The Theory of Invariance

Hi Jim,

I understand that mainstream scientists say cosmological redshift and 2.727K background radiation are convinced proofs of bigbang theory.

Let me make it clearer,

Cosmological redshift and 2.727K radiation are phenomena, and
Bigbang theory is a theory which tries to explain the phenomena.

However there may be more than a way to explain a phenomenon. And under here is my own explanations of cosmological redshift and background radiation:

a. Cosmological redshift is result of numerous collisions between light emitted from distant galaxies with numerous particles (Hydrogen,..) in million years during their trips to Earth. Light carries momentum and energy. After every collision its momentum and energy decrease a little bit. So the further galaxy the longer trip and the greater shift.

b. 2.727K background radiation is remnant of these collision.

===========

Hi Jim,

The Bigbang theory require a new concept - dark matter - which produces repulsive force to expand the universe.

My explanations don't require a "new" subject or concept. And density of particles (Hydrogen,..) in universe might be estimated from rate of the cosmological redshift.

Hi Cindy, Your way of explaining red shift is one of many old ideas but, how about explaining all the stuff invented over the past 80 years starting with the neutrino used to fill a gap between the data and the model? As you know this process has been quite rewarding for everyone involved in the standard model and your model seems to not even know the problem exists.

<b>[Cindy] "Cosmological redshift is result of numerous collisions between light emitted from distant galaxies with numerous particles (Hydrogen,..) in million years during their trips to Earth. Light carries momentum and energy. After every collision its momentum and energy decrease a little bit. So the further galaxy the longer trip and the greater shift."</b>

Light waves do in fact lose energy to collisions with hydrogen (atoms and ions) and free electrons and other particles in open space. Unfortunately these particles also cause the light to scatter. Lab experiments show us that this scatter would be severe enough that blurring of distant galaxies would be easily seen, if this energy loss mechanism were actually responsible for red shift.

We do not observe any blur, so energy loss due to light waves interacting with the known particles cannot be large enough to account for the red shift we observe.

(Theories are fun to play with, even if they do not match the observed physical universe. Just know that others may not enjoy such play as much as you do.)

Some suggestions <ul><li> Find a new particle small enough that it does not cause an observable amount of scattering, but still absorbs energy when interacting with light waves</li>
<li>Find a new mechanism that can prevent or compensate for the observed scattering caused by interaction with the known particles.</li></ul>

Hi Jim,

Are you talking about neutrino missing problem?
And problem of neutrino mass?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
Some suggestions <ul><li> Find a new particle small enough that it does not cause an observable amount of scattering, but still absorbs energy when interacting with light waves</li>
<li>Find a new mechanism that can prevent or compensate for the observed scattering caused by interaction with the known particles.</li></ul>

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Larry,

Could those small particle be neutrino?

Cindy, I mean the invention of the neutrino to make the data fit the observations. maybe you need to read the history but there was a huge puzzle this invention at least kicked the problem down the road just our law makers do.