Grote Reber’s short book entitled “Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe" of 1977 (published by Information Services, University of Tasmania, Box 252C GPO Hobart, Tasmania 7001, ISBN 0 85901 051 1) is absolutely to the point. Only the ultimate motivation offered for the correct conclusion drawn (“no expansion”) appears a bit vague so far – right?
In place of this remaining minor weakness, Fritz Zwicky 1929 -- proven true by the discovery of Cryodynamics nine years ago -- constitutes a firm basis imho: right?
March 2, 2020
Thierry De Mees
,Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts (on questions I have pondered), which I am filing for future reference:
" The longer the story, the bigger the lie is proven again. There is first the postulate being made that there is an expansion of the universe, which then requires a postulated "dark energy" by the supposed "accelerated expansion", which then requires a pyramid of explanations (and postulates?) to get a too small mass.
Why not trying it the other way around?
Ask yourself the question: what if there is no Dark Energy? What if that was just a way to produce the self-consistency, the same as with "Dark Matter" was invented/used to make the velocity curves in disc galaxies consistent?
What if the Hubble constant just relates to the average number of hydrogen atoms/molecules in the universe with which light interacts, causing 1) a slight delay 2) a slight loss of energy (causing redshift)?
Do you remember the observational evidence of the supernova SN1987A explosion? The neutrino's arrived first, then the less redshifted light, and increasingly the more redshifted light later.
Do you remember how the mainstream explained that? That light had to come from the very underworld of the supernova, causing a delay and a redshift? Have you ever seen light going through a thin sheet of aluminum?
Did you ever ask yourself the question: how come that quasi-stellar objects, which are physically linked to galaxies (being clouds, as the accumulation of jets from accretion disks), have a totally different redshift than the galaxy?
Did you ever ask yourself if the alleged "acceleration" of "universe expansion", could not just be the circling of light through the universe (since we know that light is bent by gravity, and maybe by cloud-gradients), causing the same objects to be seen in different stages of their evolution at different times, simultaneously, which would give the impression of exponential redshift with time, since we see most of the universe as a projection from 4D to 2D?"
2 Recommendations
Regardless of what any book or person (alive or dead) says (or once said), the Universe may be endless and boundless, but it IS expanding, because it doesn't have enough mass to overcome the tendency of empty space to expand, and it will expand forever, most likely at a very slightly faster rate per unit of distance as the ratio of mass to the "critical" mass approaches zero (it's only about 27% now, so there isn't much further to go, so the maximum rate of expansion per unit of distance probably won't be much more than now).
Dear Courtney,
Regardless of what any book or person (alive or dead) says (or once said), the Universe can´t be endless and boundless because it does not have any type of logic, nor does the current flat model have any type of logic. What's on the border? A wall? an abyss? What does this all sound like to me? Maybe it is not the same problem of thousands of years ago of flat earth? And how was that problem solved?
I strongly recommend the two books about Fritz Zwicky.
The English one is from 2019: John Johnson, "Zwicky - The outcast Genius who unmasked the Universe", Cambridge, Harvard University Press."
https://www.academia.edu/38373675/Creation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Universe_and_its_Rotation.doc
I postulate that I exist (and, I suppose, you also exist). I postulate that not every question I answer requires proof that the efforts of generations of scientists were not a complete waste of time. Based on the ideas generated in my head by my own and others' work, I am convinced that even if "dark matter" exists (which I am convinced of, though I am not convinced that any of the concepts used to explain what it is are worth the paper it took to promulgate them), the total mass of the Universe is only about a quarter of the "critical mass" required to balance the tendency of mass to contract space-time, and the tendency of the absence of mass to expand space-time. I can't provide a pyramid of facts (which I presume you would consider merely "postulates") to prove that, and doubt that you would accept them as facts, even if I could produce such a pyramid, including all relevant footnotes. Therefore, save for pointing out that the slowing of the rate of expansion of the Universe prior to about 6 billion years ago and the increase in the rate of expansion since then perfectly agree with the idea that as the Universe expands the ratio of mass to space continually decreases, and the point at which the mass was even close to the "critical" mass was passed at least 6 billion years ago and the ratio is now, as already stated, far below that value, meaning that there is already too little mass to slow the expansion, and the ratio of mass to space will asymptotically approach zero as time passes. Not that any of us will be around to observe or prove that, since the time scale required is far longer than the lifetime of the Sun, and our own species' lifetime is pitifully small compared to that, so that neither we nor any of our descendants will be around to see the end of the play.
Dear Courtney:
The new fundamental science of Cryodynamics has confirmed Zwicky 1929. So "modern cosmology" since 1929 is dead. No one objects for 11 years since this was shown.
Thierry De Mees
,Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts (on questions I have pondered), which I am filing for future reference:
" The longer the story, the bigger the lie is proven again. There is first the postulate being made that there is an expansion of the universe, which then requires a postulated "dark energy" by the supposed "accelerated expansion", which then requires a pyramid of explanations (and postulates?) to get a too small mass.
Why not trying it the other way around?
Ask yourself the question: what if there is no Dark Energy? What if that was just a way to produce the self-consistency, the same as with "Dark Matter" was invented/used to make the velocity curves in disc galaxies consistent?
What if the Hubble constant just relates to the average number of hydrogen atoms/molecules in the universe with which light interacts, causing 1) a slight delay 2) a slight loss of energy (causing redshift)?
Do you remember the observational evidence of the supernova SN1987A explosion? The neutrino's arrived first, then the less redshifted light, and increasingly the more redshifted light later.
Do you remember how the mainstream explained that? That light had to come from the very underworld of the supernova, causing a delay and a redshift? Have you ever seen light going through a thin sheet of aluminum?
Did you ever ask yourself the question: how come that quasi-stellar objects, which are physically linked to galaxies (being clouds, as the accumulation of jets from accretion disks), have a totally different redshift than the galaxy?
Did you ever ask yourself if the alleged "acceleration" of "universe expansion", could not just be the circling of light through the universe (since we know that light is bent by gravity, and maybe by cloud-gradients), causing the same objects to be seen in different stages of their evolution at different times, simultaneously, which would give the impression of exponential redshift with time, since we see most of the universe as a projection from 4D to 2D?"
2 Recommendations
- Badges
- Science topic