Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:: Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Name
Email
Subject
Message icon

Other options

Return to this topic
Don't use smileys

Verification:

Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by RobertJasiek

- March 21, 2024, 11:37:40

Quote from: Robert Sarkis-Karapetians on March 21, 2024, 10:58:02I am very happy greatful for the correcting of this mistake in the astastrophysiks.

It is an interesting theory but, in its current form, far from correcting what might be a major mistake in astrophysics. Rather, it is a theory that might be worked out and, if it stands, then serve this purpose.

Posted by Robert Sarkis-Karapetians

- March 21, 2024, 10:58:02

Dear collegs,

I am nuclear astrophysicist and I have never accepted the theory of dark matter or even dark Energy...
The Gravitation redshift is for Qasars the highest... and therefor is the light from there much stronger shifted in the red spektrum, because the time shifting was 14 billion years ago other in the Activ Galaxy Nucleis (denser) that results the shifting of wavelenth.

I have Worte my astrophysical thesis with Max-Plank-Institute for radioastronomy in Germany/Bonn about central engine of AGNs

I am very happy greatful for the correcting of this mistake in the astastrophysiks. Thank you.

Best regards
Robert S. Karapetians

Posted by Redaktion

- March 19, 2024, 13:57:55

27 Milliarden Jahre könnte das Universum alt sein, sollte es doch keine dunkle Materie geben. Dann würde sich auch Licht anders verhalten als gedacht, und ein paar alte Theorien hätten erneut Gültigkeit.

https://www.notebookcheck.com/Doch-keine-Dunkle-Materie-Muedes-Licht-und-viel-aelteres-Universum.814670.0.html