You know... I was still debating about whether or not to bother discussing your Misapplication of principles, ignoring of contributing factors, assumptions based on the misconception that mathematics is open to interpretation and follow up assumptions based on the first assumption.

After reading your "alleged error page", it clinched it.

"Gentlemen, don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up."

But please do confuse me with facts! If you read the stuff you may see that no one cared to deliver any facts. Everyone presented his convictions only. If you know facts that contradict my texts, please don't hide them. I need just one, good, obvious, fact. Even one, good, obvious, principle that contradicts my texts, will do.

JimJast, I would like to remind you that there is still a direct question from me on the table for you: On the previous page, you made the claim that no professor in the Department of Theory of Relativity and Gravitation believes that energy is globally conserved. Please provide evidence for this claim, or withdraw it.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

I think it is true also for all phd students in this Dept. but it's just my wild guess. Aren't you curious enough to ask them yourself? Or are you afraid that when you do you won't be able to claim being in touch with the mainstream science?

Well, I'm probably out of my depth here, but there has been a lot of work done on the flatness of space in recent years, and it seems as if the observable universe is within 2% of being flat, across a comoving distance of 24 Gpc (Extending the WMAP Bound on the Size of the Universe). The conclusion is that if space is curved, the radius of that curvature is far larger than our observable universe.

So, if that is the case and the curvature of space isn't the cause of the increase in the apparent angular diameter of galaxies with redshifts of z>1.6, doesn't that blow any ideas of a static universe as described by your model, out of the window?

I emailed your prof because I was curious. It does not mean that I'm willing to shoulder all of your burden of proof. I'll ask this one last time: provide the evidence for your claim, or withdraw it.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

I'm sorry I haven't had time to post- or to confront what I said I would.

I have two separate family members in the hospital right now- for different reasons.
One of them is not expected to make it- but that remains uncertain, albeit grave.

So I really haven't had the time or the energy to devout to math right now.

If what you said in this post is real- that you honestly are willing to discuss a factual error though, I'll get back to your paper when I have a chance.
Real quickly I will just give you an analogy:

Say you are cooking in the kitchen.
You have a recipe in mind- but don't look up the recipe in the book.

If you fail to account for all the ingredients- and how they interact, the recipe can come out wrong. Even drastically wrong.

The impression I had reading your paper was that this is what had happened. I had to open several of my old textbooks and brush up on my math. Then I had to hit two more bookshelves looking to find what ingredients you missed. Then I got a couple phone calls- and the books are still sitting on the table.

So, I admit that I'm not smart enough at the moment to really nail just what it is about your paper that is striking me as fundamentally wrong. It works on paper about the same as if you painted over a stain on the wall. I'm going to have to dig to find out what that stain is.

Remember this one?

If you want me to reapeat it, here it is: I don't know.

I can't prove who thinks what. I gave you my best guess. If my best guess is not good enough for you than cut the middleman and ask professors directly. It's much mere efficient action than asking me repeatedly about things I claim not knowing.

If "the curvature of space isn't the cause of the increase in the apparent angular diameter of galaxies" it would be strange since the shape of the curve fits exactly a static curved space. The only thing that I have to explain yet is why the maximum of the curve is at Z=1.6 since I didn't calculate the exact position of maximum yet. My calculations are done only for nearly flat space (for Z<<1).

If my results for any Z turn out to be true then most likely the space is not expanding and so the results based on expanding universe model wouldn't have much meaning and they must be re-evaluated for the static universe.

For the time being the values of Z in "The angular size redshift relation" indicate that the radius of the universe is bigger than 4.3 Gpc (and so that density is smaller then 6x10^{-27}kg/m^3 that follows from Hubble constant for the nearly flat space. I'll know all those things when I recalculate my results for a general case (for a curved space). I didn't do it yet since nobody is interested in a model that predicts several things from the first principles only (observation of accelerating expansion, reasonable density of space, near quasars, average size of pieces of dark matter, and even the 'anomalous' acceleration of Pioneers 10 and 11) but is eternal (no Big Bang).

If I manage to fit angular sizes of galaxies it wil be the sixth suxcessful prediction of Einstein's universe model. If not then it'll be its Waterloo

Everything is real and I want to discuss any errors. Just take your time and if the thread gets closed, send me e-mail.
Regards to your folks.

Any idea when you might finish?

I don't know how long this thread has left before it closes, but it's most likely it will get closed before I get all the way through what I'm reading anyway. I rarely step up to a task because I tend to be slow even without distractions. I'm not a physicist, I'm a plumber.

So, I am going to ignore the math for a moment because I've been at it for over three hours now and I'm starting to have a craving for blueberry muffins with chocolate chips in them- so I know something is wrong with me.

Going back to statements, You seem to think the universe is static and that what we "see" as expansion is actually an illusion.

In order to mathematically work out how this can be, how many assumptions did you have to make? On what did you base these assumptions and how did you support them?

I'm trying to read up on "Dynamic Friction of Photons" but everything I read makes my brayn feel stoopud.

I'm having trouble with gravitational energy and how it fits into your math.

I'm seeing some misconceptions on your part - namely, where energy comes from, how it is conserved and how you express these mathematically.
I'm not sure I understand where you have set your own rules either.
When gtr applies and when it doesn't, whether or not you can quantify the energy or not, and the cosmological constant.

I've read over your paper several times and each time my brain just gets foggier and foggier and I feel like Ive eaten a chocolate chip cookie without the chocolate chips.

I wish I was smarter. I could figure out what's missing. Dangit I'm goin' to the kitchen...

Jim I think that the object agitates the clouds by , not through gravity , but by fluid dynamics , swirls of matter drawn to the object as it passes through the cloud

what do you think ! I can picture it

Isn't this just a variation of the old "tired light" hypothesis?

It's not a "tiredl light" effect but for the nearly flat space it simulates almost exactly the "tired light". The reason being a similar math.

It is similar to the Einsteinian curvature of spacetime simulating for the nearly flat space almost exactly the Newtonian "attractive gravitational force" to such a degree that people for centuries thought that massive objects attract each other. The reason being a similar math.

Many physical phenomana have similar (simplified) mathematical descriptions as others but of course it doesn't mean that physics is the same. The devil is in the details.

The difference is that this object doesn't touch the matter and it acts on the matter only through the curvature of sacetime (which is the same as "gravitational ineraction"). A photon agitates a cloud of galaxies traveling through them not touching any one of them since otherwise we wouldn't see the photon (it would be absorbed).

I hope in about two weeks.

It should last till the end of April.

Yes.

Only on one assumption, that Einstein's gravitation is true.

The mainsteream science added another assumption to Einstein's gravitation, namely that the universe is expanding, which I didn't.

I managed to figure out that "gravitational energy" is the same as "internal energy" of a particle, E=mc^2. So it got rather easy to handle and to be sure that it is strictly conserved. When something falls down the part of its internal energy (or "gravitational" if you prefer) changes into kinetic energy so that the total energy remains constant. It is a mainstream science since it is in Landau and Lifsh'tz "Theory of fields" around p. 285. Because energy is conserved in gravitation (as follows from Landau's text) one can use Newtonian gravitation for approximate calculation that don't require to apply the curvature of space.

The energy I explained above.

I'm not setting any rules of mine I just follow rules of Einstein's gravitation.

The gtr applies everywhere except in its assumption that the universe is expanding since I can demonstrate that it is an illusion following from Einsteinian gravitation according to which the curvature of space is coupled to the time dilation in such a way that for the universe in which energy is conserved globally, and for the isotropic space, d^2T/dtdr-1/R=0, where T is proper time, t is coordinate time, r is radial coordinate, and R is radius of curature of space.

You can quantify energy in oscillating systems maybe even for the planets of our own solar system (see Titius-Bode series).

The cosmological constant equals 4*pi*G*rho/c^2, where G is Newtonian gravitational constant, rho is density of the universe, and c is speed of light in vacuum, and keeps Einstein's equations from blowing up.

I wasn't implying that your underlying model was exactly the same as any of the many other models that come under the heading of "tired light", though the basic idea, i.e. an interaction between photons and other particles, that causes a reduction in the photon energy as it travels.

Given that, it may well be useful if you could explain why your explanation for the apparent cosmological red-shift avoids the problems traditionally observed with this class of model.