cosimoblue stated:

>>Personally, I never thought Dr. Hubble did Dr. Einstein any favours.>>



Hubble DID discover the red shift but NEVER associated it with an
expanding universe.

Quite the contrary, he WARNED against doing so.


It was Lemaitre who, year after year kept after Einstein pushing it.

Einstein kept telling him he was wrong until during one of the Lemaitre lectures, Einstein recognized a factor that Lemaitre presented that seemed to destroy Einstein's cosmological argument and Einstein turned on a dime and applauded Lemaitre .

George Gamow took what we subsequently learned about the atom and destroyed Lemaitre's math and replaced it with his own and George Gamow then took over as head expansionist actually predicting the CMBR.

Bob Dicke looked for the CMBR and found some Bell scientists had
already discovered it but did not understand the importance of what
they had found. Dicke, who knew, then arranged for ALL of them to
publish together telling what ALL of them had found and Dicke
took part credit for discovering the CMBR and then---hard to believe---said he never even knew about any CMBR prediction of George Gamow.

During all this Fred Hoyle stood steady as a rock---like his British
compatriot Wellington at Waterloo. Fred Hoyle never wavered with his steady state universe but now made it oscillate so as to incorporate some of the popular elements of what the expansionists were expounding.

Fitz

web page

Fitzpatrick's First Book (FREE)

Fitzpatrick's view

motion

Theory of Everything Group

Limits to Logic

a NEW Science Tool

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "cosimoblue"
<cosimoblue@y...> wrote:
>
> > There is just one other possibility, and that is if the the
electron
> has
> > a finite size which has shrunk by 42 orders of magnitude since
its
> > creation. This implies some link twixt the size of the electron
and the
> > expansion of the universe in some unknown inverse relation. (See
Tony
> > Bermanseder's QR hypothesis, and maybe it's not so unknown after
all).
> > This is the view I personally favour as it can happen
independently of
> > known quantum processes and does not affect known empirical
facts.
>
> Folks are so hung up on expansion that they ignore the inverse.
>
> Or over emphasize one of its aspects (such the CERN
Hairsplitteratron...)
>
> ... but if what you say is true, when the photons were created, the
> electrons were smaller, and it took a larger distance to radiate
the
> same frequency of energy... or we would see the frequency as
> elongating... either way this leads you down the slippery slope of
> questioning some of Hubble's assumptions.
>
> Personally, I never thought Dr. Hubble did Dr. Einstein any
favours.