Another theory of the universe based on red and blue shifts

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter warriorjoe007
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a personal theory of the universe based on red and blue shifts, specifically examining the implications of Doppler shifts in relation to cosmic structures and motion. Participants critique the validity of the proposed ideas and the appropriateness of presenting personal theories in the forum.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the Doppler shift idea presented is incorrect.
  • Another participant points out specific flaws in the theory, including the non-linear nature of Doppler shift with distance in circular motion and the contradiction with observed galaxy behaviors.
  • Concerns are raised about the application of Kepler's laws to stars within galaxies, referencing galactic rotation curves.
  • Critiques are made regarding the assumption of homogeneity in the observable universe and the distribution of galaxies, particularly in relation to the proposed "spiral universe" model.
  • Participants express that personal theories are generally not welcomed in the forum, emphasizing the importance of established science and the potential flaws in non-expert theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity of the personal theory presented, with critiques highlighting significant issues. There is no consensus on the theory's merit, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding its acceptance.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on personal interpretations of Doppler shifts and assumptions about cosmic structures that may not align with established observations. The discussion reflects a tension between personal exploration of scientific ideas and adherence to mainstream scientific consensus.

warriorjoe007
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
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]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The doppler shift idea is wrong.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
12K