Re: An explanation for the increasing expansion
From: Dale Trynor (dalet_at_nbnet.nb.ca)
Date: 09/14/04
- Next message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Missing 757"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: A Challenge for the Experts"
- In reply to: Old Man: "Re: An explanation for the increasing expansion"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: An explanation for the increasing expansion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 02:30:02 GMT
Old Man wrote:
> "brodix" <brodix@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:a09976c7.0409120212.3cbc1d5e@posting.google.com...
>
>>Old Man,
>>
>>>There's no right or wrong to the cosmological constant. It's an
[snip]
>>
>> So the fact that there are mature galaxies and enormous galaxy
>>structures at the very edge of the visible universe is immaterial, or
>>inconvenient?
>
>
> That some galaxies are independently calculated to be older than
> the Universe, is a chronic problem for BBT. The news isn't new or
> ignored. One can hope for a better theory, but, at present, there's
> no empirically viable alternative that comes close to matching BBT's
> comprehensive success.
Dale Trynor wrote:
Given the fact that the this alternative theory I promote gives the same
predictions as those given for the inflationary part of the BBT, I
sometimes have to wonder if it can even be considered a different theory
or is it just an advancement of the original one.
The theorys is still to new to have very much in the way of detailed
predictions however because it dose show how such things as neutron
stars can become universe like, its a reasonable question about what
would happen if heavy elements got into the original mix and if such
origins were not homogeneous. For example a neutron star with an iron
surface is such an example where one could ask what would happen as it
became a black hole and that in turn is universe like, would the
distributions of iron show up some place, would it be homogeneous and
why or why not. If it ends up with a random distribution, parts of such
a universe would appear as older if age were estimated only based on
heavy element distributions.
Dale
> Hubble was off by more than a factor of ten, but brodix isn't even
> wrong.
>
> [Old Man]
>
>
>>regards,
>>
>>brodix
>
>
>
- Next message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Missing 757"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: A Challenge for the Experts"
- In reply to: Old Man: "Re: An explanation for the increasing expansion"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: An explanation for the increasing expansion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|