Re: Request for review and approval: Big Bang FAQ


dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx schrieb:

[snip]

> I think the lack of response to the BBT article is because
> it's largely superseded by more advanced thinking, specifically,
> Golowich's et al "Gravitational scattering of quantum particles".

I got a copy of the paper.


> Therein they show how to find the "red-shift" is proportional
> to the density of the universe, and find a basis for the cosmological
> constant, confirmed by General Relativity and Quantum Theory.

Say, what on earth are you talking about??? The paper does mention
neither
redshift nor the cosmological constant. It is *entirely* about a
description of gravitational light bending based on quantum theory. As
both the title and the abstract already make clear! Further, the paper
is about scattering from a *point source* (see e.g. eq.9), so
*obviously* this has nothing at all to do with the density of the
universe!

Did you mean perhaps another paper, or did you somehow manage to
*totally* misunderstand what it actually is about? Considering your
posting history, I strongly suspect the second...

If you perhaps meant to imply that the gravitational scattering causes
the
redshift, then please explain how exactly that would work (e.g. how one
would have to model the distribution of sources in the universe in
order to achieve the observed dependence of redshift on distance), and
please also explain why the standard arguments against "tired light"
theories do not apply in this case. You *do* know these standard
arguments, don't you? If you don't, try actually looking into my FAQ,
for a change!

> The paper shows us how the BBT and expansion are only apparent

The paper does nothing even remotely resembling that.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

.

Relevant Pages