Another theory of the universe based on red and blue shifts

[warriorjoe007]

Just looking for some input on an idea I had before I approach a physicist at a college...

Let me know what you think...

Mod note: link removed[/color]

 

[Chronos]

The doppler shift idea is wrong.

 

[Bobbywhy]

warriorjoe007, Welcome to Physics Forums.

You have failed to check the “rules” here…personal theories like your link are not allowed. They are unbelievable and we don’t want to waste our time or our space on them.

Beware of "junk" science and whacko theories. Please learn to trust those scientists that are "mainstream". They have studied physics and astrophysics are not crackpots like Joe Bass.

Cheers,
Bobbywhy

 

[Bandersnatch]

Obvious problems I can see there:

re: fig 1& 2:
- Doppler shift increase with distance in circular motion is not linear, contradicting the observations.
- In particular, objects in the same orbit, as well as those lying on the line connecting both of them with the centre of rotation(green lines in fig 6) are not doppler shifted, regardless of distance. Again, not what's observed.

re: the galaxy model:
- Stars within galaxies do not follow Kepler's laws. See Galactic rotation curves

re: fig 6:
- Observable universe is homogenous - on large scales, matter(i.e.clusters and superclusters of galaxies) is distributed evenly across the universe. There are no huge empty voids in some particular directions, of the kind that your "spiral universe" would require. And most certainly, all of the matter does not lie in a flat disc.
- Blueshifted galaxies are in our closest neighbourhood only. ALL of the distant galaxies, in all directions, are redshifted. Try to reconcile this with the homogenity.

re: attitude
- I'm new here, and I'm not a professional, so I don't mind that much, but you ARE going to catch some flak from the actual scientists. Touting your personal theories is frowned upon, as it is at heart a very arrogant thing to do. It's basically saying that the (generations of) people who spent their lives learning to understand some subject can be trumped by your armchair insights.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The purpose of this site is to teach and discuss established science. This is not at all a criticism of scientific exploration (I.e the creation of new speculative hypothesis) but we've decided that this isn't the place to do it. The vast majority of personal theories developer by non-experts are flawed, most don't even start with the right axioms. Rather than clutter up our site (as it use to be when this was allowed) with crackpots our rules are quite simple: if you're theory is good enough then get it published and we'll happily discuss it. Until then feel free to use this site to learn but don't push your theory here.