. An acceptable theory not only needs observational/experimental support, but it also needs to be conceptually and logically consistent. The Big Bang theory isn't, so there is no point trying to find observational support for it, just because one has no other theory for the redshift.
Thomas
|
lyndonashmore
Administrator
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 03:21 pm |
|
More data from observation the better - as it can not only support a theory but it can pull it to pieces as well. Had a look at your site, Briefly, what do you think causes the redshift?
Cheers,
Lyndon
|
Current time is 05:03 am | |
|
