BIG BANG FORUM MESSAGE
(Astronomy Net)Forums:
Hello KaiduOrkhon | Log out | Donate | Home | Discussion Forums | Big Bang | Post

"EINSTIEN'S STATIC UNIVERSE."
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Hide luaper | Back to Thread Topics

Posted by Paul
on June 30, 2004 03:35:33 UTC

"Before Hubble, Einstien saw the universe as a static body, not expanding or contracting, static. He beleived that there must be a force that conteracts the attractive force of gravity. This force would prevent the universe from collapsing under the constant pull of gravity. He called this force the Cosmological Constant. A force PUSHING against the PULL of gravity keeping the Universe in perfect balance.

"Then Hubble comes anlong and shows evidence to Einstien that the universe is expanding. Einstiens static universe theory is dead, he disbands his idea of the Cosmological Constant, and calls it 'The biggest blunder of my life.'

"I wish Einstien understood more about wave propergation through space. He may have told Hubble, sorry Edwin, the reason you are seeing the light shifted to the red is because they are longer wave lenghts that have traveled further through space than the shorter wave lenghts.

"Shorter wave do not travel as far as long waves. Longer waves travel further than shorter waves. Further more Edwin, with your theory,you will always have the illiusion that the univesere is expanding away from your point of observation, which hypotheiclly, could be anywhere witin this universe.

"Place a spectrometer near a light source, measure the different waves that are being emmitted, double the distance between the light source and the spectometer, measure the waves being emmitted, double distance, same procedure. Do this enough times and eventually your spectrometer will only be able to detect the longer wave lenghts!!!

Was Einstien correct?"
__________________________________________

FOLLOW UPS:

WHO'S THEORY IS THIS?
- secretary (‘J’/'Clerk')
- June 30, 2004 - 11:21 UTC
1. Who's Theory Is This?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Hide secretary | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To (Paul/Lauper).
Posted by Clerk ('Secretary'/J') on June 30, 2004 11:21:17 UTC
That longer wavelength light travels farther than shorter wavelength light? Give me a reference to a paper in experimental physics that presents data for your claim about spectrometers.
__________________________________________

DO THE EXPERIMENT - luaper (Paul) - July 1, 2004 - 07:08 UTC

Do The Experiment
Posted by Paul on July 1, 2004 07:08:06 UTC

The beautiful thing about understanding is being able to predict results. The resluts of the mentioned experiment will yeild the evidence to give credit to Einstiens Static Universe.
_________________________________________________

HAVE YOU DONE THE EXPERIMENT?- NO TEXT
(No references or authority offered.)
- secretary - July 1, 2004 - 10:08 U
______________________________

Posted by Paul on July 2, 2004 04:28:17 UTC
No i have not, but if you understand the way something works, you can predict the results.

Paul
___________________________________

FOLLOW UPS:
Post A Message
The above exchange between ‘Secretary/Clerk/J’ and ‘Lauper/Paul’, abruptly discontinues, with Paul’s last statement, unreplied to. As noted - immediate above.
.................................

Can’t say as I know ‘Secretary’, whereas, we have communicated to some extent in e-mail, and I would guess that at the point of discontinuing further questioning of ‘Lauper/Paul’, ‘J/Clerk/Secretary’ (objectively allowing for and tolerant of 'Paul Lauper's' misspelling and improvable syntax?) learned enough to realize he was wasting his time.

The discussion quickly transitions from a series of questionable statements by ‘Lauper/Paul’, about Einstein; a static, non-expanding universe - which Einstein did in fact ‘explain’(in 1919), with a repelling force -the Cosmological Constant: the first substantial answer to *Newton’s question of *his own work - why a universe full of ‘impelling matter', generating forces of attraction to each other, didn’t collapse on itself.

It was skeptically observed and commented upon by many scientist in that era (1919), that Einstein’s disclosure of a hitherto unknown repelling force (- in Paul Lauper's posted words) ‘a force PUSHING against the PULL of gravity, keeping the universe in perfect balance’, was (according to George Gamow, and others) like ‘a dime coin, unstably resting upright on it’s edge; apt at any moment, to fall over on either side; that the (physical and spatial) universe might contract or expand at the slightest provocation.’ (Paraphrased) - George Gamow, ONE, TWO, THREE, INFINITY.

Whereas, George Gamow’s metaphorical dime, without any provacation at all, is not standing on it’s edge or in any hazard of being ‘provoked’ to fall one side or the other, having existed on the (all but 'slight') side of physical and spatial expansion; all along...

It apparently has not yet serious occured to such critics that the Cosmological Constant repelling force itself, is the cause of the (very unexpectedly discovered - spatially - expanding universe.

It is also true that Einstein was thereafter ‘persuaded’ (by Hubble's hastily bivouac'd camp of stunned, dazed and confused overnight organized followers) to discard his ‘Cosmological Constant’ repelling force (acting parallel to but in the opposite direction of ‘impelling’ gravity - refer, *'Tao' - apparently antipodal, contradicting forces or entities which actually and mutually support and complement one another...
Aka, *YinYang) after Edwin Hubble (in the early ‘30's) refined H. Sylpher’s (1927 dated, entirely unanticipated - with the exception of Einstein's proposed 'repelling force, Cosmological Constant') spectroscopic findings and interpretation of ‘red shift’: resulting in what is now called ‘Hubble’s Red Shift Expanding Universe’.
Moreover, Einstein did call it (his proposed Cosmological Constant repelling force counteracting impelling gravity) *‘the biggest blunder in my life’.

It is the qualified station of this record that *this is indeed true, not in the sense that Einstein intended it, but rather, that it was a blunder for him to abandon it, for self revealing as well as documentary reasons established regarding Einstein’s work (at http//:einstein.periphery.cc/ )

Paul Lauper’s opening post continues; in conspicuously floundering decline, especially regarding his anomalous statement that ‘longer light waves travel further than shorter light waves’; going on to say that it can be proved by experiment, though he refers to no such resolution; closing with the statement that he hasn’t done any such experiment, but, that (*infra) red light waves are longer and travel further than shorter (*ultraviolet) blue light waves, and that it can be experimentally proved - urging ‘Secretary/Clerk/J’ to ‘Do It’...

‘Lauper/Paul’s’ closing paragraphs are worth repeating:

"I wish Einstien understood more about wave propergation through space. He may have told Hubble, sorry Edwin, the reason you are seeing the light shifted to the red is because they are longer wave lenghts that have traveled further through space than the shorter wave lenghts. Shorter wave do not travel as far as long waves. Longer waves travel further than shorter waves.

"Further more Edwin, with your theory,you will always have the illiusion that the univesere is expanding away from your point of observation, which hypotheiclly, could be anywhere witin this universe.

"Place a spectrometer near a light source, measure the different waves that are being emmitted, double the distance between the light source and the spectometer, measure the waves being emmitted, double distance, same procedure. Do this enough times and eventually your spectrometer will only be able to detect the longer wave lenghts!!!

Was Einstien correct?"
...............................

There have in fact been several efforts to introduce alternative explanations for what is known as 'Hubble's red shift (spatially) expanding universe', perhaps most popularly including what has since been called, the ‘tired light’ hypothesis, which proposes approximately the same ‘explanation’ as that proposed by 'Paul/Lauper'.

All such hypothetical proposals that the observed ‘red shift’ (from receding light sources, increasingly proportional to the speed of the recession); as compared to a corresponding ‘blue shift’ - observed of approaching light sources (Re: Doppler effect), have been extensively tested and, until further notice, are famously nul (desperately ad hoc, digressively counter-productive, though valuably edifying) experiments...

That is to say, the ad hoc conjecture of 'tired light' (having traveled over long distances and allegedly behaving differently than we anticipate or realize; implying that the only known interpretation the 'red shift' observed in spectroscopic analysis, is 'an illusion'...)

The statement that longer - red - light waves travel further than shorter - blue - light waves is (until further, unprecedented notice) patently incorrect; along with the entire premise ‘Paul/Lauper’ proceeds with from there. Disclosing serious misinformations and/or awry conjecture, leading to dissolute resolution(s).
Mr Paul Lauper's proposal is at first blush, not at all a bad - but indeed a rather thoughtful, commendably proffered consideration; apparently and commendably developed by himself...

On the other hand, Mr. Paul Lauper (if indeed that is his name), clearly did not research his proposal; which would not have required him - or direct anyone else - to carry out any experiments, since any willfull research (in standard resource reference material) will reveal the resolutions to his apparently sincere, however wayward and incomplete efforts.

In the wishfully iffy, hyperbolically malnutritive words of Groucho Marx:

"I wouldn’t be hungry, if I could make a sandwich: if I had some ham and a few slices of bread...”

Thank you for reading this missive.
Kent Benjamin Robertson
(Aka, Kaidu Orkhon, The White Mongol, Equus
kraziequus@yahoo.com)