'Settled science' – paper claims the Universe is static, not expanding

policycritic said @ur momisugly May 26, 2014 at 11:51 pm

Thanks. Roemer did it from earth in the 1600s. Has anyone done it out in actual space without the earth’s atmosphere? (I know the measurements are relative when used from the position of earth). I was just wondering if anyone has done the measurements using satellites to determine the speed of light within the atmosphere of the heliosphere (and beyond) without earth’s gravity or atmosphere affecting it.

In 1983 the international standard for the meter was redefined in terms of the definition of the second and a defined value for the speed of light. The defined value was chosen to be as consistent as possible with the earlier metrological definitions of the meter and the second. Since then it is not possible to measure the speed of light using the current metrological standards, but one can still measure any anisotropy in its speed, or use an earlier definition of the meter if necessary. So the short answer to your question is “No”.

Hmm, this brings on a rather unique thought. Redshift could be explained if time were curved, since space is apparently curved, why is it we assume that time is not?

@wayne Job
This sounds a lot like Dr. Paul LaViolette’s Sub Quantum Kinetics that involves continual creation of matter, but biased towards where matter has already accumulated. His theory, which makes quantitative predictions, has a number of claimed verifications. (I would discount the so-far unreproduced – AFAIK – “verification” ala Podkletnov).
Oh, yeah. Sub Quantum Kinetics PREDICTS a cosmological red shift!
“Verification (1979 – 1986): Dr. LaViolette checks this photon redshifting prediction by comparing the tired-light non-expanding universe model and the expanding universe model (standard Freidman cosmology) to observational data on four different cosmology tests. He demonstrates that the tired-light model consistently makes a closer fit to observational data on all tests. His findings, which were published in the Astrophysical Journal (1986), confirm the subquantum kinetics tired light prediction and the notion that the universe is cosmologically stationary. These findings undermine a key support of the big bang theory. An update of this evidence is presented in Chapter 7 of Subquantum Kinetics.”
See “Subquantum Kinetics Predictions and their Subsequent Verification”
http://etheric.com/predictions-part-ii-physics-and-astronomy/

One more thought.
It is interesting to try to reconcile cosmology with quantum physics. I think the continuous creation idea has merit, the big bang is not mutually exclusive to this idea, if the rate of creation is dependant on time or distance. The big bang could be amcomponent of continuous creation running at a much faster rate.
Now the Quantum mechanics.
Let me say from the start that the idea of creation from nothing doesn’t trouble me Qantum physics postulates that particle / antiparticle pairs are being created all the time but the antiparticle rapidly annihilate with a particle such that nett mass doesn’t change. If a particle and antiparticle exist then the nett of that is nothing. Now let’s speculate. What puzzles me is why there is a matter -antimatter imbalance, if the big bang created the universe out of nothing then there should be equal quantities of matter and antimatter, the answer to me is obvious. The big bang created ( at least ) 2 universes a matter and an antimatter universe, in my hypothetical paired universe when an matter/antimatter particle is born to this universe, there are several plausible endings.
1. The antimatter particle annihilate with a matter particle becoming nothing again
2. The antimatter particle tunnels to the antimatter universe and is trapped there, leaving a matter particle in our universe and an antimatter particle in the antiuniverse.
3. Both The antimatter and matter particle remain in our universe at least until scenario 1 happens.
In my hypothetical case the mass expansion rate of both universes is dependant on the statistical probability and the residence time of antimatter before it tunnels to the antiuniverse, which might be affected by say the existence of a nearby singularity. If the vast majority of pairs recombine, then our universe would appear to have nearly constant mass, except where tunneling can occur, that is – in singularities such as black holes AND the big bang. What we see axially streaming from black holes may be matter particles tunneling from the antiuniverse.
Mind you perhaps not so silly, seeing we have missing heat that can tunnel to the bottom of the ocean

I know how God works. He works in averages. If it was very hot in the beginning, it will be very cold at the end. It has been warm here for 16,000 years, it will get colder. If it has been dry, it will get wet and vice versa. If the universe is infinite and eternal ( and the BB merely a local event), I am not sure how to work and average on infinity, but I am confident that it does average out.

milodonharlani
Unzipping time from space at very high energy levels also takes the speed limit off of C and eliminates length contraction and obviates the need for ‘inflation’.

I find it difficult if not impossible to determine which horse to back, so to speak. Unless one knows the pedegree, form and function of those doing the theory, experiment and calculations (and thus be as knowledgable and able as they), one cannot really add to the actual debate. One can only way up intuitively the ideas, the seemingly supporting evidence against that seemingly unsupportive or contradictory/falsifying. At the end of the day it seems to come down to what Gell-Mann described as beauty, something simple, elegant and fitting. Once a theory starts to have anomolies that have to be adjusted for it gets uglier. I get the feeling that some heavy weights exist on both sides and wonder to what degree the evidence is able, in its own right, to support either. Or put another way, the evidence, at this level of enquiry, is limited in its supportive/falsifying role. It even requires the assessment of our own minds as to what logic really works. Our mind have trouble with the questions…what is beyond the furthest point (more of the same yeah but what is beyond that and that and that); what existed first and what before that, as in regard of time and of matter; where did it all come from – if something was there where did it come from and what was there before and before and before that…. These seem valid questions, but will never have a final answer because whatever someone tries to answer is still open to the same question, ad infinitum. Like the question of what is infinity – even infinity can’t be infinity because you can add 1 to it. That anything exists is a mystery and what it exists in is another.

I did some calculations a while ago on electric charge. A Feynman lecture/comment alerted me to this so I did the calcs. It goes something like this. If you gathered 1 gram of electrons on the head of a pin say, and positioned it at point A. Then gather the equal and opposite charge on the head of another pin 10 meters distant, the force between them is billions of billions of metric tonnes or x9.81 Newtons. If you take one gathering of charge to the sun, the force is still about 10000N ! between 1g of electrons, say on earth, and an equal but opposite charge on the sun!!!???
Imagine if this was possible – to gather electrons together as said and then have them on a space ship. Sheild it somehow and somehow choose the direct the force to a distant body of positive charge….

milodonharlani said @ur momisugly May 27, 2014 at 6:59 am

Gravitational redshift does exist, IMO. Expansion can be detected by various means besides red shifts, such as energy density.

Yet you agreed with the BBT cosmologist I referred to who said that the only explanation for red shift was expansion of the universe. This would appear to be contradiction.