Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480194
| Subject | Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics |
| References | <_4eSD.13055$lN1.10956@fx13.am4> |
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
| Message-ID | <lziSD.3146$X_3.2787@fx01.am4> (permalink) |
| Organization | virginmedia.com |
| Date | 2018-12-19 03:04 +0000 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 23/04/2018 13:22, Adam Stefaniak wrote: > Keith Stein wrote >> What's the difference between a universe which is expanding, >> and a universe in which the speed of light is slowing down ? > From what little I know about VSL theories (e.g. Moffat, Albrecht > & Maguejo), they don't replace the standard big bang expansion (LCDM), > but rather precede it, as an alternative to inflation. They're > something of a fudge factor introduced to explain the flatness > problem. You seem to know much more than the average sci.physics.relativity contributor Adam, but i do admire your humility eh! > One would need to have a full and self-consistent model of static > cosmology with VSL, that makes testable predictions, in order to > be able to say what it does differently, and make any meaningful > comparisons. Well no false modesty from me Adam. I present a full and self-consistent model of static cosmology with VSL, that makes testable predictions:- > On 24/03/2018 08:36, Keith Stein wrote: > > Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it > > occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this > > will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing > > distance, as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all. > > > > Merely by assuming dc = -K c dt ..................(1) > > I was led to c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2) > > and on to Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3) > > > > K ~= 10^-10 /year > > t = time in years > > > > Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to > > enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more > > accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me........... > > > > K = H = Hubble's Constant > > and t = -t ( so times past become +ve) > > > > which substituted in (3) gives: > > > > Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4) > > > > then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared > > to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation: > > e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5) > > > > So for t << 1/H we have: > > > > Red-Shift = H * t ............(6) > > > > which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only > > for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years). > > > > As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore > > further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's > Law > expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more > > accurate exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed > > what is found in observatories all around the world eh! > > > > wikIpedia wrote: > "We currently appear to be approaching a period where the expansion is > exponential due to the increasing dominance of vacuum energy. In this > regime, the Hubble parameter is constant, and the universe grows by a > factor e each Hubble time:" > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Observed_values_of_the_Hubble_constant On 23/04/2018 13:22, Adam Stefaniak wrote: > One would need to have a full and self-consistent model of static > cosmology with VSL, that makes testable predictions, in order to > be able to say what it does differently, and make any meaningful > comparisons. As you say Adam, but i am very encouraged by the exponential rises in red shifts which were such a surprise to the Big Bangers, whereas VSL folk like myself say, "TOLD YOU SO" eh! But whatever, none of that answers the question:- >> What's the difference between a universe which is expanding, >> and a universe in which the speed of light is slowing down ? keith stein On 17/12/2018 14:13, Dono, wrote: shit.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 21:59 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-18 19:11 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 06:46 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-19 20:50 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-19 14:24 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 16:09 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 15:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 08:19 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 16:55 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 09:58 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 15:13 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 03:04 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 06:57 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-19 06:56 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 17:20 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-19 14:26 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 07:54 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 03:20 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 11:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 04:53 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 13:45 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 09:18 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 07:46 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 16:25 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 18:43 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:32 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 22:53 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 13:59 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 02:36 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-30 08:46 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:43 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 14:04 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 14:20 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 16:57 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 22:44 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 00:34 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 18:10 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 16:00 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:27 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 11:40 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 00:09 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 18:09 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 15:18 +0000
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 18:31 -0800
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-22 21:30 -0600
Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 19:48 +0000
csiph-web