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...
OK -- rewriting for clarity:
398 datapoints from SCPunion
Used Ned Wrights Standard Model calculator iterating a slope of 1 and offset of 0 (to 6 decimal places) with a Reduced Major Axis fit (gives the lowest chi^2), result: 1326.34
Using my model iterating a slope of 1 and offset of 0...
EXACTLY what I've been saying -- the data is too poor to make a determination.
When I check with a fit using Ned Wrights calculator and optimizing for a slope of one and offset of zero I get Chi^2 = 1326 == for my derived value above its 1368
So what does your basic Standard Model Flat fit...
Assuming I calculated right -- with no comparison I have no idea.
OK: Derived value with NO CORRECTION: 3.785337 *398
Derived value with -0.0653 correction (implied by Riess May 2009): 3.436380 *398
As said before -- data is poor.
Fitting...
Actually, the Hubble constant is derived -- under some assumptions of course: 70.506
Inflation -- the genie -- pick the right value and it works. Non-sense.
YOU don't understand. My model does not require any fitting in the fully derived form.
And you are right -- I do NOT...
You love to argue don't you. For Cosmological Redshift the ONLY data of importance is the higher redshift data with otherwise determined distance. Yes, mostly supernovae -- but some gamma ray burst and even a few other possibles (Tully-Fisher, etc).
As far as I'm aware the CMB data is not...
Not true -- or more accurately only within your model.
It's the same evidence for all models at this point -- the support for both is nearly identical.
So I guess this means the evidence is against your model too.
Chalnoth, you have a closed mind -- and remind me of the same kind of people...
Only comment on this is that most of this is correct WITHIN the current model used for the cosmological redshift. The model itself is NOT fully proved and the details -- such as the actual values of distances quoted -- are subject to change and revision of the model -- as is true for all...
Your opinion.
Nothing to do with the subject.
Again nothing to do with the subject.
Again, the point was FLRW does NOT apply -- so any 'self consistency' issues are moot.
Yes, the surface of last scattering is a electromagnetic phenomenon -- or better termed a 'photon' phenomenon -- and so may be the gravitational one.
I'm not referring to our models before and during the surface of last scattering -- have no disagreement with them as far as I know.
Your...
IF gravity is due to a 'transport particle', then presumably this particle was being scattered as well. It is the cessation of scattering that could cause the loss of repulsion we see as gravity. So in this possible concept, gravity as we now know it only came into existence AFTER the time...
Yes, key word is 'appear'. Note, our current interpretation of gravity MAY only be valid after the time of last scattering -- IF gravity like other forces -- is found to be due to a 'transport particle'. This explanation is appealing in that it would explain the flatness that is found --...
No they don't. What appears to be falling FLAT is the Standard Model use of General Relativity on the cosmological scale. Note basic physics:
IF the universe is FLAT as current measurements indicate, then
1) Space is Euclidean -- meaning NO 'space/time warp' at the cosmological scale
2)...
Good point. That is in essence the difference in what I was saying. In other models this becomes more important -- while often the Standard Model tends to talk in terms of its nonlocal interpretation.
Rasp, while what marcus is telling you is correct for the currently used mainstream model, it is not necessarily proved fact. There are alternative explanations that produce the same results without such 'faster than the speed of light' behavior.
Much of the current 'mainstream' model...
Good dataset -- or rather the best we have.
However, the same dataset can be used to refute dark energy as unneeded. The problem is that the current data has a error that is still an order of magnitude too large to be able to choose between models.
Dark energy is still well in the...