Quote:
Originally Posted by dcl
This contribution responds to JimJast's 08 May 2008 08:46 PM contribution. Most of it is quotation of previous text. All new text starts iwth "| " at the left margin to make them it out.
|
I'll try to respond to the new texts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcl
| dcl: You didn't say from where your figure for the density of matter in "free space" came. My guess
| is that it's estimated density of hydrogen atoms and ions in free space. If so, its effect would be to scatter
| and absorb light. That would indeed produce attenuation of received light from a given cosmological
| object, but there's no reason to expect that loss to be compensated by creation of energy.
|
The density of space comes from galaxies since as I leaned in my astronomy courses there is practicly nothing else except them (otherwise the light would be scattered and we wouldn't see it). So the model is Einstein's dust universe with galaxies as particles of dust and nothing between them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcl
| dcl: As I stated above, the mechanism is simple scattering of photons out of the direct path toward our
| detectors by the hydrogen atoms and ions along the light path.
|
Yet we see the galaxies without any scattering, so your model is not observationally confirmed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcl
| dcl: Momentum cannot change into energy; their dimensionalities are different. One varies with velocity,
| the other with the square of velocity.
|
This is what I thought, and that's why we need an expert to explain how momentum changes into energy in the Big Bang Theory. There must be a way if the Big Bang theorists claim that energy is not conserved separately from momentum as it used to be in the pre-Big Bang physics and now
only the 4-momentum is conserved. It means that if energy is not conserved and 4-momentum is then the non conserved part of energy must come from momentum to keep the total 4-momentum conserved, since in 4-momentum there is nothing else except energy and momentum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcl
| dcl: I don't understand your saying, "if astronomers insist...". Are you denying that the Universe is not
| expanding? If so, on what basis? Why are you asking, "If they don't have any knowledge nor any theory
| why do they insist that the Big Bang is a Theory?" Your question seems to imply that they don't have any
| knowledge nor any theory." I think I must be misinterpreting your question. A theory is more than a
| possible explanation of physical facts. What you're describing is a hypothesis, not a theory. The special
| and general theories of relativity and the theory of evolution were hypotheses until supported by
| substantial bodies of data.
|
The basis for my assumption that the universe is Einstein's (stationary) is
my calculation that produces for a stationary universe the redshift that is observed as the Hubble redshift. This calculation is based on conservation of energy which the Big Bang theorists consider non existent in relativity. They say that only 4-momentum is conserved which I don't understand and that's why I ask how it can be conserved without energy and momentum being conserve separately (the problem mentioned above that also you don't believe possible but yet the Big Bang theorists insist it is how the universe works). Hopefully they will explain it how it is possible and it will be end of it. Before that I'll wait, having my doubts about the expansion.