Nonsense number 1: The age of the Universe.
Hubble's Law states (velocity, v) = (Hubble constant, H)x(distance, d) or:
v = Hd
But, we also have (velocity, v) = (distance, d)/(time,t)
v = d/t
Equating these gives Hd = d/t.
Dividing both sides by d gives us the result:
t = 1/H
The 't' is the age of the Universe or 'Hubble time'. However, Ashmore's paradox tells us that present values for the magnitude of the Hubble constant, H can be expressed in terms of the parameters of the electron (H = hr/m per metre cubed)
So, according to 'Big Bang' Codsmology, the age of the Universe is:
Age of Universe has the same magnitude as (mass of electron)/{(planck constant)x(radius of electron)}
ie Age of Universe has the same magnitude as 'm/hr' for the electron.
As said before, this is silly. What is wrong? H and hr/m are equal in magnitude - no doubt about that. In the Big bang theory the age of the Universe is definitely 1/H. So it must be the theory that is wrong. The Universe is not expanding.
Note: To avoid confusion, Big Bang and the expanding Universe will be termed 'codsmology', whilst 'New Tired Light' will be referred to as cosmology.
Nonsense number 2: The rate of expansion.
The Hubble constant measures the rate at which the Universe expands, sometimes called the 'red shift expansion rate'.
In astronomical units Reiss et al's value for the Hubble constant is H = 64 km/s per Mpc.
This means that space is expanding such that each distance of one megaparsec stretches at a rate of 64 km every second.
But lets work in 'proper units' the SI system (metres, seconds etc.) In the SI system, Reiss et al's value is 2.1exp(-18) m/s per metre. This means that space is expanding such that each distance of one metre stretches at a rate of 2.1exp(-18) metres every second.
However, Ashmore's paradox tells us that 2.1exp(-18) m/s per metre is hr/m m/s per metre. So what the 'Big Bang' Codsmologists are telling us is that every metre of space stretches by an amount equal to the (planck constant)x(radius of the electron)/(mass of the electron). Exactly!!!! This is nonesense, the Universe cannot be expanding.
Nonsense number 3: Why these ridiculous units of km/s per Mpc?
What strange units for 'professional' scientists to use! km/s per Mpc. 'Mpc' means megaparsec and it is a unit of distance. But km is also a unit of distance so why have two different units for distance in the same expression? Why not Mpc/s per Mpc? Or km/s per km? Or even m/s per m? Ah! but wait a minute, if one has 'm/s per m', the metres cancel to give 'per sec' or just s-1 . But then it is not a velocity. people would never believe that the universe was expanding if the units were just 'per sec' and had no units of velocity in there, would they? Methinks the units of km/s per Mpc are a con to make people think that the universe is expanding. The proper unit for H is s-1. Lets use that instead.
| If we are to believe in 'Big Bang' Codsmology then: i) We must believe: The magnitude of the age of the Universe is (mass of electron)/{(planck constant)x(radius of the electron)} ii) We must believe: The space occupied by a ruler one metre long stretches at such a rate that every second it stretches by an amount equal to {(planck constant)x(radius of electron)}/(mass of electron) And that both these results are purely by chance. It cannot be. The Universe is not expanding. Of course until now, these codsmologists did not realise that the value they had for H was a combination of three very common physical constants. You can take any child's scientific calculator and call up these constants and work out the Hubble constant! It is there - inside the child's calculator. For me, I just cannot believe that these results happen by chance. If you have a coincidence of this nature so that two seemingly very different quantities have the same value then their must be a relationship between them. In the 'New Tired Light' Theory, it is shown that H = 2nhr/m where 'n' is the number of electrons in each cubic metre of space - and we know from observation that 'n' is about 0.5m-3 so the above results are not a problem in the 'New Tired Light' Theory. This is where the ' per cubic metre' comes from in the above relationships. It is the number of electrons in each cubic metre of space. In 'New Tired Light' 1/H is not the age of the universe and space is not expanding so the coincidences of the age of the universe and the ruler do not happen. H is only dependent upon the electron and the Plank constant. Is the Expanding Universe too big a stretch of the imagination???? © Lyndon Ashmore Feb. 2003 and June 2005. All rights reserved.
|