# The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake



## allenliou (Oct 18, 2011)

The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake

It is surprised to hear that the three U.S. physicists had won the Nobel Prize in physics for discovering through the study of supernovae that the universe is accelerating expansion.
The Hubble’s redshift and the Doppler Effect are the facts. It doesn’t mean the universe is expansion or universe is accelerating expansion.
The expansion of the universe is based on the true of the Big Bang theory.  If the Big Bang theory is not true. Even though the Hubble’s redshift, and the Doppler Effect is the facts. The expansion or accelerating expansion of the universe is not supported.
The Big Bang theory and “dark energy” are not just a crazy idea, it is nonsense. Is anyone believe the “dark energy” able to create the real energy to push the supernovae accelerating expansion? If you do believe it. You may believe “dark human” can turn spirit to a real person.
In Scientific community , the Big Bang and ”dark energy” issue  had been argue for so many year, And now act rashly to award  the Nobel Prize in physics for the universe is accelerating expansion .I believe that someday will be proved the 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics turn out to be a joke.
The expansion of Universe should not true. If it is true, the Big Bang theory and “dark energy” will be true. 
Now raise a big question. If he Big Bang theory and “dark energy” are not true. Also the Hubble redshift, and the Doppler Effect is the facts, How could be proved the universe is not expansion or not accelerating expansion?
The space of the universe has only three kind of possibility. One is Euclidean space, one is elliptical space and the other is hyperbolic space. These three kinds of space can only be hypnosis to be one of the three only, And, it cannot be identify by proved.
1.	If the universe is a Euclidean space, due to the Hubble redshift, and the facts of the Doppler Effect, There must be the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang also true. This is contradiction to the Big Bang is not true. So, the space of  the   universe may not be a Euclidean space
2.	The space of the universe will never be an Elliptical space. If the space of the Universe is an Elliptical space. When we see anything from the east, can be seen from the west too. Obviously, it is not so
3.	Remaining space is The Hyperbolic space.

Let analyze, if supernovae happen in Hyperbolic space.

Hubble’s laws are derived from Euclidean rules and Euclidean formulas. However, assume the Universe is in Hyperbolic space. Very logically, we must derive its rules and formulas from Hyperbolic rules and non-Euclidean formulas.

The rules and formulas of Hyperbolic space are quite different from Euclidean space. Hence, the results derived from utilizing these two systems must be different. These differences may be the keys to unveil the mystery of the Universe.
“Now we try to prove, the universe is not expansion or not accelerating expansion. Even though Hubble’s redshift and the Doppler effect are the facts”  

A. LIGHT SPHERICAL WAVE FRONTS

When photon travel a distance of r. The equation of a light spherical front in Euclidean space is

                     x^2 + y^2 + z^2 =  r^2          --------------   (1)

From Hyperbolic geometry, the equation of the light spherical front is

    tanh^2 x/k  + tanh^2 y/k  + tanh^2 z/k  = tanh^2 r/k   ------ (2)

Where k is the constant of the space curvature. （cosmological constant）
(From page 298 of non-Euclidean Geometry by Allen Liou, 1964.)

Comparing equations (1) and (2), we can see very obviously that the area of the light spherical fronts is very much different. Even though they have the same radius. Therefore, the Doppler Effect should not be the same between Euclidean space and Hyperbolic space.

The area of the Light Spherical Front in Euclidean space is 4πr2.
What is the area of the Light Spherical Front in Hyperbolic space?

Let us determine the circumference of a circle in Hyperbolic space first:

Let PQ be the chord of a circle of radius r, which subtends an angleθ, M be the midpoint of the chord, and O be the center of the circle.
See fig 1.

 
From the formula of the right-angle in Hyperbolic trigonometry, we have (page 143 of non-Euclidean Geometry by Allen Liou, 1964.)

	         sinh PQ/2k  = sinh r/k sin∠POQ/2 

If  angle θ-> 0
We have	            ds/2k  = sinh r/k dθ/2 
		or 	  ds  = k sinh r/k dθ 

Integrating both sides, we have

                     Circumference  = 2πk sinh r/k 

Then, let ds are the length of the arc of the spherical circle, and r  be the radius.
By same formula, we have, see fig 2.

	ds  = k sinh r/k dθ


The area of the circle strip is
           d (area of circle strip) = 2πk sinh AM/k ds

But
                   sinh AM/k  =  sinh r/k sinθ

Therefore
d(area of circle strip)=2πk[sinh r/k sinθ][k sinh r/k dθ]
= 2πk 2 sinh^2 r/k dθ

Integrating both sides, we have
area of sphere  =  4πk^2 sinh^2 r/k 


B. DOPPLER EFFECT OR “LIOU’S STRETCH EFFECT”

When a photon travels a distance r, the area of the Light Spherical Front in Euclidean space is 4πr^2. 

area of sphere  =  4πr^2 

But the area of the Light Spherical Front in Hperbolic space is

area of sphere  =  4πk^2 sinh^2 r/k 

Compare the two Spherical Areas in the two different spaces with the same r. We easily to see that, if we are in Hyperbolic universe, Light Spherical Front stretch from 4πr^2 to 4πk^2 sinh^2 r/k. We temporary called this stretch by “Liou’s stretch effect”.

The Spherical Front of photon may only travel a distance r in Hyperbolic space. But in Euclidean space, it appears to travel a distance of k sinh r/k. 

From the difference of r and k sinh r/k in Euclidean space, it looks like the object moves from point r  to point k sinh r/k, but the object actually stays still in Hyperbolic universe. 

When we use Redshift of Doppler Effect in Euclidean space to calculate velocity of galaxy from point r  to point k sinh r/k. Actually,  there is no movement from point r  to point k sinh r/k. It only cause by the stretch of curvature of Hyperbolic space (“Liou’s stretch effect”).

I will use the velocity to calculate the space constant (cosmological constant). Use redshift of frequency the result is the same.

D. CALCULATION OF SPACE CURVATURE (OR COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT) IN HYPERBOLIC UNIVERSE

Let         		   s  = k sinh r/k - r 

Where s is the distant of galaxy moving from position r  to the position k sinh r/k.
Taking the derivative of both sides, we have 

                  ds/dt  = cosh r/k dr/dt - dr/dt

where ds/dt =v (the velocity of galaxies at the remote distance of r), and dr/dt is the speed of light c. 

Therefore
               v  = cosh r/k c – c

v  = c[cosh r/k - 1] = 2c sinh^2 r/2k ---------- (3)

There are several versions of the Hubble's constant. We will select the one most popular one. In which, the velocity of galaxies at a distance of six billion light-years move away at a velocity of roughly 90,000 kilometers/sec. 
Hence v=90,000 kilometers/sec and r=6 bly.

Hence we have

   v = 90,000 kilometers/sec and r = 6 bly.

Therefore
	             90,000   =  2c sinh^2（6bly/2k ）  

                    ∴  0.3c = 2c sinh^2（3bly/k ）

	              ∴  k = 3bly/ sinh-1√0.12

	              ∴  k = 7.931965828 bly

Where bly is billion light-years.

C. DISCUSIONS

1. Hubble’s constant was not constant.

From equation (3), v = 2c sinh^2 r/2k , the velocity of galaxies and the remote distance of r were not exactly linear proportions in Euclidean universe. The velocity is more likely in slightly acceleration observed in Euclidean universe. 

Here, the cosmological constant, k = 7.931965828 bly was based on the Hubble’s Law at 6 bly. If we based on a difference distance, like one on a distance of 1 or 2 bly, the k value should be slightly different. If we use different versions of Hubble’s Law, the cosmological constant k will be even more different. We really need an accurate data to determine the constant k

Assuming k = 7.931965828 bly is correct; the Hubble's diagram in Euclidean space should look like the following diagram.



From this chart, we should call Hubble’s accelerator instead of Hubble’s constant.

2. Is Universe’s redshift cause by DOPPLER EFFECT or “LIOU’S STRETCH EFFECT”?

In recent year, astronomer's observed that Hubble’s constant is not constant. The galaxies actually moving away accelerated, like supernovae.

From this two facts, the Universe’s redshift is more likely to be caused by the “LIOU’S STRETCH EFFECT”. Therefor Doppler Effect caused by the STRETCH of the Hyperbolic space not by the speed of velocity in Euclidean space. The universe is neither expansion nor accelerating expansion. Even though Hubble’s redshift and the Doppler Effect are the facts.

In other words, the universe is still in Hyperbolic space. We can forget about Big Bang Theory, dark matter, dark energy, block hole, white hole, etc.

3.Hubble’s redshift can be proved the Universe is a Hyperbolic space. This is the new way of interpret the Universe. And everything is falling into the right place. If we can prove the sum of the angles of three galaxies are less than two right angles. With this second proved, Universe definitely is a Hyperbolic space.


By the way, if anyone can prove the sum of the angles of three galaxies are less than two right angles. I will award 100000 USD.

View attachment The 2011 of the Nobel Prize for physics is a mistake-eq.doc


----------



## qubit (Oct 18, 2011)

Where's your source for this? It sounds like psuedo science. And the attachment simply contains your post.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Oct 18, 2011)

allenliou said:


> (From page 298 of non-Euclidean Geometry by *Allen Liou*, 1964.)


His source is himself. 

Also he's quite _un_popular as it were . . .
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/10/04/no...utter-brian-schmidt-adam-risss/#comment-11530
http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/2011-nobel-prize-in-physics.html#comment-642952
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/p...el-prize-for-physics-is-a-mistake-t26290.html

One thing is for sure, he's going to only the most reputable places for proper scientific scrutiny.  

Next up, E=mc; not E=mc^2 . . .


----------



## D4S4 (Oct 18, 2011)

holy crap, we have a whole next level of trolling going on here lol


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 18, 2011)




----------



## freakshow (Oct 18, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i365/Damn_Smooth/Ifuckinglovespace.jpg



rofl


----------



## twilyth (Oct 18, 2011)

This is bullshit.  Everybody knows we exist in twistor space.


----------



## douglatins (Oct 18, 2011)

twilyth said:


> This is bullshit.  Everybody knows we exist in twistor space.
> 
> http://universe-review.ca/I15-56-congruence.jpg



Ooo cool


----------



## qubit (Oct 18, 2011)

twilyth said:


> This is bullshit.  Everybody knows we exist in twistor space.
> 
> http://universe-review.ca/I15-56-congruence.jpg



That's a great pic.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 18, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> His source is himself.
> 
> Also he's quite _un_popular as it were . . .
> http://blog.vixra.org/2011/10/04/no...utter-brian-schmidt-adam-risss/#comment-11530
> ...



And here I just thought spammers were just getting more creative with their fluff posts. This guy is serious. It's not even the idea that's the problem it's how he got there.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 18, 2011)

His membership of the ""FLAT EARTH SOCIETY "has just been revoked

due to his Published Paper "" THERE IS NO GRAVITY   THE EARTH SUCKS ""


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 21, 2011)

allenliou said:


> 1. If the universe is a Euclidean space, due to the Hubble redshift, and the facts of the Doppler Effect, There must be the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang also true. This is contradiction to the Big Bang is not true. So, the space of the universe may not be a Euclidean space
> 2. The space of the universe will never be an Elliptical space. If the space of the Universe is an Elliptical space. When we see anything from the east, can be seen from the west too. Obviously, it is not so
> 3. Remaining space is The Hyperbolic space.



Umm wow...
Ok, lets talk logic and critical thinking...
From the first premise, you imply there was no Big bang, but provide no argument for it.
The Universe is not a 3 dimensional Euclidean space.
The Universe is Finite but unbounded, I see no reason to throw away Alan Guth's Inflationary theory.
Only if the Universe was static and not expanding, would it be possible to "see the back of your head if you looked long enough".
The observable Universe is only a small fraction of the entire Universe... we can't see all of it, it is beyond our observable horizon, due to the Universe's early inflation and subsequent constant expansion with the added accelerator of Dark energy.
Even if we assume there is a higher dimensional 'Brane-world', it does not mean that the nature of the universe as we understand it is wrong.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 21, 2011)

I've watched enough Discovery Channel to know the OP is entirely wrong.

Mythbusters might help out here.


----------



## NinkobEi (Oct 22, 2011)

allenliou said:


> 2. The space of the universe will never be an Elliptical space. If the space of the Universe is an Elliptical space. When we see anything from the east, can be seen from the west too. Obviously, it is not so



You assume that light has had enough time to travel to each end of the universe. It is possible that light hasn't reached the edge of space and certainly hasnt had enough time to do a full loop back around to where we are. Your mind seems to have a difficult time grasping the size of the universe and the speed of light.


----------

