Posted: Oct 18, 2011 9:39 am
I think the massive problem with the OP is that cosmologists do not think the redshift is a doppler shift and do not model it as one. Its is a redshift due to the expansion of space-time which is rather different. The doppler shift confusion comes in because its a convenient analogy. It is not how its actually considered in GR. Thus any objections based on doppler shifts are irrelevant.
Pretty much the whole thing is based on the assumption that the big bang and expansion of the universe is not true. Thats a big assumption to begin with and its used to rule out the euclidean (or nearly so) spacetime. The curvature listed as 2 is dismissed arbitrarily without considering that there may not have been time for light to return or that there could be a redshift such that light returning is almost undetectable.
The hyperbolic geometry seems to be chosen simply because the others have been dismissed. The doppler mistake is made again in this section when its claimed that a doppler effect is how the redshift is obtained in GR rather than it being down to some kind of stretch. Of course a stretch of spacetime is exactly what mainstream cosmology describes the redshift as being down to and contrary to the claims made in the OP cosmologists do not claim the galaxies are in significant motion.
Black holes are separate from the big bang theory. One does not require the other.
Ho is about 73.8 km/s/MPC 6 billion light years is 1839.6 MPC.
Thus at 6 billion light years v=1839.6*73.8 km/s = 135762.48 km/s
Thats 50% bigger than the figure you derive.
This hypothesis seems to require this constant k to not be constant but to be a function of distance. However GR does not really require that. A constant cosmological constant causes a negative pressure on space time in GR. That accelerates expansion. It seems rather simpler to me.
If the angles are less than 180 degrees then thats a hyperbolic universe isn't it? Surely then the award is for proving your hypothesis. Couldn't you save yourself a lot of cash by 'proving' the hypothesis yourself? (Not that physics permits proof)
slightly OT:
Is anyone else automatically wary when someone posts a supposedly groundbreaking hypothesis which alledgedly demolishes all of modern physics and then names the effect after themselves? It seems to happen quite regularly on internet fora.
Pretty much the whole thing is based on the assumption that the big bang and expansion of the universe is not true. Thats a big assumption to begin with and its used to rule out the euclidean (or nearly so) spacetime. The curvature listed as 2 is dismissed arbitrarily without considering that there may not have been time for light to return or that there could be a redshift such that light returning is almost undetectable.
The hyperbolic geometry seems to be chosen simply because the others have been dismissed. The doppler mistake is made again in this section when its claimed that a doppler effect is how the redshift is obtained in GR rather than it being down to some kind of stretch. Of course a stretch of spacetime is exactly what mainstream cosmology describes the redshift as being down to and contrary to the claims made in the OP cosmologists do not claim the galaxies are in significant motion.
In other words, the universe is still in Hyperbolic space. We can forget about Big Bang Theory, dark matter, dark energy, block hole, white hole, etc.
Black holes are separate from the big bang theory. One does not require the other.
There are several versions of the Hubble's constant. We will select the one most popular one. In which, the velocity of galaxies at a distance of six billion light-years move away at a velocity of roughly 90,000 kilometers/sec.
Hence v=90,000 kilometers/sec and r=6 bly.
Ho is about 73.8 km/s/MPC 6 billion light years is 1839.6 MPC.
Thus at 6 billion light years v=1839.6*73.8 km/s = 135762.48 km/s
Thats 50% bigger than the figure you derive.
This hypothesis seems to require this constant k to not be constant but to be a function of distance. However GR does not really require that. A constant cosmological constant causes a negative pressure on space time in GR. That accelerates expansion. It seems rather simpler to me.
By the way, if anyone can prove the sum of the angles of three galaxies are less than two right angles. I will award 100000 USD.
If the angles are less than 180 degrees then thats a hyperbolic universe isn't it? Surely then the award is for proving your hypothesis. Couldn't you save yourself a lot of cash by 'proving' the hypothesis yourself? (Not that physics permits proof)
slightly OT:
Is anyone else automatically wary when someone posts a supposedly groundbreaking hypothesis which alledgedly demolishes all of modern physics and then names the effect after themselves? It seems to happen quite regularly on internet fora.