[pluto]

G’day

Interesting reading

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1539
The case for a non-expanding universe

Authors: Antonio Alfonso-Faus
(Submitted on 11 Aug 2009)

Abstract: We present the results of two empirical constancies: the fine structure constant and the Rydberg constant. When the speed of light c is taken away from the fine structure constant, as shown elsewhere, this constancy implies the constancy of the ratio e^2/h, e the charge of the electron and h Planck constant. This forces the charge of the electron e to be constant as long as the action h (an angular momentum) is a true constant too. Then the constancy of the Rydberg expression implies that the momentum mc is also a true constant. This is just the second law of Newton. The Compton wavelength, h/mc, is then a true constant and there is no expansion at the quantum mechanical level. General relativity then predicts that the universe is not expanding. It is the only solution for cosmology. The time variation of the speed of light explains the observed red shift.

[pluto]

G’day

You may find this link interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1539
The case for a non-expanding universe

Authors: Antonio Alfonso-Faus
(Submitted on 11 Aug 2009)

Abstract: We present the results of two empirical constancies: the fine structure constant and the Rydberg constant. When the speed of light c is taken away from the fine structure constant, as shown elsewhere, this constancy implies the constancy of the ratio e^2/h, e the charge of the electron and h Planck constant. This forces the charge of the electron e to be constant as long as the action h (an angular momentum) is a true constant too. Then the constancy of the Rydberg expression implies that the momentum mc is also a true constant. This is just the second law of Newton. The Compton wavelength, h/mc, is then a true constant and there is no expansion at the quantum mechanical level. General relativity then predicts that the universe is not expanding. It is the only solution for cosmology. The time variation of the speed of light explains the observed red shift.

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

This is quite interesting reading.

“Clifford M. Will wrote:Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the Eotvos experiment, tests of special relativity, and the gravitational redshift experiment. “

Robitaille questions COBE and WMAP data

Robitaille P.-M.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
WMAP: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF

WMAP and COBE have produced almost no valid scientific data. The WMAP and COBE teams have be caught deliberately cooking their data books to manufacture the result they want. Smoot’s “wrinkles in the fabric of time” are nothing but ghost remnants of signal processing. Smoot systematically removed the galactic foreground, the dipole signal and quadrupole signal in order to “find” a signal that is ~1000 times smaller than the contamination. His systematic signal processing introduced systematic remnants of his signal processing, and he mistakes these introduced ghost signals for data – his alleged multipole anisotropies. Talk about incompetence.

The COBE-FIRAS team allege the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever measured, hailed by the astrophysical scientists as a triumph that proves their CMB and big BANG. Really? Not the truth by any stretch of the imagination. The FIRAS instrument is so riddled with faults and shortcomings that its data is not worth the paper it’s written on. Their most perfect blackbody spectrum is not a direct measurement of the sky, but a comparison of the sky with the external calibrator Xcal. Owing to significant design shortcomings, the sky undoubtedly leaks into the external calibrator Xcal, and so the sky ends up being compared to itself. The FIRAS team will always get a blackbody spectrum if the sky dominates the external calibration because they assume a blackbody for the sky and for Xcal. But they never even got a proper null, and so they deliberately doctored the data to get one. And all the errors they couldn’t doctor they moved into their calibration files! The COBE-FIRAS team is telling tall tales.

[pluto]

G’day

Have a look at some of these links. Just get the gist of it and be awear of the scope with Z pinch.

Plasma Z-pinch ads
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basic_connect?qsearch=Plasma+Z+pinch&version=1

and

Tokamak
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+tokamak/0/1/0/all/0/1

Like I said just get the gist of it.

[pluto]

G’day

At the bottom of wiki you will find relative links

Tokamak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

and other similar topics

[pluto]

G’day

Let me know if you want papers on the topic.

[pluto]

G’day

Research a bit on TOKAMAK

[pluto]

G’day

How would that work?

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Fantastic site.

Thank you

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Am! What do you mean?

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzzzz

Big Bang Theory Busted by 33 top scientists

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

 Universe in crisis as experts question Big Bang model

http://www.physorg.com/news4999.html

 Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2007/08/colossal-void-may-spell-trouble-for.html

 Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

Authors: Matthew J. Francis, Luke A. Barnes, J. Berian James, Geraint F. Lewis
(Submitted on 3 Jul 2007)

Abstract: While it remains the staple of virtually all cosmological teaching, the concept of expanding space in explaining the increasing separation of galaxies has recently come under fire as a dangerous idea whose application leads to the development of confusion and the establishment of misconceptions. In this paper, we develop a notion of expanding space that is completely valid as a framework for the description of the evolution of the universe and whose application allows an intuitive understanding of the influence of universal expansion. We also demonstrate how arguments against the concept in general have failed thus far, as they imbue expanding space with physical properties not consistent with the expectations of general relativity.

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzzzz

The last link that I posted will cover most objections to the BBT.

If you wish to go in depth, to understand cosmology than the journey will be a lonely one, but most rewarding.

So far you are on track, stick by the science and not by emotions.

I will post more information if you wish.

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzzzzz

I agree with you.

There are dangers.

Imagine if you could feeze it.

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzzzzzz

I know.

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzzzz

I assumed that is what you meant.

When I said we discussed solar sail back in 1965, we actually discussed them.

We also see them in movies and the like.

This does not mean I make light out of them, as so to speak.

[Author]

Posts