The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

[spudb...@aol.com]

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests | Live Science

Which, if evidence is forthcoming, means what? Are we back to running back to the edge of spacetime with a sign that says, No pass? Do we hit the back of our own heads? 

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 5:05 PM 'spudb...@aol.com' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests | Live Science

Interesting theory. Now all he needs to do is find some evidence in support of it. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ond

 

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Jul 6, 2023, 5:05 PM 'spudb...@aol.com' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests | Live Science

Which, if evidence is forthcoming, means what? Are we back to running back to the edge of spacetime with a sign that says, No pass? Do we hit the back of our own heads? 

Reminds me of the tired light theory.

But a static universe has a lot more to explain than just redshift:

1. Where does matter income from

2. How is it that the universe hasn't gravitationally collapses already?

Further, his theory is that particle masses change over time. Where are all the heavier old electrons? 

Or if he means all particles get lighter, by what mechanism? How have stars and chemistry remained stable over time if particles get lighter? That means chemical bonds lose energy, and atoms get bigger, but we've had DNA based life for billions of years, the chemistry must have been stable over that time.

Jason 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4459828.328555.1688677536543%40mail.yahoo.com.

[spudb...@aol.com]

Ha! Jason! Good points. Lets focus on the stated diameter of a spherical cosmos. Topology, for the math fans. Astronomers state it at various, sizes, mostly either 42 or 78 billion, light years. The Hubble Volume has been seen to be at 13.7 billion light years. So what's beyond, virtual photons, heavy old electrons, a new kingdom of physics, abandoned, Howard Johnsons and Stukey's. 

What we require are vastly better telescopes set at the Kuiper Belt. Big suckers!  Otherwise, some very bright people are just conjecturing. 

Thx. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhyCbgFOssbfuU_yE9JtvSqJx%2BfwQZ%2BS9ZupnLfoMs-HQ%40mail.gmail.com.