Re: REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 12/06/04 

Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:39:57 +0100

Jim Greenfield wrote:
> Jonathan Silverlight <jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<6PtKycF9DwsBFw4f@merseia.fsnet.co.uk>...
>
>>In message <3c4afb26.0412041558.65ebfda9@posting.google.com>, Jim
>>Greenfield <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>>Would you and BF care to put your heads together, and post a joint
>>>reply as to whether or not GR predicted BB, and therefore failure of
>>>either is terminal for both.
>>>
>>
>>As you are the one who is suggesting this shouldn't you be the one doing
>>something to back it up? I just don't see any connection between the two
>>ideas, especially as Einstein was working on the basis of a static
>>universe (does "Einstein's biggest blunder" sound familiar?)
>
>
> BF said:
> As I replied to jacob navia: try replacing the concept "the
> universe expands" (i.e. gets bigger) with "the distance between
> any two points increases with time". This is even much closer to
> what the math of GR actually says!

Yes, indeed.

> As you two both strongly support GR, you must surely agree on such a
> basic tenet; here above that GR/BB are inter-dependent.

No, in the statement above, the two are not inter-dependent. BB
is based on GR and some additional assumptions and observations.

> Contrary to your statement, I disagree that the universe (entire
> infinity) IS expanding, and consider GR to be untenable under logical
> investigation.

LOL!

> BB is in deep! There are old galaxies where there should be none;

Which can easily be due to problems with our ideas of structure
formation. Why do you keep ignoring this entirely probable possibility?

> babies where there should be old ones;

Dito.

> inter-stellar/galactic dust
> which seems to be absolutely inexplicable under BBT.

Dito.

> Bin both, and start viewing the universe with consideration that light
> does NOT propagate as formerly thought.
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v

If you can derive your ideas of light propagation from Maxwell's
equations, feel free to show your work.

If you want to replace them with other equations, feel free to point out
why they have been shown to work so well for about 140 years now, and to
show your alternative.

Bye,
Bjoern