On Sep 28, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Julien Geffray wrote:
Hi Jim and Heidi,
"You have shown that the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity has been incorrectly dismissed by Stephen Hawking in the 1960s, because Hawking, who demonstrated the theory wasn't compatible with an expanding universe, didn't know at that time that the expansion was accelerating. But in a universe undergoing an accelerating expansion (like ours) the advanced solution does not diverge anymore."
Jack Sarfatti OK
the de Sitter future event horizon of area A is a source of advanced "destiny" (Yakir Aharonov) thermal black body Hawking radiation w = +1/3 that actually gets gravity redshifted down to hc/Lp^2A at our observation point r = 0 for gtt = 1 - r^2/A static LNIF coordinates
This is same ball park as observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A provided that we assume the mirror image of the Feynman propagator contour in the complex energy plane
i.e. positive energy propagated back-from-the-future = negative energy propagated forward-in-time —> repulsive gravity
opposite to Aharonov retarded history waves.
Note also that this these are gravity waves not electromagnetic waves causing the dark energy acceleration of the universe.
The effect of electromagnetic waves would be much weaker than that of gravity waves by 40 powers of ten.
Note further, that the cosmic expansion blue shift noted by Jim Woodward is a tiny ignorable correction to the enormous future horizon gravity redshift - apples and oranges .
"First point: fair enough, the HN theory fits nowadays in the accelerating expansion of our universe. But what about the phase of the universe when the expansion was long ago decelerating, and during the stalling phase at the beginning of the acceleration recovery? How the HN theory (the advanced solution) fits in those eras?"
Jack Sarfatti Fair question
"Second point: What about the sentence:
'Currently the theory does not fit into WMAP data.[1] If you remove the creation field (or C-field) the theory is no longer steady state and agrees with WMAP data.'
[1] Edward L. Wright. "Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models": http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
What is that C-field and do you use such a steady-state version of HN theory?
Jack Sarfatti Clearly the C-field was a wrong move and must be rejected in the light of modern evidence.