Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Static universe

  1. Oct 8, 2003 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 9, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    i havent yet read the pdf, but one question pops into my mind is this source reliable on what experiments does it lie on?
  4. Oct 9, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Reexamination of general relativistic experimental results shows
    the universe is governed by Einstein's static-spacetime general relativity
    instead of Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding-spacetime general
    relativity. The absence of expansion redshifts in a static-spacetime
    universe suggests a reevaluation of the present cosmology is needed.
    For many decades the Friedmann-Lemaitre spacetime expansion redshift
    hypothesis1;2 has been accepted as the Rosetta of modern cosmology. It is believed
    to unlock the mysteries of the cosmos just as the archaeological Rosetta
    unlocked the mysteries of ancient Egypt. But are expansion redshifts The
    Genuine Cosmic Rosetta? Until now this has been the consensus because of
    their apparent, most impressive ability to uniquely explain how the twentieth
    century's two great astronomical and astrophysical discoveries|meaning
    of course the Hubble redshift relation and the 2.7K Cosmic Blackbody Radiation
    (CBR)|can be accounted for within the framework of a hot big
    bang universe. But this consensus is not universal. For example, Burbidge3
    and Arp4 continue to note that while most astronomers and astrophysicists

    sorry about format, also if this is old news
  5. Oct 9, 2003 #4
    Dr. Gentry is a convinced young earth{1} creationist (and pusher of that idea).

    Robert Gentry ID page-->
    http://www.creationists.org/Robert_Gentry.html [Broken]

    (check out his web sites) -->

    Lambert Dolphin, who posted that static universe paper, has his own favorite alternative theories. Light speed decays continuously, drastically in the past, and this leads to vast differences between atomic time (based on light frequencies) and dynamic time (based on astronomical events and the calendar).{2}

    Lambert Dolphin ID page -->

    Dig this conversion table from the paper pointed at by the next link below:

    1 million years before present (BP) atomically is actually 2826 BC with c about 70,000 times c now.
    63 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3005 BC with c about 615,000 times c now.
    230 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3301 BC with c about 1.1 million times c now.
    600 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3536 BC with c about 2.6 million times c now.
    2.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4136 BC with c about 10.8 million times c now.
    4.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4505 BC with c about 19.6 million times c now.
    15 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5650 BC with c about 65.3 million times c now.
    20 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5800 BC with c about 87 million times c now.
    What very important event do you suppose all that points back to?

    implications of a non-constant velocity of light

    in case you didn't guess the answer to my last question -->

    what holds the universe together?


    {1}Maybe I should say "young universe creationist".

    {2}EA Milne (kinematic relativity) entertained the idea of two time scales, only he called them kinematic time and dynamic time.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  6. Oct 11, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Good job on checking the source, quartodeciman. Those are indeed young-earth creationist links.

    For this topic, we should focus on debating the paper cited by wolram and perhaps Lambert Dolphin's ideas about the declining speed of light (say, for example, is there any evidence at all that the speed of light has changed other than their Biblical worldview?)
  7. Oct 14, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Old news

    As wolfram suspected, this is 'old news'.

    A central point for Dolphin is whether there are non-cosmological explanations for quasar redshifts, and he cites Arp and Burbidge. For quite some time - well after the consensus that quasar redshifts are cosmological - it was possible to mount a reasonable case against the consensus; Arp did so aggressively, Burbidge less so.

    With the 2dF and (repaired) HST observations (among others), the data is now overwhelmingly against minority views.

    For the rest, Dolphin seems either confused about GR, or very selective in reporting questions on GR (maybe both).
  8. Nov 5, 2003 #7
    Wolfram, I am not quite sure what an atomic year is but I know if it is anything similar to the length of a normal year your universal age calculation is incorrect, as I read the universe is only 13 billion years old.
  9. Nov 5, 2003 #8
    Sorry I meant to address that previos message to quartodeciman.
  10. Nov 5, 2003 #9
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook