Cosmic growth of matter - the evidence by Akinbo Ojo

Very nice...I always appreciate your intuition about the nature of physical reality. Here you propound an increasing mass rate for the universe that amounts to 2e-17 s-1 or 0.64 ppb/yr, which is an interesting value. Presumably there is a slowing of force that goes along with this growing mass and that means the speed of light slows down over time.

This is very similar to Wetterich's approach, which he now calls the universe from ice instead of fire and would be a shrinking universe of growing mass and shrinking force. Your notion is that increasing mass and slowing light would still be expanding, but you really need to do the math. Your universe just looks like it is expanding and in fact is shrinking according to Wetterich.

This approach is very similar to aethertime's except exactly switched. Aether mass decays and force grows, which means the speed of light increases over time and yet the universe still shrinks. The aethertime shrinkage is 0.26 ppb/yr decay, which is 0.81e-17 s-1 compared to your 0.64 ppb/yr growth.

An interesting sidebar is that there is a theory of continuous spontaneous collapse (CSL) that proposes a wavefunction collapse rate of 1e-17 s-1, which is right there with your mass growth and aethertime's matter decay. The CSL theory adds a nonlinear term to the quantum Hamiltonian that makes all quantum wavefunctions real and Singh has a very nice essay to that effect.

The main take home message is that with growing mass and decaying light, the universe would be shrinking from a frozen mass of very little into a firely destiny of mass with little force...

Hi, Akinbo -

Basing a theory on the Big Bang is risky business...

Why do living things have this pervasive urge to grow?

A better question - Why do life forms stop growing? The BB keeps growing!

The study of the expanding size of the universe is already a well-traveled road following Hubble's 1929 discovery of redshifts from galactic clusters and the finding of other evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation

The Hubble interpretation of redshift as Doppler shifted galactic recession is refuted by Planck's photon energy formula, E = hf. No energy loss occurs in space, so the change of light wavelength (w) observed must be due to change in SoL = fw. That is, due to aether emitted by static sources, not by source recession.

The discovery of CMB multipoles aligned with the ecliptic and equinoxes (the dreaded Axis of Evil ...or is it the Axis of Truth?) implies the Earth is centrally located in the universe.... at the center of the alleged BB.

.... this astronomical increase in the size of the universe from an initial beginning of miniscule or zero size is widely accepted in mainstream cosmology

To accept as true what the scientific method has falsified by testing is anti-science. To accept it as true because the establishment promotes it is the fallacy of authoritarianism...and intimidation.

This essay is based on the assumption, probably wrong, that the Big Bang model is the nearest to truth.

What strange logic... To build a theory on premises thought to be false.

All the best,

Robert

The beginning of the shrinking universe is the end of the expanding antiverse and so the cosmos is a pulse that begins as an antiverse of antimatter, peaks at mass Mo at zero force, freezes into some small amount of matter at the CMB creation, and shrinks into where we are today with a much greater force.

Instead of the size of the visible universe being limited by the speed of light, the size of the universe defines the speed of light.

Akinbo,

Lovely essay, well written, interesting, with good referencing and highly readable. I suspect it didn't touch on the topic enough to finish highly, and most may disagree with many things, but agreement is not a scoring criteria!

In any case I can confirm from astronomy/astrophysics (though I'm really more an 'observational cosmologist') that the (type for type) 'mass growth' function of galaxies over the eons is well known and documented. It'll only be 'current dogma' for those who don't do their homework (most perhaps!) Galaxies were FAR LOWER MASS in the a early universe. What is even LESS widely known, including IN astronomy, is HOW that can and has happened! There are no shortage of silly guesses. The favourite one, 'mergers' is nonsense (not enough are found anyway), so feeds the 'dogma' you identify.

The galaxy growth fits a pattern of 'spurts' co-inciding with both the 'mysterious' re-ionization epochs AND the population shift from 'old' red discs to 'young' blue open spirals in an era of high Quasar activity. In the 60's Martin Rees wrote of the new 'pair production' from shear planes of quasar jets (contraflow helical 'superluminal' etc.) and it's now well understood (by specialists). What nobody did before was put that all together with the missing link of the 'columns' of ex quasar jet matter we find becoming new open spirals. Galaxies recycle themselves so have a simple sequence leading to certain morphologies. Now look at the CMB at larger scale and those EXACT (helicity, axial, asymmetric etc) 'anomalies' are what we find. A fractal scale model is suggested consistent with both your and Steve's (above) evidence! AND the Hawking & Penrose, and Dicke & Peebles model 'big crunch'. (more here;your link text )

I find we can judge the veracity of any theory by consistency with data and it's power to resolve anomalies. We KNOW current theory is badly flawed (Planck data analysys; "there's something fundamentally wrong with our cosmological model...") Just use with the alternative mechnistic redshift solution (NO accelerating expansion your link text ) and ALL the key anomalies in cosmology resolve, which tells me it's probably correct!

Your statement; "...the difference that for the universe its matter for growth arises de novo" can be interpreted legally as the Latin ('Anew') meaning 'afresh' for another (2nd or subsequent) time/beginning. So only needs proper understanding not rejection! Indeed perhaps each iteration has also been growing!

So I agree much, the only flaws are from building on long established but flawed foundations, and it's well written so certainly worth a high score.

Very Best

Peter

Dear Dr. Akinbo Ojo,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Ojo,

You started with the sentence "The study of the expanding size of the universe is already a well-traveled road following Hubble's 1929 discovery of redshifts from galactic clusters and the finding of other evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation"

................In your opening sentence ' evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation ' is not correct, as they have not accounted for the microwave radiation emitted from Galaxies, Globular clusters and stars etc... see the essay on CMB in previous FQXi... There was no provision to eliminate this radiation in the WMAP satellite. See my essay...

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

No Bigbang generated CMB detected; You can see Branko's( another author in this contest) solution here. http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0095

I have another objection, you are considering this whole universe as expanding universe only. You are not considering 60 percent of Galaxies like blue shifted Galaxies and Quasars etc... Do you feel it is correct...

Even though Bigbang is popular, it is failing at experimental evidences....

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

I request you to please have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Dear Ojo,

Thank you for the reply. In Dynamic Universe model, Universe size will be FINITE, But the space where Universe is there, can be infinite, no limitation

Hope you will read my essay also

Best

=snp.gupta

Dear Aki9mbo Ojo

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

Hi Ojo,

I remember you from the last essay contest... you shared my hatred of infinity:)

Anyway, you said "All life forms evolved gradually according to Darwin's theory, rather than immediately." But what are your thoughts about the telescoping/accelerating nature of evolutionary processes? Ray Kurzweil points out that evolutionary processes go quicker with each new capability they develop. He says, "So the first step in biological evolution, the evolution of DNA -- actually it was RNA came first -- took billions of years, but then evolution used that information-processing backbone to bring on the next stage. So the Cambrian Explosion, when all the body plans of the animals were evolved, took only 10 million years. It was 200 times faster. And then evolution used those body plans to evolve higher cognitive functions, and biological evolution kept accelerating. It's an inherent nature of an evolutionary process." Do you agree with this view?

Please check out my essay, and if you're interested please check out my independent film "Digital Physics" on iTunes, Vimeo, or Amazon Prime. It's all about the finite! :)

Thanks!

Jon

Akinbo,

Welcome to the party. I'll give you credit for being willing to challenge established beliefs. For whatever it is worth, all modern measurements of the cosmos indicate that space is flat. And this is a puzzle that is not resolved. You propose the simplest solution and Occam's razor is on your side.

Having said that, you want to treat the observable universe as an expanding Black Hole. Your presumption is that the Bing Bang occurred at a single point and that the Hubble Bubble has expanded from that point. From our perspective, this seems to be what we see ... i.e., we look in all directions and see distant galaxies moving away from us .....

The problem with this is that it goes against the belief that we are not at the center of the universe ... the assumption by cosmologists is that if you were at the edge of our Hubble Bubble and looked out into space, you would also see distant galaxies moving away. In addition, such an observer would see a different set of galaxies moving away that were not in the over-lap of the two Hubble Bubbles ... so as the Hubble Bubble expands, there is more mass in our OBSERVABLE universe although not in our Hubble Bubble plus all the other Hubble Bubbles.

There is another question concerning gravity ... according to GR we do not sense mass that is outside of our light cone. But orbit calculations are performed using the ACTUAL position of objects rather than the APPARENT positions based upon light-speed. I would have to ask similar questions regarding any mass that is outside of our Hubble Bubble.

BTW, do not confuse the Schwarzschild Radius with the size of the entity inside the BH.

In any event, you have argued the point as well as possible I think.

BTW, I have already scored your essay. You were one bombed within a few hours of your essay being posted, so I righted the wrong. These people are so petty.

Good Luck and Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

The Scalar Theory of Everything suggest another model:

this is simple video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjhieYgYoM0

this is paper with math

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603

You might also see:

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648/0603140v1.pdf

Hodge

That's :

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603/0603140v1.pdf

and

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

hodge