Hubble Redshift Despite Universal Contraction is possible. by Leo Vuyk

Quantum FFF theory is a combination of a holistic and a reductionist approach of nature.

Holistic by the introduction of complexity into the sub quantum geometry or microstructure of elementary particles and fields and reductionist, by reducing that complexity at a lower scale into single elements and monopole forces.

However all these particles and fields are supposed to be connected by continuous active information fields (like Bohmian Mechanics) called instant entanglement, between one or even more symmetrical anti matter universes at a long distant.

If single elementary 3D particles combine together into simple knots they form quarks and some leptons.

If these knots become more complex (more than 6 particles) they are supposed to form ball lightning alike Casimir energy producing (zero point energy) systems called micro dark matter black holes..

If stars explode into supernovas they form also quantum knots based on the remaining particles left over from the star's interior and form intermediate dark matter black holes.

All black hole nuclei (singularities) are supposed to be based on such dark matter quantum knots. All black holes are supposed to EAT the surrounding energetic oscillating Massless Higgs vacuum field (a tetrahedral and cubic lattice) which is supposed to be the origin of the Hubble redshift because vacuum lattice is the photonic transferring information field.

The big bang is supposed to be the evaporation and explosion of the one and only big crunch black hole.

As a consequence we could live inside a pulsating cyclic super-symmetric multiverse interconnected by instant entanglement between these anti-copy universe at the quantum scale.

Consciousness should also be subject of this active information system called multiversal entanglement, and my and your thoughts are continuous competing with my and your super symmetric brothers or sisters over there....

Leo: I don't know of a single physicist who would deny that redshift with universal contraction is *possible*. On the contrary, there's a famous problem in the philosophy of science called the problem of underdetermination. The problem of underdetermination is that every set of observations is logically consistent with an *infinite* number of theories.

Don't believe me? It's a common misconception that Copernicus proved the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth to be false (Stephen Hawking discusses this in his recent book). It's still *possible*, given our observations, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, just as it's *possible* that invisible Christmas gnomes cause the ocean tides to go in and out, not gravity. It's also *possible* that I'm dreaming and none of this world is real.

All kinds of things are possible. Science does not move forward on the assumption that the theories we have are the *only* possible explanation of the phenomena. It moves forward by assuming that simpler, more unified theories are *more likely* to be true than more complex, ad hoc theories. This is why science has gone with Copernicus over Ptolemy. Ptolemaic orbits were still *consistent* with our observations -- they just required more and more ad hoc "epicycles" to make the orbits fit. On the flip side, Copernicus' theory gave a much simpler, more unified, and more predictive theory of the same phenomena.

So, it's perfectly *possible*, as you say, that the red-shift is caused by universal contraction. It's also possible that God put dinosaur remains in the Earth to fool us into believing that the Earth is only 5,000 years old. Neither theory, however, fits with our best science -- which is why they should be both be rejected.

Hallo Marcus,

You wrote:

"So, it's perfectly *possible*, as you say, that the red-shift is caused by universal contraction."

I must apologize that somehow I seem to have give you the impression that my world of logic is turned upside down.

My postulate is that it is the desnity decrease of the lumirous vacuum "eaten by DARK MATTER distribution in the form of black holes af different sizes

are the origin

So I hope to have given "a much simpler, more unified, and more predictive theory of the same phenomena."

Dear Sir,

Everybody is talking about it. But is not dark energy an oxymoron? Energy is only indirectly perceived through its interactions. Only because it is smooth and persistent and non-interacting, it cannot be called dark energy. If it interacts with others to be perceivable, it cannot be dark. If it does not interact, it cannot be energy. Its characteristic resembles a background structure. In this connection kindly note that:

Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. All transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is propagated in transverse waves, Maxwell used a transverse wave and aether fluid model for his equations. Feynman has shown that Lorentz transformation and invariance of speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Einstein's causal analysis in SR is based on Lorentz's motional theory where a propagation medium is essential to solve the wave equation. Einstein's ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell's Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the aether model. The equations describing spacetime, based on Einstein's theories of relativity, are mathematically identical to the equations describing ordinary fluid and solid systems. Yet, it is paradoxical that physicists have denied aether model while using the formalism derived from it. They don't realize that Maxwell used transverse wave model, whereas aether drag considers longitudinal waves. Thus, the notion that Einstein's work is based on "aether-less model" is a myth. All along he used the aether model, while claiming the very opposite.

Further, only energy (potential/internal or kinetic/external) makes matter interact. By itself, matter is not interacting - hence dark. Matter has the characteristic of accumulation around a point - as is supposed to be in a black hole. Energy flows from higher concentration to lower concentration carrying information and leading to perception.

Regards,

basudeba

Leo,

Nice work. Counter-Intuitive to our usual understandings but pretty straightforward and well communicated through imagery. Do you feel like this model resolves the Pioneer Anomaly to your satisfaction?

Leo,

Great to see such a well illustrated presentation, but as an Architect myself I would appreciate that far more than pages of maths!

Robert is not entirely correct about plasma being 'visible'. It has a refractive index n of 1 so a zero EM cross section. It also has high coupling potential and no loss of G potential. When combining to form molecular gas it does become more 'visible' spectroscopically (I'm also a Fellow of the RAS by the way). I see no real problem with DM as Robert suggests, although it should be from fermion conjugate pair production more that ionized gas, as our iono/plasmaspheric shock. My last three essays discus the (dark) matter and plasma in some detail.

Very well done. It's a poor comment on the approach to scoring that you are languishing at the wrong end of the list. I'll certainly be giving yours the significantly better score it deserves when it comes to marking. Almost forgot, I've also studied and discussed 'Black Holes' in detail which are Active Galactic Nuclii (AGN's) not the nonsensical entities most theoretical physics treats them as. There are some excellent links in my past essays.

I do hope you'll read and score mine. You may not fully understand it if you haven't studied optics but I'm sure (hope!!) that won't affect your view of it's value! Do comment or ask questions.

Very best of luck in the competition.

Peter

Hello Leo,

I really enjoyed your essay. I too explore geometry to give fundamental answers. I particularly like your illustrations. The CMBR one is very topical and up to date. Please take a look at my essay too.

Best of luck,

Antony