Hi Celestial Mechanic
After reading your response, I find that none of your arguments invalidate the proposed model.
1. I have proposed a very specific rate of expansion, with very specific formulas.
2. I have shown how relative measures of time will slow at a very predictable rate, this necessitates the establishment of an “absolute” clock to describer how relative measures of time change.
3. I have shown how the basic geometry of the model produces the inverse square laws as a characteristic of spacetime
4. I have shown how the principals of conservation of energy and momentum are geometrically predicted by the proposed expansion.
5. I have shown that the effect of gravity would diminish at a very predictable rate
6. I have asserted that the proposed model does not require any dark energy for explaining the observed brightness of Type 1a supernovas and their cosmological red shift.
7. I have shown that the proposed model does not require any dark matter to preserve the structure in spiral galaxies.
All of your attempts to discredit the model mathematically have failed; (an example is your assertion that I did not derive “k” in my equations. All I used was elementary algebra. It appears you now understand what I did).
Just because the physical descriptions I use are different than that traditionally used by the “mainstream,” does nothing to invalidate the model. So what if I chose to look at volumes of spacetime as opposed to distance measures alone. So what if I require a dimension to correspond to a physical measure or property rather than a coordinate system. So what if I add motion to our observable spacetime along an “unobserved” dimension. None of these are really relevant issues in determining the validity of the model.
Theoretical models fail because they are either physically inconsistent or do not correspond to observation.
The “mainstream” limited expansion model is physically inconsistent. The principal of equivalence is violated with regards to conservation of energy.
The ‘mainstream’ limited expansion model does not correspond to observation, unless one adds “dark energy“ and “dark matter” to the model.
The Uniform Expansion Theory is physically consistent.
The Uniform Expansion Theory requires no Dark Energy and No Dark Matter.
Snowflake
|