The Expansion of the Universe Debunked

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />This shows thus that the concept of an expansion of the universe (i.e. an overall recession of galaxies) is a physically unacceptable model and thus not even a potentially viable explanation for the redshift of galaxies<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your reasoning has no relevance to the Big Bang theory. In BB, galaxies have little or no motion through local space. The universe expands and the density of galaxies decreases because new space is continually being created between galaxies. -|Tom|-

Thomas,

I was soon in this very forum going to propose an alternate theory to the Big Bang (I dubbed it the <i>Big Pull</i>) that rather than expanding space as the explanation for redshift it was in fact caused by some unknown force pulling galaxies toward the edge of the Universe and thus away from us (since we are of course in the middle).

Thank you for proving that such an explanation would be untenable. You have saved me considerable embarassment.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />Thomas,

I was soon in this very forum going to propose an alternate theory to the Big Bang (I dubbed it the <i>Big Pull</i>) that rather than expanding space as the explanation for redshift it was in fact caused by some unknown force pulling galaxies toward the edge of the Universe and thus away from us (since we are of course in the middle).

Thank you for proving that such an explanation would be untenable. You have saved me considerable embarassment.

JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The trivial solution is certified by the observation of the disk inside the ring inside supernova 1987A: it shows a spectrum so redshifted that by Hubble's law SN 1987A would be 2 billions light-year away while it is 168000 l-y away. The observation shows that while the light of the disk is strongly redshifted, the ring is weakly redshifted. The difference can only come from the propagation of light inside the Stromgren sphere, that is in excited atomic hydrogen.
This property characterizes a CREIL effect which redshifts light by interaction with excited atomic hydrogen, not with atomic hydrogen in its ground state.
Remark that these properties of CREIL were known BEFORE their application to SN1987A. : absolutely no new, ad hoc physics!

Hi JMB, do we see the Peltier effect where we see the Creil effect?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />This shows thus that the concept of an expansion of the universe (i.e. an overall recession of galaxies) is a physically unacceptable model and thus not even a potentially viable explanation for the redshift of galaxies<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your reasoning has no relevance to the Big Bang theory. In BB, galaxies have little or no motion through local space. The universe expands and the density of galaxies decreases because new space is continually being created between galaxies. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

'Creating new space' between two galaxies is just another formulation of increasing the distance between them. The crucial point is that if the distance between all galaxies increases, the number of galaxies in each cell of a hypothetical lattice structure defining space (consisting of rigid rods and covering the whole space) would decrease everywhere throughout space. This would thus violate mass conservation.

Thomas

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />'Creating new space' between two galaxies is just another formulation of increasing the distance between them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Creating new space" increases the distance between two galaxies without motion by either of them.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The crucial point is that if the distance between all galaxies increases, the number of galaxies in each cell of a hypothetical lattice structure defining space (consisting of rigid rods and covering the whole space) would decrease everywhere throughout space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But that is the opposite of how "space" is defined in the Big Bang. Brand new space that did not exist before is continually being created within each "lattice", enlarging it. There are no "rigid rods".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This would thus violate mass conservation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not necessarily, because the total mass of the universe might remain constant even as the total volume of space increases. [Remember, BB is not an explosion INTO space, but an explosion OF space.]

However, it is widely recognized that BB does not conserve energy, because the "new space" is created with "dark energy". BB is a "creation ex nihilo" theory, and is therefore not worried about conservation principles. -|Tom|-