🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <01bf71ad$8da142e0$c1cff1c3@default>,
  "Peter van Velzen" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:

Peter, although I am having a hard time finding the time to
even read posts at this time, you seem to have skirted about
my conclusion that the universe indeed HAS to be imploding
and CANNOT possibly be anything like a Big Bang universe.
YOu can visit my site and find there pretty much all I have
to say on the matter (although I added some links to questions
I have --had the time to-- answer(ed) in these newsgroups.

I posted my "observations" last Christmas, but if you
have published precedence I congratulate your insight.

Sincerely,

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity

RE:

> Dear Sir,
> I do not know why you have published your hypothesis on newsgroups
> that are not stricktly for mathematicians, but I suppose, you presume
> that laymen can make sense of it.
> I am not sure that I can.
>
> The subject interests me because I have always found it
> incomprehensible
> that a universe that one billion years after the big bang, would be
> concentrated
> within it's own schwarzschild radius, could after ten billion years
> have expanded so much, that it would never implode.
>
> Therefore I have given some thought at other explanation of the
> observed
> red-shift.
> One was presuming that the universe was infinit.
> In that case even a small portion of it would be a black hole.
> A foton travelling from any point in that universe would be unable to
> pass
> beyond
> the schwarzschild radius of the part of the universe in wich centre it
> originated.
> And thus red-shift would occur.
> The problem however would be, this red-shift could not be linear.
>
> Another assumpion would be that everything would be imploding in a
> accelerated way.
> As remote objects would be seen in the past, they would be lacking
> behind,
> and seemed to be shrinking at a lower speed than our measuring-staffs.
> Again the problem would be, the red-shift
> (which would in fact be lesser bleu-shift as compared to our measuring
> staff)
> would not be linear.
>
>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ---------------------+
>  |   Is this second idea in any way corresponding with your theorie?
|
>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ---------------------+
>
> Problem is I just do not know enough small facts about the bussiness
> to
> make any educated guess.
>
> For instance, distances in the universe are often measured by the
> intensity
> and the pulsation periode
> of variable Cefeides.
>
> I do not know whether, once the red-shift was established the
> calculation
> regarding variable Cefeides
> were re-done, allowing for the red-shift in the period of the
> Cepheids, and
> the decrease of intensity caused
> by the same red-shift.
>
> People I know do not even seem to understand, that if the universe was
> really expanding,
> the period of the Cepheids would also be red-shifted.
>
> And people who do understand, seem to think I am too stupid to reason
> with.
>
> --
> "Think for yourself"
> Peter van Velzen
> Amstelveen
> The Netherlands
> http://callisto.worldonline.nl/~pbamvv/petervve.htm
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.