Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
To what extent, if any, does your idea incorporate the physics which astronomers and cosmologists use in their work?
Specifically, QED (which incorporates a quantum theory of 'light', and includes 'energy'), and GR (which differs immeasurably from Newtonian theory in most regimes).
Quote:
[...] what - in principle - could anyone present that could show your non-quantitative description is inconsistent (internally, with GR or QFT, with good observational or experimental results)?
Also, I didn't see where you answered this question of mine:Would you care to take a stab at answering it please?
|
My idea incorporates the usual fare. What is different is the starting assumption. Present models assume a universe exploding into existance, then use GR to track how the explosion evolves. My model begins with with the universe as we see it: matter more-or-less evenly distributed in space from here to infinity, more-or-less uniformly radiating away energy.
In Newtonian gravity, this creates a paradox: where does the energy "radiated into space" go? General Relativity resolves this paradox by allowing space itself to expand. While the difference between Newtonian and GR is "immeasurable," do not forget that the expansion itself is infinitesimal.
As for how anyone could show that my non-quantitative description is inconsistent...I have no idea. GR and CE (conservation of energy) are consistent, as far as I know. The universe we see, radiating energy at the rate we observe, will expand at a residual rate, according to GR. The only question, as you suggest, is this one: What is the rate? At what rate does GR say our universe should expand? That is the $100,000 question.