lbiar

Abstract: In this article I show that there are signs sufficient to understand that cosmic x-ray are light and waves with frequency increased by gravity (probably), this explain why normally the emitter is not visible and more solutions in x-ray. Can to seem difficult to understand that gravity increase the frequency but give good answer to all show x-ray radiations and also there is today no good answer by light traveling in empty space. xxxxxxx First any solution this hypothesis give: black holes are like black body, black holes don't show light (this give the name of black holes), black holes emit x-ray, many points emit x-ray but not visible light, x-ray background, x-ray from Galaxy Clusters. All this is easy to explain by conversion from light to x-ray by gravity in black holes and difficult in other form. Show 1 by 1: 1x - Black holes are like black body: any emission from black hole is converted to x-ray, also by reflection (need also escape from the gravity of black hole). 2x - Black holes don't show light, the classic theory say that "cannot escape nothing, also light" but this is not really true, black holes emit particles by the poles. In this solution black holes emit light in x-ray spectrum. 3x - Black holes emit x-ray: ok with 2x. 4x - Many points emit x-ray but not visible light: the light and all waves are converted to x-ray. Probably that seem that also emit light is from other point really. 5x - X-ray background: Probably any gas clouds before to be stars are black holes (really this is demonstrated that any stars without light are black holes), it's more probably in the first stars in time probably only there is hydrogen. Here is important understand that in that distance (CMBR) 1 degree is more of 2000 milky way like I write in my website. This coincide more with my hypothesis over that universe cannot expand (this is impossible and is creation) and CMBR not exist and before stars only is gas clouds creating first stars (maybe other elements). This is another proof according to my model and against expansion, big-bang and creationism. 6x - X-ray from Galaxy Clusters: Actual theory say that are empty and very hot, this is difficult and more to have near 200 times the temperature of stars that have energy and according to the model are empty. Against this my hypothesis is according to a galaxy in the middle that with the addition of gravity emit x-ray and by that not visible. By the actual theory they would emit also light visible and by that we need to consider in all forms incorrect. 6.1x - Old galaxy Clusters: "The X-ray emission originates from the hot intra-cluster gas: subject to the cluster's gravitational potential, the gas is compressed and heated to temperatures of over 10 million Kelvin, and shines at X-ray wavelengths." - http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/An_Old_Galaxy_Cluster_Discovered_In_The_Young_Universe_999.html - difficult with actual model and according to my model where only are cluster with addition of gravity making x-ray and not light visible. In my model galaxies and clusters are near the same. In my model galaxies only are concentration of stars that attract others and also sweep the space. 7x - By actual theory black holes are consider at same time like big gravity and at same time empty, this 2 models are incompatibles and I only accept gravity mass. Only many matter and dense can attract by gravity. Is time also to understand that wormhole is impossible. 8x - Temperature of black holes incorrect: theory actual say that temperature of black holes is very low and this probably because not emit light and understand this is in the form of x-ray give a good answer. Theory actual say: "Quantum mechanics predicts that black holes emit radiation like a black body with a finite temperature" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole "A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins." Really a black hole absorbs stars and need at least have that temperature and also increased probably by breaking the light emitted. So I give here the hypothesis that the gravity in big mass brakes the light and by that this grow the frequency or decrease the wave length, and by any question remain in this frequency after to abandon the massive attraction of black hole. This brake and increase of frequency only is by black holes, probably only in very low distances without action in less gravity where light escape quickly from gravity. This effect is in all frequencies, not only light and affect to hot and cold black holes. This idea can to seem strange and impossible but the facts are the facts, this answer well to all the know conditions. Also another qualities of light today are strange like that light (wave) travel by empty space and only accepted in past by ether and today by quantum. Another probability would be that by more gravity black holes have less dissipation and by that the temperature grows until conversion to x-ray from light but this only would to be useful for very hot black holes. Another probability would be by others forms of create x-ray, today is know by eating, but for example in past only know to create light by incandescence: light bulb, fire, … and today we know diodes, fluorescent light. This hypothesis also answer the question of that light is brake by gravity and not only curved. The result is against to the visual expansion of the universe (remember my work against real expansion of the universe in my webpage), the expansion stretch the wave, the gravity by black hole concentrate. Really x-ray in the universe also are stretched how is supposed. Other linked hypotheses: not wormholes, a black hole is big mass that make big gravity and not a hole, there is not geodesic (the way that travel the light is not curved, is curved the light) how I say in my web, the space cannot to be created, expanded, compressed, curved. Luis Biarge Baldellou Pd: I don't put my webpage, moderators say is spam.

"This recombination event happened when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old.[7] At this point, the photons no longer interacted with the now electrically neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation The CMBR according to Big Bang theory was visible at 3000 K, but according to physic cannot dissipate like theory say. A heat body in a cold environment dissipates quickly, but according to the Big Bang theory all the environment has the same temperature (or near the same: homogeneity and isotropy). - "The radiation is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000" So a body heat in an environment heat cannot dissipate easy like seem in the Big Bang theory, also cannot dissipate to nothing because all is all the universe and all is hot. (energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and heat also). By that only can to dissipate to new space (Big Bang theory tell over space creation), and according to the temperature of the new space created. If the new space is created at 0 K is easy to dissipate heat, but need time and space, we see here, but if the new space is created with temperature need more space. For an ideal relation (space created at 0 K) and a difference of 1 K: "reported that the highest power fluctuations occur at scales of approximately one degree" and "Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1,100" and "The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K" this means: 3000 - 2.725 x - 1 x = 2.725/3000 = 1100 K So according to Big Bang theory and CMBR temperature the emission is at 3000 and at least until 1100/2 = 2450 K 1100/2 = 550 from 3000 is more of 18% In a hot environment the space need at least grow 18% (supposing creation of space at 0 K), and more with more creation of space at more temperature. A universe expansion of 18% in volume need at least (in square and spherical: I don't know the real geometrical figure that universe can expand): In cubic: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, - 1.06 x 1.06 x 1.06 = 1.19, so at lest need 6% expand (or more). In sphere: 0.5 radius is (4/3 pi x r3) = 0.52 - (0.52 x 1.18 = 0,6136) 0.53 is 0,623 - is radius, by that diameter is also 0.6 In both cases need at least expand 0.06 or more. Actual expansion (less in past, expansion is accelerating) - 73.8 ± 2.2 (km/s)/Mpc - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law Actual expansion (less in past, expansion is accelerating) - 73.8 ± 2.2 (km/s)/Mpc - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law Put it in 74 km/s/mpc = 266400 km/hour = 2333664000 km/year 1 megaparsec is "3.26 million light-years" = 3.08568025 e22 meters = 3.08568025 e19 km 6% is 0.185140815 e19 km 0.185140815 e19 km / 2333664000 km/year = 793.348.207 year to expand a 6% by axis The background (cmbr) is at 13.75 billion lightyears By freeze the background need to see until at least 12.4 - 0.8 = 12.95 "burst occurred at 13 billion light years" - http://www.edu.cn/20050913/3151504.shtml This star would to be in the CMBR. The CMBR probably need to exist from 13.75 billion to probably near 6 billion because the space creation (expansion false) probably is not at 0 K. (remember that in past the expansion was less, new space created has temperature [or temperature of Big Bang would to be infinite], ...) If the creation of space (expansion) would to be at 0 K the universe that from Big Bang to CMBR size expand infinite times would to be at Big Bang with infinite temperature. The Inflation was before CMBR and size of the universe in CMBR is infinite bigger that in Big Bang. This is impossible, star without background, and freeze quickly of CMBR in a hot environment. This seems near the creationism of Darwin that gives to the universe creation less time by bible that dinosaurs exist. The Big Bang theory also not explain why Big Bang also need to create heat more of matter, space, energy, time, ... Why the CMBR need to be hot? The Big Bang is not a bomb. Treat to take evidences for Big Bang (impossible) is near to believers that treat to obtain evidences that pyramids was made by martians. My model (against Big Bang theory) is according to CMBR, this is by pre-stars (gas clouds heating and with microwave radiation stretched by visual expansion). Also I write over that CMBR at this distance 1 only degree is equal to 2000 milky way in my webpage. notes: - An impossible only is an impossible: creation of space from nothing, creation of all from nothing, there are not possible geometrical figure according to universe expansion theory (or only with value zero), this of CMBR temperature and more, ... - A believer always search evidences (false) according to their belief, but a belief is not science is only pseudoscience. - I cannot have embarrassment to say the true, probably you will have it in future of believe an impossible. In any forum or newspaper, ... I say the true, you are believer and belief in impossibles. - All believer belief that has proofs and evidences: UFO, pyramid, astrologers, martians, ... - I'm treating by near 2 years to show that expansion of the universe is impossible, all (including newspaper) negate it, but this is not the evidence that you have reason, impossible only is impossible. - All I say is absurd, idiot and silly (all I say is according to physic laws and consider all facts), all you believe is evident (but against physic laws, new bodies, new physic laws, incompatibilities, impossibles) - Burden of proof: Who affirm anything need to give the proof - Sure none is given. - Seem that with astronomers and amateur to say the true has not value: Take an impossible like true has 3 errors: believe in a false true, don't search the true and don't admit the true. - Any say that there are not law against create space, also are not law against create time but : Can you create 1 second between 2 seconds?: No. I have a hypothesis over this: 1h in my webpage - That you and all astronomers believe in Big Bang don't make it real, also in past all thought that Earth was flat and that Earth was the center of the universe: this only means that universities seem places of proselytism and that all think homogeneously and according to believe and against to science. - I consider this information rejected, this is not your true, but in this 2 years is normal. A believer reject all against their belief. - For me is sufficient with the 2 more proofs: nothing can to be created from nothing, there is not a geometrical figure according to expansion of the universe need. - I consider you and astronomers pseudo-scientist, so I go to write to other branches of science (real science, not pseudo), according to that demonstrate that UFO don't exist is not to demonstrate to believers in UFOS, is to demonstrate to science and society. - "You cannot fool all the time to all the people": soon or later the true would be know. - I'm according to visual expansion, this is a fact: Hubble's law, redshift, time delay. They say that visual expansion is real expansion, but this last is impossible (equal to give a mirror the reality) - facts: light is curved by gravity, time delay, redshift, Hubble's law, homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, the universe is flat visually (A flat space has Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180º and parallel lines stay parallel), cosmic noise. But all this is not proof of real expansion. - All are responsible for our acts, not only me. - This: cosmology and astronomy in general today is only pseudoscience, with name of science, impossibles, .... Near your evidences: "Scientific Proof of UFOs - http://www.pr-inside.com/scientific-proof-of-ufos-as-concluded-r193411.htm - After near 2 years I cannot continue with patience, I believed this is urgent, but I see that you cannot consider it. - You can continue with your believe but not call it science, this is pseudoscience, believe, sect, creationism (against Darwin). But I don't need read your arguments in your belief. - Viewed from a different angle, this fallacy misplaces the burden of proof. When an issue is being debated, someone who wants to defend the truth of a claim must have some evidence for it. One can't "prove" one's side by simply knocking down the other side. (Remember: you might both be wrong if there is a third alternative.) - http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20110/fallaciesexplained.htm#ignorance -"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience - In this forum I don't put my webpage, moderators say it's spam. Luis Biarge Baldellou Thank you for standing me!

for astronomers and amateurs): It's time to understand that an impossible is only that: impossible: expansion of the universe and Big Bang are only impossibles. 1 - Expansion of the universe (really creation of space) is against science and physic laws, science not admit create anything from nothing. 2 - Expand (creation) in all directions and from all points is impossible according to geometrical figures, there are not any figure that admits this in 3d. Remember that we see the universe in 3d and by that the expansion need to be in this 3 dimensions. 3 - The universe is visually flat, it's impossible an expansion not flat give a universe flat, in 3d the only possible flat expansion would be cubic: this is against expansion theory. - Belief: Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence. In belief - Wiktionary - so expansion of the universe and Big Bang are only a belief. - All you believe over an impossible how real expansion of the universe is only a belief. - All believer think that has proofs and evidences: UFO, martians, astrology, ... - This work I could say is urgent, but after near 2 years seem that it's not. - Probably this text seem hard, but in near 2 years I have obtained nothing and all think that expansion of the universe is evident (really is only impossible). All (you also) believe that this is evident the impossible and ridiculous the true (assume a false true difficult to understand the true). - Seem that you have true and I'm mistaken, but you belief in expansion (creation) of the universe and more creation in Big Bang. I only say that this is impossible, only 1 solution is true. You have not true because that you believe is impossible. - Probably you think that big thinker, astronomers and scientists affirm the expansion of the universe, but this is in all forms impossible. A big thinker don't convert impossible in real. - No science is here, all is without proofs, all against physic laws and science, all only belief. Science not admit creation, Darwin show that there are not creation, astronomers admit creation. - The impossible has not proofs and it's not evident, all believer thing has proofs and evidences. - The expansion of the universe (creation) is impossible showed how evident. - The expansion of the universe also is a fraud because a name like expansion that it's really a creation: many people think in expansion of space and not in real creation of space from nothing: expansion would have motion, but the theory not admit motion (creation). Only is creation and believers in it are creationist (equal to against of Darwin). - Hubble's law, redshift, time delay are not evidences for universe expansion and Big Bang, they are facts and only have relation with visual expansion. Consider visual expansion like real expansion is like consider that our vision is inverse because the mirrors inverse it. Expansion real only is impossible and against physic laws and science. - You can believe that expansion is true (like any believer) but this continues like only a belief without real proofs (near to believe in UFO). - You are making a bad favour to science admitting impossibles, not taking an skeptic form and admitting creation (creationism) and also this in all directions and points (against geometry). - You are responsible for your acts (and errors), this error carry you probably in the future a great discredit and also for astronomy and science in general. - It's your duty understand the true and denounce the false expansion and Big Bang theories. It's time to change from belief to the true and become skeptic. - I will continue fighting by this true: "The universe cannot expand" In my page (moderators tell not put here) you can see evidences against expansion (moderators tell me not put here) and also a comparative Big Bang and my model (anti Big Bang and anti expansion). You can continue with your belief. If you believe in your belief you can read without problem my comparative (I recommend you): (moderators tell me not put here) - my work not need nothing impossible, magic, invented, against physic laws, new bodies, ... Luis Biarge Baldellou

Expansion and Big Bang theories need creation (it's creation, not expansion from compressed - more: is space creation from nothing), expansion need creation of space all time and in all places (also there are not geometrical figure that can make this), this is magic, need belief and creationism. Big Bang also need a moment initial with more creation. All their is impossible (1e,2e,4e) and against physic, physic laws and science in general. Astronomers say that have proof and evidences like any believer (normally from anything impossible): UFO, astrology, martians, ... this makes of astronomers and scientist in general a believer, sectarian and creationism (any mathematician can demonstrate that there are not geometrical figure according to expansion theory). Science not need creation (creationism), physic and astronomy also not, but astronomers and scientist believe in an impossible, believe in an impossible only can be a belief, magic, religion, ... Biology is against creationism (evolution from Darwin) but astronomy make against traveling from physic laws and science to creationism, magic and gods. This impossible not make possible "tired light hypothesis", the day that gives bad "tired light" seem strange why give good expansion and Big Bang (also impossible). "Steady State model" is bad because not consider visual expansion. But the impossible is impossible, cannot have the solution, but this not permit admit an impossible how solution. The real solution need to be according to the facts: redshift, time delay, homogeneous, flat, Hubble's law, visual expansion in all sides and directions, ... and probably according to a visual effect: hypothesis 14h - but this work is not over a solution, is over an impossible: expansion of the universe is impossible and is a creationist magic and belief. At least are today a rational solution how an optic effect (an optic effect is flat and equal in all directions like need the visual expansion of the universe: my hypothesis 14h work in this). It's impossible at least by 1e (creation of space from nothing = magic and creationism) and 4e (there is not geometrical figure according to visual expansion of universe). Also use expansion (it's not compressed) by creation is a triple fraud (evidence 8se) Astronomers reject my work and say that universe expansion is evident: NO. The impossible cannot be evident. The supposed expansion (creation) cannot be against physic laws and mathematics. An impossible belief convert the scientists in belief, creationist and sect (sect how believers in UFO, martians, astrology, ..) The creationism (expansion of the universe is not from compressed, is creation and by that is creationism) is the exit of the religions (or modern theory: "Intelligent design": Intelligent Design Creationism is not science; it makes no testable predictions so it cannot be falsified. Intelligent Design Creationism is a belief system; it is religion. - http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/ID/ or "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." and "The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[n 4][n 5][6][7] and indeed is pseudoscience." in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design. All creationism is anti science even expansion of the universe and Big Bang. - In the same form that for biology also can to be applied to astronomy. I'm not ashamed of to say the true, maybe you will be ashamed by not recognize it. This belief makes the scientists a believers and take the control over new ideas in science, so newspapers, ... reject any idea against their belief, ... This constitute a control according to scientists or according to a power over theirs, but that scientists belief and admit. So, admitting that scientists in newspaper are into the sect and that my work is rejected in all parts and that this is not science, is information general that I go to use other systems, like press note to general press. This is not cosmology, not astronomy and not science, this is sect, belief, believers and creationism (gods, ..) and in the same form that UFO, martians, astrology is not science: expansion of the universe and Big Bang also is not science. (an impossible only is an impossible and belief in it is against science). Also seem that all the theories are good, all very robust, but it's not so: 2 theories taken like Big Bang evidences are incompatibles: "39e - Deuterium from First Three Minutes is incompatible with first atoms in CMBR" and probably more errors, really nothing is good, nothing is according to physic laws, ... In the same form: How can I consider reject or admit from a sect how this time are scientists believers in creationism? So, I have been rejected near 2 years in scientific newspaper, no more submission and also not transfer of my copyright. Scientific newspaper also need discredit by rejecting good works, ... Look also my evidences 89e and 110e I have not prestige today, but according to the so big future discredit for all scientists believers probably is better. You can continue with your belief or understand that expansion (creation) and Big Bang are impossibles. If you understand this is false you can or not make nothing or help me in viral circulation (I need your help) in email, news, forums, blogs, science newspaper, general newspaper, radio, press, tv, ... (I cannot access all and register in all forums, ...) and all alternative channels. Thanks. This is a press note. Not answer, you can continue with your believe, but I don't need to read your arguments over your belief. (this is 15se in my web page http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/)

Many evidences not give reason, but also not quit. Big Bang and universe expansion are creationism, belief, magic, sect, gods, ... More added to before: 1se - There is not any proof of expansion and Big Bang 2se - Draw the geometrical figure like universe expand 3se - Make experimentally an expansion or creation of space from nothing 4se - Many false evidences and proofs, but none experiment consistent 5se - None probability of true, but only a belief, sect or religion 6se - expansion is creationism (expansion is not from compressed) 7se - Already more of 50 years in belief scientific 8se - Expansion is a triple fraud and don't mean compression, means creation. 9se - Universe with expansion visual explain perfectly what we see and measure. 10se - All begin from that seem to expand (time delay, ..) 11se - Resume: impossible expansion and equal in all directions 12se - Hubble's law and distance-speed relation are very perfect to be another thing that an optic effect 13se - All the facts are against expansion 14se - Flat and homogeneous are incompatible with expansion equall in all directions. 15se - Big Bang creationist 27e - Many informations of incredible theories and nothing over visible things 28e - For expansion there are not knows physic laws 29e - What physic law allow expand empty space? 30e - Only an expansion by axis (3d=cubic) can to be flat and homogeneous 31e - How galaxies can sweep a universe in expansion? 32e - Each person has a different idea of expansion and Big Bang 33e - Only can to be an optic effect 34e - Physics cannot admit any form of creation 35e - The only 1 is that can expand visually like say the theory of expansion is an optic effect. 36e - Nothing can to be created or destroyed 37e - Physic facts cannot be against physic laws and mathematics. 38e - The reality is easy and clear according to physic laws that also are easy and clear. 39e - Deuterium from First Three Minutes is incompatible with first atoms in CMBR 40e - Impossible galaxies collision and new stars in present days. 41e - Inflation theory is not a good theory, it's needed for not crash the expansion theory. 42e - The background (CMB) expand near light speed. 43e - Expansion (unknown force) has more power that gravity (know force) 44e - Instantaneous and inexhaustible 45e - Expansion need physic laws unknowns (and/or 28e) 46e - Expansion need to take in count size of galaxies. 47e - A universe in expansion would to be against Hubble's law 48e - Only an optic effect is according to visual expansion and physic laws. (47e, ..) 49e - Why we are not at universe end? 50e - Expansion & Big-Bang can't explain Universe start & end and nothing of nothing 51e - Casual that expand equal in all point and with fossil register 52e - few probably not to see any end of the universe and see all the CMBR (and 49e) 53e - Science must not admit superstition and data without proofs 54e - The theory explain how could pass, but admit impossibles 55e - Angle fault 56e - CMBR temperature 57e - There are many optical effects and are different of what really happens 58e - The expansion need a proof 59e - Expansion and Big Bang theories are near perfect, but impossibles 60e - With actual and registered expansion the universe would be more little 61e - Only is possible a universe without expansion 62e - Universe is physic not philosophic 63e - Expansion and Big Bang are against know physic laws. 64e - From where expand 65e - From where born so much mass-energy without space? 66e - How was created mass, energy, time, first space, ...? 67e - Why brake the inflation?. And Why so much?. And Why now balance with speed and distance of the CMB? 68e - Big Crunch has not relation with escape forces 69e - Error predictions and theories 70e - Deuterium 71e - If Deuterium theory is fake. How much more? (and 39e) 72e - What is the relation between particles physic and Big Bang?: none 73e - If in Big Bang was creation this is magic 74e - What is more impossible that expand or create space and in all directions and places? 75e - Life has begin and end, matter-energy not. 76e - If anything seem impossible and all indicates that really is impossible: Why is evident that exist? 77e - Expansion and Big Bang have nothing logical 78e - What happens when people needed to demonstrate anything is false, but believe in it? 79e - Expansion and Big Bang only obey at magic laws 80e - What happens if the scientific is believer and not skeptical? (and 78e) 81e - Particles physic and expansion have not relation 82e - Science not admit miracles (creation=miracle and magic) 83e - Big Bang is or magic (creation) or it's not the begin and there is a pre-Big Bang 84e - An optic effect is flat 85e - If universe expand only in places without gravity there are problems 86e - If space expand (or create) we need to close the physic and believe in magic and gods. 87e - 1 only mm created (or expanded) need to take place in all the universe or compress the near space 88e - Expansion cannot be at same time anything and opposite 89e - Expansion and Big Bang are impossibles total 90e - Many supposed evidences and proof have not double direction 91e - Astronomers and scientists in general today are sectarian. 92e - The paradoxical of that farthest stars is the maximum we can see in the future 93e - The called expansion is really creation 94e - In compressed space the light and bodies would travel more slowly 95e - Attention, many believers are fanatics 96e - It's easy confuse live with universe 97e - Each person has a different idea over expansion and Big Bang 98e - Our eyes mistake us in daily: Why do you believe don't mistake in far? 99e - Mind so good for UFO would consider today UFO true, evident and with proofs. 100e - If you can create anything from nothing is probably I believe any possibility of expansion of the universe 101e - Expansion in places without gravity and nor in gravity places is incompatible with physic laws 102e - Think in a universe from 0 to all seem ridiculous 103e - if time 0 creates Big Bang how time 13.5 billions years don't create nothing more that space 104e - Expansion and Big Bang need changes in physic laws 105e - Why expand empty space and not expand not empty space? 106e - The universe-nature usually re-use the same figures, but not expansion form. 107e - Homogeneity is a fact, expansion not 108e - Is easy to say that not expand in places with gravity 109e - Why only space expand? 110e - Not seem strange that religions are gratefully with expansion and Big Bang (creationism) 111e - Do you believe that I need to be submitted by believers in expansion? 112e - Any logic person understand that expansion is impossible 113e - Physic laws are the same in space and time, but against expansion theories. 114e - If scientists think evident what is impossible: Where is the limit? How much more things are bad? 115e - Bad day the day that scientists make a sect. 116e - Universities of astronomy can to be another thing that proselytism 117e - for astronomers any strange thing according to expansion is proof and evidence 118e - Science not need gods, but expansion (creation) need theirs. 119e - All scientific believed in expansion don't make it true. 120e - Big Rip and Big Crunch have probabilities less of 1/billion 121e - Bad information and calculus in the CMBR 122e - Expansion theory say galaxies are before stars 123e - All before CMBR according to theory use unknown and changing physic laws 124e - Impossible is impossible even with scientists belief in it. 125e - Why expansion and Big Bang are evidents? 126e - Universe don't need explanation of expansion 127e - Don't exist: black energy, blackbody 128e - The basic origin of expansion and Big Bang are impossible 129e - Expansion is not possible cubic, but also not spherical. 130e - How is the universe 131e - Expansion only in zones without gravity is against Hubble's law 132e - Expansion and Big Bang are creationism theories. 133e - Skeptical religious that accept expansion really are not skeptical: accept creation, and creation is creationism and means magic and gods. 134e - Many believers are pacific, but proselytism and extremist not. 135e - Give by proved and evident the impossible also is a form to not find the true 136e - Physic laws would need to change for adequate to expansion theories. 137e - Inflation is crazy into the crazy 138e - Astronomers thing theories are robust, but really have not sense 139e - Dark energy create space like if electric energy would create cables 140e - Universe without expansion is according to physic laws 141e - A curved universe is not flat 142e - false: "Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state" 143e - If not know say don't know, not say expand (create) 144e - Creationism = success for religious 145e - What strange cause admit expansion when tired light and steady state was rejected 146e - If expansion is real by visual, also are real and not only visual: mirages, rainbow, aurora borealis 900e - Big Bang evidence are not evidence 901e - There is no proof over expansion and Big Bang 902e - Only there are proof and evidences anti Big Bang and anti expansion 903e - All have errors 904e - Expansion and Big Bang are unsustainable 905e - Facts bad interpreted and bad understand 906e - I don't use magic, not anti physic laws, ... 907e - Each people believe a thing different over expansion and Big Bang 908e - Any strange theory supported by big brains can seem good 909e - That scientific believe in expansion not means it's true All in my page : http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/

More evidence: 7e to 26e 7e – Expansion flat and expand equal in all directions is incompatible 8e – A universe in expansion needs to obey many conditions 9e – The probability of not show the universe end is only of less of 1% 10e – How brake the inflation? 11e – Why the expansion is accelerating? 12e – The universe repeat the forms and facts. 13e – The unreal believe don’t make it real. 14e – Cosmic noise 15e – Why the expansion is after Big Bang? 16e – The CMBR begin to be visible at 3000k. 17e – Many theories seem not continue to the facts 18e – The begin of Big Bang theory is erroneous. 19e – Big theories can seem goods. 20e – The universe in expansion need inflation. 21e – Vision of CMBR 22e – In the universe with so many much expansion how can create new stars. 23e – How expansion take in count galaxies. 24e – According to expansion we can speak over 1=2 25e – There are not explanation of why occurs things in expansion. 26e – This that occurs only 1 time. 97e – Believe that expansion of the universe is evident without any proof. 98e – Physic laws are strict and immutable. In my page : http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/

blackbody and big-bang Black body of CMB is considered probably the best explanation for Big Bang but don't explain why is black body. Against it consider a universe without light and emission in the past make the better black body, this is only possible in a universe without expansion where the past is not emission and CMB is pre-stars. 6e - Existence of the black body CMB "As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMBR." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation The black body is considered from a hot plasma and it's black body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body) "a black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation" A body that not reflect any radiation because there are not this in the past from a universe without expansion with only pre-stars in formation is a good black body without need to be any special composition. Maybe a better black body that this? For example: Jupiter emit more heat than it receives from the sun (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101210222825AA5wDe9), so Jupiter in a universe without the sun and stars would be a very good black body. Against this is difficult that a plasma universe very hot can later obtain black body that not reflect these emissions (big bang theory). Remember that in the universe with the distances that work the reflexion only can to be from emissions from the past. In a universe in expansion the past of the cmb is the plasma, a universe hotter, ... In a universe without expansion, cmb is a pre-star state, with a past without any emission and with a present with low reflexion because the light and radiation need time to arrive and reflect. A galaxy has millions of stars, a universe of pre-stars has many millions of pre-stars without concentrate in galaxies. In a universe in expansion (big bang, ..) there are lights and emissions in the past of cmb and this is not seeing, not reflect, ... In a universe without expansion and with visual expansion (like this universe with time delay, ..) also the light and microwaves are expanded in same form that say the big bang and expansion theories. references: - facts of evidence according to the universe in this work (all theirs are proved): there is visual expansion (but not real), the light is curved by gravity, time delay, redshift, Hubble’s law, homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, the universe is flat visually (A flat space has Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180º and parallel lines stay parallel) In my page http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/ there are more evidences, arguments and hypotheses Thanks.

Anti Big-Bang evidence Before of all, I list here the facts of evidence according to the universe in this work (all theirs are proved): there is visual expansion (but not real), the light is curved by gravity, time delay, redshift, Hubble’s law, homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, the universe is flat visually (A flat space has Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180º and parallel lines stay parallel) Also I say here that I'm according to visual expansion of the universe, but that this don't mean a real expansion how I demonstrate here. There are many visual effects where really don't happen how is visual: rainbow, perspective, ... I'm against expansion of the universe and Big Bang theories and also against "tired light hypothesis", to be against one don't mean that I'm according to the other and there are more different solutions of this 2. I give in my page a hypothesis over a visual effect solution, but maybe other against this 2: neither expansion nor tired. 1e - Homogeneity, isotropy and flat visual universe are evidence anti expansion. According to expansion theory the universe is homogeneous, but a real homogeneous universe in expansion would be not homogeneous visually: The light that we receive from far universe is from a universe less expanded, according to older theory there is relation expansion with stretch that give homogeneous vision, but this would need that the distance visual would be the same that real distance and today is admitted that real distance is more that visual distance. In the past say that expansion + stretch is adjusted: 100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75, but this is not true, this would need that real distance and visual distance would be the same and against time delay. In other words: a universe in expansion would to be or homogeneous visually and without time delay or with time delay and by that not homogeneous visually. This also maybe demonstrate by reductio ad absurdum: Supposing a universe in expansion (how expansion and Big Bang theories say), this according to time delay show more concentrated at more distance and by that not visually homogeneous, nor isotropy, nor flat, by that with homogeneous, flat, isotropy and time delay the universe cannot expand. Also according to past theory that give homogeneity from expansion + stretch and speak (I remember) over distance visual equal to real distance give us information over this, in this form 50+50 is bad taken (50% less from 100 is 50, but 50% more from 50 is not 100, is only 75) how there are stars near 4% of distance of visual universe (near the cosmic microwave background) and by that 96% of 4% is near 8% this means that this is visually 10 times less in any axis, and by that 100 times less in 2 dimensions and 1000 times less in 3 dimensions. 2e - From 1e how visually would to be less expanded in distance the parallel lines cross in distance and in more distance not fill the 360º of circle In distance a universe in expansion would to be less expanded, but how these are concentric circles (they are not separated, we are separated from their) in distance not fill the 360º of a circle and by that rest grades without stars. - this is mathematically impossible. This information we need to see in inverse form, we are that separated from theirs, for that if in 1 billions years ago we see all the circle in 0.5 billion years ago we need to see more of 360º - also impossible. 3e - The dark energy is indifferent from quantity. According to the expansion theory the expansion is by that energy, but the expansion according to Hubble's law is the same in all point by that is indifferent over the quantity of dark energy. Also in some work I read over dark energy concentration, but also it has not importance because the expansion is the same in all points or the dark energy is the same in all points. Also: over time the universe grow, but dark energy not grow and expansion is the same in all points or the dark energy need to grow in the same proportion that the universe. Also is not affected by attenuation over the intensity and distance of dark energy, ... 4e - there are not geometrical figure that admits equal expansion in all points. According to geometry (part of mathematics) there is not any figure that admits equal expansion in all directions. In 1 dimension is possible equal expansion in all points, in 2 dimensions only the centre of a circle and in 3 dimensions only the centre of a sphere. When I give these arguments (and others, I obtain negatives, .. and notes over curved space, but this is not true, (and more over that a curved space is not flat according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo ... BBevidence "A curved space has non-Euclidean geometry" this page speak over big bang evidence) Also I read over expansion in more dimensions, but this also is not possible. A circle is only a circle if it's a circle in 2 dimensions, we can make a circle in a paper and roll the paper, in 3 dimensions we see not the circle, but the circle it's there because remain in 2 dimensions, in the same form an ellipse we can make a shadow that seem a circle, but it's not a circle. In the same form, we see in 3 dimensions axis (4 dimension if we add the time) and by that a visual expansion how theory say need to see in 3 dimensions, a 6 dimensions expansion is not visible in 3d. For expand according to expansion theory equal in all points and directions need to expand against geometry (and geometry is part of mathematics). You can say that mathematics may not find this figure, but I show here that there is not figure with that conditions. We can see this form an arc, an arc is part of a circle (2d) or sphere (3d) in the form that we can know where is the centre, and remember that there is only a point with equidistant. Astronomers told me that space maybe curved, but if you curve an arc may not be, then an arc, or if it's arc the centre has changed. If you curve a sphere it is not yet a sphere. By that it's totally impossible that the universe expand equal in all directions, there is impossible mathematically and universe can't expand against mathematics. Only a visual effect can seem to expand in all points and all directions, this is how optics effects work like for example the perspective. By that probably only can be an effect optic that seem an expansion, so a visual expansion, but not real expansion. In my web-page I give a hypothesis: http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/bighypo.html#tag14h 5e - If you give the impossible by real the real seem ridiculous I think this is another evidence, many people told me that my arguments and hypothesis are ridiculous, but my arguments and hypothesis don't create theories not demonstrates, not use elements not knows, ... If we think that any medicine cure all we consider ridiculous the need and form how to work real medicines. There are many examples of this: astrology, futurology, UFO, ... In this theory the big results, theories, elements need for expansion, ... make believe that this is so big that it's an evidence anti expansion Here my arguments and hypotheses result ridiculous in relation with so big theories and power of expansion, big bang, inflation, ... Is so ridiculous how a spatial travel where in the films we see pass the stars, but in a real travel this not occur. But in all my work I don't speak over none not demonstrated. ne - there are many others evidence against expansion and Big Bang In my web I give 21 arguments and 26 hypotheses and probably there are many more evidence against expansion. None of the big bang evidence is true (how in all that it's not true), so I can examine this evidence give in http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo ... BBevidence that I divide in 3 parts: - evidence over a visual expansion (I'm according to this): Hubble Law, Time dilation - evidence against expansion and big bang: Homogeneity, Isotropy - not evidence: theories cannot be evidence. (the theory of that in Mars there was martians that make the furrow is not an evidence of existence of martians in Mars, and many other equal. How universe not expand the theories over expansion of the universe and Big Bang all are fake. - without sense (are according to visual expansion): I don't believe in Olbers' paradox (I believe I speak over it in my web) and blackbody (this is not against it, but in my hypotheses this is a young universe with stars and without galaxies). Any notes more: - for me the better evidence is that space cannot expand, by other this is evident, but for me is impossible, but how I said before if you admit the impossible how real the real seem ridiculous. - Who says that anything is true need to demonstrate, but nothing over expansion of the universe has been proved and in these conditions many people affirm that it's evident, I say: not. - I read that in a homogeneous universe would not be stars: this is false, if this would be true an embankment with rain not would create canals, but in few time create theirs. The universe has much time, probably infinite in past to create first stars. (an idea false how this maybe with power, but also false). - That people think any idea not means this is true. - It's difficult to explain to any that thinks know the true that is false. If you consider that universe expand really (without any proof) you will consider this work ridiculous. - From the universe we only receive light (apart any particle), and light may be curved by gravity. - That I don't know a solution for visual expansion and not real expansion not means that I don't know what is false how real expansion. - I'm treating to explain this from more that a year and all say this is bad, but this is not bad, the universe can't expand. - Astronomers thing against my thinking, they think in big-bang, inflation, cosmic microwave background, string, galaxies, stars (in this order in time), I think in a universe infinite in time and space with hydrogen and not empty, first stars, first galaxies. - In all this work I use only facts demonstrated and you can see this is not any of theirs. I don't use any theory without confirmation. - One only evidence anti expansion and big bang is sufficient, but I give here 4.5 of theirs - If really the universe would expand would need many conditions (necessary, but not sufficient) how: expand or create space in points empty and without gravity, can expand space, expand equal in all points and directions, that dark energy expand space, that dark energy also increment or has not importance in quantity, any geometrical figure that permits Hubble's law and against geometry, ... I speak over this in my web. - The expansion and Big Bang theories and other theories relationed are very good theories (how many of theories) but with an error: start with impossible principles - in my web-page http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/ I have 21 arguments and 26 hypotheses for a new cosmology without expansion and without "tired light hypothesis" Thanks

Homogeneity is an evidence against the expansion of the universe and Big-bang Abstract: Against the theory of expansion and big-bang that take homogeneity how evidence this is really an evidence against expansion. According to the expansion of the universe and big-bang theories visual distance is less that actual distance (and same with velocity), but the homogeneity is visual (it can be taken by photographs) and by that the actual distance is not homogeneous. A homogeneous expansion would need that the homogeneous would be in actual distance and not in visual distance or that visual and actual distance are the same, but no one of this occurs. The expansion grow with distance by that the actual distance is more that visual (Hubble's law and relations distance - speed). The stretch decrease with distance in time because each time the light is more near us and by that the distance decrease. Light speed © is constant (not change). Homogeneous universe visual adding actual distances not change angles but change distances and lose the homogeneity (the universe is plane) Homogeneity, isotropy, redshift, Hubble's law and expansion visual of the universe are facts, and also that the light is curved by gravity and the universe is plane. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In other form: By expansion theory the universe is homogeneous with same distances in all points (in the form 100-100-100-100 [each one is d/4 = (distance of visual universe)/4] so more far is less expanded when the light take out and it's visual homogeneous by the stretch in the form (according to the theory) of 100+0=75+25=50+50=25+75 (each is expansion + Stretch), but this is taken from final result so 50% less of 100 is 50, but in the real form (stretch of initial size) it's not true because 50% more of 50 is 75. So this relation visual really is: 100+0 -not equal to- 75+(25% of 75=18.75)=93.75 -not equal to- 50+(50% of 50)= 75 -not equal to- 25+(75% of 25)= 25+18.75=43.75, so this is 100 - 93.75 - 75 - 43.75 (difference between 100% and 43.75%) and by that the visual expansion would not be homogeneous, but it's really homogeneous and by that the actual distance (according to the theory) is not homogeneous. The same occurs with isotropy: Isotropy (very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000 ) according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence that speak over the evidences of big-bang. By that homogeneity and isotropy really are evidences against expansion and big-bang because the homogeneity is at visual distance and by that not in actual distance. A universe without expansion and only visual expansion is homogeneous in form visual and actual. In my web I give a hypothesis over visual expansion. xxxxxxxxxxx More: There is not any geometrical body that admits expansion in all points and directions, only there is a body that admits expansion in all points, but only in a point and this is the centre of a sphere. The universe cannot expand against geometry, if there is any body that can expand equal in all point and in the same quantity in all direction need to be added to the geometry (geometry is a part of the mathematics). An optic effect is in all points with same value and all directions and always relations distance with any other form, for example perspective relations distance and size. xxxxxxxxxxx In my web : The universe does not expand : http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/ I put more arguments, doubts, curiosities and also 26 hypotheses for a new cosmology without expansion of the universe (and also some errors). Without expansion of the universe cannot be a Big-bang and also all the other theories connected with this. Thanks.

I don't say that, it is in documents like Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : "it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang." According to the theory the universe expand equal in all places, by that expand in relation to distance, if that object is visible at 13.8 B lighyears and in relation with age of the universe of near of 13.8 B, this give at relation of near lightyear = 13.8 B/ 13.8 B. How can to bee there if average speed is near light speed and universe expand equal in all place and in relation distance - speed? and 13.8 B is the visual distance.

I add 2 works more, probably more easy to understand: 4w - d/t=c in average. We see objects at 13.7 billion light years, these objects are in distance at 13.7 billion light years and in time at 13.7 billion years, by that 13.7 distance/13.7 time = c = light speed = 1/1 . This give average of c. According to theory double distance is double speed, but according by example: 1 hour - speed: 1 km/hour - distance 1 km 1/2 hour more - speed: 2 km/hour - distance 2 km - average is 2/1.5 = 1.33 km/hour // maximum is 2 1/2 hour more - speed: 4 km/hour - distance 4 km - average is 4/2 = 2 km/hour // maximum is 4 1/2 hour more - speed: 8 km/hour - distance 8 km - average is 8/2.5 = 3.2 km/hour // maximum is 8 None of theirs gives average of maximum speed Only average speed is equal of maximum speed if the speed is constant. By this expansion is impossible according to speed max= speed average and according to double distance is double speed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5w - There is not form of double distance at double speed with speed incremented According to the theory that says that at double distance is double speed and that speed is distance/time, at d/2 is c/2 and at d is c, how speed of d/2 is (d/2)/t, and d-(d/2) is d/2, need to expand at half time in the form (d/2)/(t/2), this is c, but c is average and not maximum, by that only at constant speed is possible. In incremented is impossible because an average from 2 is by example 1.5 to 2.5, but 2.5 is not double that 1. An example: 1 hour accelerating from 10 to 20 km/hour - speed final 20 km/hour - distance 15 km 1 hour accelerating from 20 to 40 km/hour - speed final 40 km/hour - distance 45 (30+15) Really the relation is 4d is double speed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Also I arrange 1w: 1w – The light arrive to us in less time that need the expansion theory. Resume: Expansion is from d/4 to d/2 (for example) with different speed (in d/4 expansion is half of d/2 according to the theory that relation distance and speed) and against this the lightspeed is always the same (constant speed): by this the light from d/4 arrive to us before to stay in d/2. At double distance is double speed, according to the theory. An example with d in 16 = c (lightspeed) and by that d/2 is 8 Light from d/2 need t/2 time to arrive to us, in the example d/4 (example 4) in t/2 is d/2, lightspeed is 16. t/2 is 2 times t/4 - in t/4 light travel 4 first t/4 - light travel 4, distance with expansion is 3+ Light of d/4 in t/2 is d/2, in d/4 speed is (d/4)/t and in d/2 need to be double speed - this is another (d/4) in half time t/2 so (d/4)/t is half speed that (d/4)/(t/2) (increment is d/4 So a photon emitted in d/4 made t/2 time arrive to us t/2 time from d/2 according to the theory : double distance is double speed and d/2 is a c/2. I divide in the example the time in t/8 so expand 1 and light travel 2 (according to the theory we can consider that in any t/8 expand 1, [really the first would be less because it's half speed], so 4t/8=t/2) 1º t/8 : 4 +1(expand) - 2 (light travel) = 3 distance (4 expand 1 in t/8) 2º t/8: 3 + 0.75 (expand) - 2 (light travel) = 1.75 - (here really would expand 1 in relation to 5, not 4) 3ª t/8 : 1.75+ 0.44 (1.75/4) - 2 (light travel) = 0.19 - (here really would expand 1 in relation to 6, not 4) So light arrive in few more that 3t/8 and according to the theory arrive in 4t/8 = t/2 In this example not consider that a part of travel of light is not expanded or stretch, also that this light is near us and by that probably there is less stretch, ... and by that less time A same photon cannot arrive in 2 different moments, by that the expansion theory is not possible. Thanks and sorry by disturb you.

"the speed of a receding object changes over time" - I consider this, "at double distance is double speed" "You are not considering that we do NOT see things as they exist today (light takes time to reach us)" - yes, we see the past, by that the vision of the universe is not homogeneous and it's homogeneous by the relation expansion + stretch according to the theory. "You are not considering that a ray of light will change speed due to the expansion of space." - this is relationated by expansion + stretch that give redshift and make delay in receive light.

Changes in 3w: 3w – Light in d with speed of c travel from d/2 at c how average speed. 3w.1 - According to the theory double distance is also double speed, but if the light at d/2 need t, the light at d would need 3t/2 or t/2 more, how d/t=c and this d-(d/2) is in t/2 the formula is (d/2)/(t/2) and this is also = c, by that needs an average speed of c. In these conditions we could not see near d, only a few more of d/2 (also need to add stretch). (double speed is: same distance at half time or double distance at same time). This option seems that we only would to see until d/2 or 3d/2 and that d/2 to d average speed is c - not possible and against with that we see. 3w.2.1 - 0.25-0.5-1 give 1.75 of distance (0.25 is d/4, 1 is d), in this case 1 is c but the average is 1.75d/t Double distance at same time is double speed: t/3 at 0.25 distance, t/3 at 0.5 distance, t/3 at 1 distance. This is near how we see the universe. 1.75d/t give an average speed of 0.58d/(t/3) but in the universe we see light near lightspeed and the same years. We see in the universe really d/t or near (99%d/99%t) but double distance at double speed not permit it. (suppose t/3 is 1 year and 1.75 is the distance in 3 years) With stretching of 43.75% (according to 2w) would give 0.58 x +43.75% = 0.83375 and not 1 (We see objects at 13.7 billion light years of distance and also at 13.7 billion years of time). 3w.2.2- How average speed is c, if we see the end or d the time is divided in t/3 by that according to begin is (d/2)/(t/2) = c but according to end is (d/2)/(t/3) = 1.5c . This is not according to distance - speed (the same for d/2,d/4, .. and also need to add the stretch). 3w.3 - From average speed of (d/2)/(t/2) = c and in present the expansion is bigger (more at more distance and present days) and how in final time is (d/2)/(t/3) = 1.5c (this would be at present) the speed would to be 1.5c to d/2. 3w.4 - According to homogeneity (expansion theory) the speed in d/2 would to be 1.5c and by that in d 2 x 1.5c and in d/4 would be 0.75c. Thanks.

I arrange 1w and 2w and add 3w Thanks.

3 works: 1w – The light arrive to us in less time that need the expansion theory. By expansion and homogeneity we see the universe in the form: 4-4-4-4 (each 4 is d/4 from expansion in form 4-3-2-1 and homogeneity), by distance - speed, at double distance the speed is double and how t is c and t/2 is c/2 (t/2 is needed to double distance and double speed, so d/4 is d/2 also in t/2) by that also is double time, so in t/2 less the form of this is 2-2-2-2. (d is distance of universe visual, t the time for this, c = lightspeed or: Hubble sphere [distance at which recession velocity = c]). It's not the same d/2 in t/2 expand from d/4 that d/4 in t/2 expand to d/2, because c (speed of light) is constant and this unbalance the result. If in actual time 4-4-4-4 = 16 is c and by that 8 needs t/2, we see a photon of d/2 (8) that was emitted from there in t/2 less, and in that time the distance was 4 (8 in t/2 less was half = 4), how c is constant that photon arrive to us in less of 3t/8 and not t/2 that need the expansion theory. 3t/8 because in first t/4 with expansion at c/4 finish in distance of 1 (4+1 or expansion -1), next t/4 expansion is at c/3, but is near (need between 1/16 and 2/16 with c of 16), so is near that arrive in less of 3t/8 (less that 4t/8 or t/2). Also, give 3t/8 if after first t/4 rest 1.6 (if we divide 4 between 10, 4 of c/4 and 6 of c/3), next t/4 rest 1.6 and expand at c/3 that give near 2 (2.5 with maximum) and is 2 of 4 possible, the result is also 3t/8. Light arrive in 3t/8 and according to theory also in 4t/8 = t/2. With formulas: d/2 is c/2 (d is c), this d/2 in t/2 is d with speed c, the light we see in d/2 need t/2 to see (need t/2 to travel to us), by that was emitted made t/2, in that time d/2 was in (d/2)/2 = d/4 and in d/4 light need less of 3t/8 to arrive to us. According to the theory the universe expand equal in all points and by that more at more distance (the expansion is not at constant speed), but lightspeed is constant speed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2w – The stretching is our expansion (not compensate with expansion). According to the expansion theory we see homogeneous the universe by expansion + stretch (or stretching), so we would see in the form 1-2-3-4, but by expansion + stretch (100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 100 = expansion + stretch) we see in the form 5-5-5-5 (because the expansion is 5-4-3-2-1), but this is false. It's not the same +50% of 20 that give 30 that -50% of 30 that give 15, in the same form it's not the same space stretched that space to stretch. This form of expansion + stretch is taken from end to begin, so 25-50-75 are the values to decrease homogeneity distance to not homogeneous (-50% of 4 is 2 [the space without stretch according to the theory), but +50% of 2 is 3, not 4 (insufficient). By stretch from not homogeneous the % would be 50%, 100, 200% and according to this note the results are near 50 %,75, 92. An example: there are 2 objects A and B, A is at 1 lightyear and B is ar 2 lighyears, we move away at c/2. year 1: we don’t see neither A nor B, A is at 1.5 lighyears and B is a 2.5 lighyears year 2: we see A at 2 lighyears, we not see B that is at 3 lighyears year 3: we see A at 2.5 lighyears, we not see B that is at 3.5 lighyears year 4: we see A at 3 lighyears and also B at 4 lighyears year 5: we see A at 3.5 lighyears and also B at 4.5 lighyears The stretching don’t change the relation between A and B that remains in 1 lighyear. We see A at 2 lighyears and B at 4 lighyears, but not in the form 2-4 how expansion theory need. If the objects A and B are moving the distance is according to this, so in a universe in expansion the distance would be expansion + stretch, but stretch is in relation with expansion. In expansion universe the stretch is in relation with expansion, so double distance is half expansion and also stretch. The formula of expansion + stretch is not 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 100 is not so, is: +25% of 75% (=93%), +50% of 50% (= 75%), +75% of 25% (=43%). Really is not 25-50-75% (this is thinking in homogeneity), the universe according to theory expand less in past (and by that farther) by that the expansion is like 8,4,2,1 (periods of t/4), by that is more like stretch of 8/15% (near 50%), 12/15% (near 75%) and 14/15% (near 92%) – 12 is 8+4 and 14 is 8+4+2. The theory need for d/2 a stretch of 100% and by 3d/4 of 200% (size of 50 and 25). By that expansion is against homogeneity and also against Hubble’s law. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3w – Light in d with speed of c need always travel at c. The light we see in d (Hubble sphere [distance at which recession velocity = c]) has speed of c = d/t, but where it was in d/2 also need the same speed and in all point (d/2)/(t/2) = (d/4)/(t/4) = d/t . If in any point speed is less that c in other need to be more that c. If it’s in d but not travel to c (inflation) it’s against Hubble’s law that is a register of all this time. If it travels always at c it’s against Hubble’s law that relations distance and speed and expansion theory that say that expansion is equal in all points and by that more in more distance. In the same form, distance – speed an object from d/8 to d/4 need t/2, from d/4 to d/2 need t/2 and from d/2 to d need t/2, but from d/2 it would be not visible because it needs speed of c. According to the theory distance - speed, it would need to be in form 4-2-1in each t/2 in d/4 - d/2 and d (without homogeneity), so the addition is 7, in this form in each t/2 is 4d/7 (>c), 2d/7 and d/7. In this form in d/4 (the more near to us would need to expand more that c and this is impossible). This makes also that in t the distance is d/2 and in 3t/2 is d, and seeing from d that the segments are t/3 (we speak over 3 segments of t/2). xxxxxxxxxxxxx All my work is according to visual expansion and against real expansion. In my web I have more arguments (but I only is sufficent) more or less good. I have also 26 hypotheses for a cosmology without expansion - Hypotheses « The universe does not expand I have also more arguments in Arguments « The universe does not expand