> Remember, we are only talking about this observable universe. A beginning
> and end are only comforting thoughts for the religious among us. As far as
> this universe goes, continuously expanding or expanding and then
> contracting. Big question. Depends upon the total mass of the universe which
> is currently an unknown.Scientists aren't "fudging" anything. They are
> plugging in numbers to see what fits observations. The math is only a tool
> to help explain data and as a basis to hypothesize and then test. Right now
> they are looking for evidence of dark matter. However the tools are yet too
> crude.
I may be a simpleton, but when you can't account for 95% of the
universe and have to call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy, in order to
fit your assumption, then just maybe your assumption is wrong. It just
doesn't pass the cosmic smell test. I can understand fudging 10%, but
95%? That's where I think that the assumption of expansion or
contraction isn't cutting it. The math is just an explanation and when
you have a 20:1 fudge factor to make the math work, then something is
blatantly wrong. But the scientists' new clothes look so good.
Nutshelling, here, but were we may be making a critical error is
determining the refractive index of a vacuum and whether or not that
is constant across the universe. This would possibly explain the red
shift. Instead of the universe expanding, what you are seeing is the
increased refractive index of light as it passes through thin, but
present hydrogen and helium, which is believed to be the base elements
of the universe. As you look farther back in time (more distance
between subject and observer), you will encounter an increase in
hydrogen and helium which would have a marked effect on the refractive
index. Ultimately, if we could see far enough back in time, all we'll
actually observe would be a cloud of hydrogen and helium.
Once the bonds of gravity are broken (measurable and observable), an
object on an escape trajectory should continue unless acted upon by
another object. If there was a "big bang" with point-source origin, it
should be a very easy exercise to determine the center of the
explosion. Without resistance in an empty universe and without the
bonds of gravity, the expansion should never cease or slow down. From
any point of observation in space, you should see neighboring
astrological bodies moving outward from the same point-source in
nearly parallel tracks. Given the supposed rate of expansion from the
Big Bang, and the speed of light, it would be nearly impossible for us
to observe an object moving away from us on the other side of the
point source. In fact, most of the observable universe would only be
possible of other bodies moving away from the point-source in nearly
the same trajectory. Speed of light would dictate that. But to get
around that, we now have the theory of inflation which somehow works
around laws of physics by coming up with something that doesn't
conform to any laws.
Of course, we then start in on the controversial topic of Doppler.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|