Hummm ... the two parameters are:
1) Expansion velocity
2) Distance Reference -- interpreted to be the radial expansion distance.
The Simple Geometric Model is simply that -- the geometry. The gravity model is in development and has been presented to you before. The values...
As far as 'a whole lot of other data' I have yet to see any difference in the two models.
As far as CMB, using the basic gravity model I have at the moment -- and doing some 'cherry-picking' to correct for the fact that CMB is effectively an expanding universe of photons (moving at the speed of...
You seem to be insisting that any model be an 'everything' model. This one never was and never was intended to be.
The 'Distance Reference' and the concept of the approach is from a simple 'particle in a box' approach for gravity. The actual quantum gravity model is not expected to be...
Originally Posted by Rymer View Post
As you have indicated, there are several problems with this model and CMB.
1) Model ONLY addresses redshift AFTER CMB and not the CMB value.
Depends on your point of view -- including CMB is 'cherry-picking' from mine.
Originally Posted by Rymer...
As you have indicated, there are several problems with this model and CMB.
1) Model ONLY addresses redshift AFTER CMB and not the CMB value.
2) The model is specific to an expanding universe of matter at a constant velocity
that is NOT the speed of light.
3)...
Well, early days -- more work to come.
But the reports of pair production associated with supermassive objects in the galactic core is what started me looking at this again -- after 35 years.
Frankly, I didn't expect it to hold up as well as it has. So the question is: what is the last...
Sorry, just woke up:
First Vr is found from the redshift z:
Vr = ((1+z)^2 - 1) / ((1+z)^2 + 1)
VI is then determined from the iterative C code
The luminosity distance relation to the velocity index is:
DL = Dref * (1+z) * VI / ev
(Note: VI is returned scaled to the speed of...
FYI: I used Ned Wright's Calculator on the dataset with your parameters and got:
Calculating with Ho=74.2 Om=0.287 Ov=.713
Chi^2 = 448.129454 with 307 datapoints 1.459705
The small difference is likely due to his additional 'neutrino' radiation corrections.
FYI: My DERIVED result for the 'best fit' dataset for SCPUnion is:
Chi^2 = 395.346774 with 307 datapoints 1.287775 (unshifted)
Just for the fun of it I found the data shift value that would give the lowest Chi^2
Found -0.0853 (magnitude shift nearer) giving:
Chi^2 = 334.835791 with 307...
That is what requires the iteration.
/* 'd' is redshift velocity from Doppler */
double VI(long double d)
{
long double x,x0;
long double q=0.000000000000001;
long double D;
D=d/ev;
x0=0;
while(1)
{
x=1-cos(x0)+sqrt(D*D-sin(x0)*sin(x0));
while (x<0.0) x+=1.0...
My model starts with Doppler for Velocity, -- transforms it into an index in co-moving space using law of cosines and an expansion velocity, then using a 'distance reference' (and Hubble like relation) converts to co-moving distance, then (1+z) into luminosity distance, etc.
(Requires an...