Editor's Choice: The Illusion of the Expanding Universe

Would just like to correct an error in my previous post on this thread I said "The pituitary gland in the brain regulates biological circadian rhythms so we are aware of a sense of time passing even without clocks to observe." That is incorrect.

From Chapter 3B Functional Anatomy of the Hypothalamus and Pituitary via Endotext Web page detailing endocrine control of circadian rythms and other functions.

Quote " The master clock in mammals is the hypothalamic suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a small, paired nucleus embedded in the dorsal surface of the optic chiasm. Contained within this nucleus are multiple, small neurons that produce autonomous, self-sustaining oscillations synchronously firing to generate a common rhythmic output, perhaps mediated by the local release of GABA "End quote.

WHO SAID LIGHTSPEED IS CONSTANT AND DOES NOT SLOW DOWN. WHEN WAS THE SPEED OF LIGHT THAT AS TRAVELLED FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS BEEN MEASURED AND WHO MEASURED IT. EINSTEIN SAID IT TO SUPPORT HIS THEORY OF RELATIVITY WHICH IS USELESS WITHOUT LIGHT BEING CONSTANT. SELF INTEREST AS NO PART IN USEFULL SCIENCE AS DARWIN FOUND OUT THE HARD WAY. IF THE RED SHIFT IN LIGHT IS THE RESULT OF LIGHT SLOWING DOWN IT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY ALL LIGHT OUTSIDE THE LOCAL GALAXIES IS RED SHIFTED.BLUE SHIFTED LIGHT COULD NOT BE OBSERVED BECAUSE THE DISTANCE IT TRAVELLED WOULD SLOW IT ENOUGH TO RED SHIFT IT. IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT OVER LONG DISTANCES COULD BE MEASURED I WOULD BE VERY PLEASED TO HEAR ABOUT IT.

Has anyone tried to develop a cosmology in which pi is a rational number or, better yet, an integer?

well, i'm rather sorry this article didn't delve deeper into his theories. ultimately, i suspect we will find some oddly surprising validity to the idea that time should be reconsidered.

while i won't argue that time doesn't progress, it seems likely that as we start to actually establish what our relationships are to other dimensions, we will find ourselves pressed to rewrite much of what we currently hold true. the massive blanks in M theory as it stands certainly leaves enough room for interactions that are time-like yet defiant of our current idea of Time.

in my own notes, i intentionally misuse the word "sidereal" to mark places where one can possibly expect to find alternate threads of time, flowing in angular difference to the our standard version. in fairness, i'm willing to work from a place where i can believe that our current physical perception of time itself is skewed by our inability to perceive a full picture of time's flow. roughly along the lines of saying that we've never modelled another triangle to compare ours against.

yeah, i'll look for Mr Barbour's book

John wrote: "WHO SAID LIGHTSPEED IS CONSTANT AND DOES NOT SLOW DOWN (...) IF THE RED SHIFT IN LIGHT IS THE RESULT OF LIGHT SLOWING DOWN IT WOULD EXPLAIN WHY ALL LIGHT OUTSIDE THE LOCAL GALAXIES IS RED SHIFTED..."

Correct but the mainstream dogma is supported by billions of dollars:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html "More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

if we assume that relativity slow down the time , then what about time shown by digital watches , is this happen same with digital watches , does time also slowdown in digital watches

You cite Barbour as saying "To get a handle on Mach's viewpoint, imagine a particle spinning out in space. If there were no stars forming a backdrop against which to measure the particle's motion, can we really say that the particle is moving?" This can be refuted by imagining yourself as that particle. If you are spinning, you will feel centripetal force as your arms, legs and hair are pulled outward. Regardless of what the rest of the Universe is doing, your motion and its resulting acceleration will be relative to an absolute reference grid. Other objects may also be moving, but your spin, if not your velocity can be easily measured against that grid. This proves that there is an absolute reference grid for location.

The trouble with physics is that people have to make a living of their own, so do physicists who run the huge evil business which is supported by Vatican: Big Bang theory.

For years I drove friends and wife crazy with my attempts to explain that time is a fabrication,of man. The Universe knows nothing of time. The universe dose not exist physically .

Right on Armrit. We don't see that which we have no knowledge of. We preceive our universe as we become conscious of it.

I can logicly explain why space expands. In lamens terms. An if any one is intrested in what i have to say please e mail me guzmanjoseph51@gmail.com

We know not what we see. We see not what we know. We seek the answers thats what makes us keep living. However the right questions must be asked!

So amazing. I had my own little idea of how the universe can be expanding outwardly and also inwardly. It links with Barbour's idea of more order appearing in the universe. My idea takes advantage of the entropic fact that just as order is increasing on smaller and smaller scales, order is decreasing on larger and larger scales. Assuming there is a center of our multiverse, the entropy-inducing cosmic horizon causes all microstates on a large enough macrostate level to mix until the last two identifiable "things" mix and you are left with something so similar to the singularity you started with when the universe began to expand at the Big Bang that it functionally is that starting point. (I don't know how to explain this without a starting point.) At that point in "time," the beginning of time and the end of time are equivalent and the functions that occur given a single unit occur again, namely expansion. And therefore a new universe is created. What is the first point in time doing all that time while the universe is expanding? It's merely digging into itself, as it cannot increase itself "to the left in time" so to speak as doing so would increase entropy at that moment, making it equivalent to or larger than the entropy at those first few moments, resulting in no movement through entropy at all in the universe. As the first moment in time digs into itself, it is constantly choosing units one at different layers, for expansion into two would throw off what we know about entropic rules. In my vision, each time one unit is expanded inwardly again on smaller and smaller scales with increasing order, the inward expansion causes a new universe to be created because it is functionally equivalent to the starting point and will do what a starting point does. So I think this means whenever we see order, we are examining only one distinct time unit of the universe, usually after considering multiple units of time. When we are aware of expansion outwardly, we are aware of multiple time units and are indeed living them out. What is time then? I think time is number. Its only limitation is that as Gödel showed, time as number is incomplete and can only be a single thing in analog because the closest the number system ever gets to one true isolated number is the number one. One is an analog because in an open, incomplete system, different units of time are always both connected and broken off at different parts at the same time in order not for form a loop. This brings up some questions in my mind. When is time measured as only a single thing, totally unconnected instead of participating in both connection and disconnection in an incomplete system, the seeming opposite of an incomplete system of multiple numbers? When it is its own complete system of one and must perforce expand outward and inward. When it moves inward and toward us, and its speed is constant and serves as another isolated value that can be consistently measured as one thing, we see it as light. I'm not sure what it looks like when it moves outward. But I think time is not just one thing, such as light, except in this analog, single unit measure. More than light exists, as one value of time must coexist with multiple other values, the result of the outward expansion of all other matter and energy. (Is energy other configurations of numbers, such as negative numbers, imaginary numbers, etc.?) This is why I think time will never be discovered to be only one thing. It has multiple characteristics and can best be described as everything the number system can do. But wasn't light formed only after the expansion of the Big Bang? Can that which expands inward, considered under entropy as going back in time, also be experienced "to the right" in that outward expansion? Is light then the representation of the past and all of its single-unit content?

Hubble Redshift in a Static Universe

"We find that the UV surface brightness of luminous disk galaxies are constant over a very wide redshift range (from z = 0.03 to z ~ 5). From this analysis we conclude that the Tolman test for surface brightness dimming is consistent with a non-expanding, Euclidean Universe with distance proportional to redshift."

What causes the (Hubble) redshift in a non-expanding universe? Vacuum friction? Why not:

NewScientist: "Vacuum has friction after all"

Paul Davies: "As pointed out by DeWitt, the quantum vacuum is in some respects reminiscent of the aether, and in what follows it may be helpful to think of space-time as filled with a type of invisible fluid medium, representing a seething background of vacuum fluctuations. Although the mechanical properties of this medium can be strange, and the image should not be pushed too far, it is sometimes helpful to envisage this "quantum aether" as possessing a type of viscosity. (...) The phenomenon is at its most striking in the case of a single atom moving parallel to, but some distance from, an imperfectly conducting plate. The atom also experiences a velocity-dependent damping force due to vacuum friction. The kinetic energy of the atom appears as heat in the plate..."

The Evolved-Vacuum Model of Redshifts, Eugene I. Shtyrkov: "There are also alternative models of redshifts which obey the redshift-distance relation and based on an idea of gradual change of light parameters due to interaction between light and matter while the light is traveling gigantic distances through space for a very long time. There are two candidate ways for such interaction to cause redshifts: gradual energy loss by the photon due to absorption during propagation of light with a constant velocity (tired-light model, see, for instance, [8]) and propagation of light with the variable velocity and without absorption in free space (variable-light-velocity models). (...) Thus we come to a very important conclusion: the induction wave, and hence the light one, must travel in vacuum with conservation of wave length even when the parameters are time dependent. (...) ...we obtain a simple differential equation for the light velocity: dc(t)/dt = -Ho.c(t) (15) (...) Although reproducing the conclusions of the tired-light model, namely, about simultaneous decreasing the electric field strength and frequency, this model has a different physical interpretation. Instead of energy loss due to absorption at constant light velocity, this mechanism is based on gradual change of the vacuum parameters that results in declining of the electric field strength. The electromagnetic wave is gradually slowing down, with conservation of the initially shifted wavelength (lambda)_shift. The frequency perceived by observers at any point on the light path depends on the light velocity at the observation time."

HYPOTHESIS: As the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), it bumps into vacuum particles and as a result loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air.

On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the the velocity of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this difference, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:

f' = f(exp(-kt))

where f is the original and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. (The analogy with the golf ball requires that it be assumed that the speed of light and the frequency vary while the wavelength remains unchanged.) For short distances the following approximations can be made:

f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/L

where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and L is the wavelength. The equation f'=f-kd/L is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law whereas the equation f'=f(exp(-kt)), by showing that later contributions to the redshift are smaller than earlier ones, provides an alternative explanation, within the framework of a STATIC universe, of the observations that brought the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt. The analogy with the golf ball suggests that, at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe), photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning of the journey.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

This time I appreciate your style of quoting and reasoning. I am ready to learn, and I feel that experiments and very basic thoughts are more trustworthy and fertile than hierarchies of theories on possibly questionable foundations.

It would be nice if you could already add some ideas how to further combine or even apply your picture.

The recently most impressive to me news was the possibility to use neutrinos as a tool for looking into the inner of earth, sun, or even cosmic objects. Can neutrinos possibly interact with photons?

Eckard

"Olbers' Paradox: Why is the Sky Dark at Night? If the universe were infinite and filled with stars in a uniform distribution, then every line of sight would terminate on the surface of a star and should be bright. To be sure, those further away would be fainter, but there would be more of them. Careful analysis suggests that the sky should be as bright as the surface of an average star. Noting that the night sky is obviously not that bright, there are two lines of explanation. First, the universe appears to be of finite age and that light from stars at an infinite distance would not have reached us in the age of the universe. Second, we observe that the universe is expanding and that stars further away from us are receding at a faster rate. The result of this expansion is that the light from more distant stars is Doppler shifted more toward the red and beyond a certain distance would not contribute significantly in the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum."

"...the light from more distant stars is Doppler shifted more toward the red and beyond a certain distance would not contribute significantly in the visible region" but would still be detected if the speed of that light remained unchanged. A more plausible line of explanation is to assume that the light slows down as it travels through the space vacuum (in a STATIC universe). For not so distant stars this is expressed as Hubble redshift but beyond a certain distance the star light does not reach us at all.

Pentcho Valev

Peter as I posted, I saw Pentcho's and since part of my post was more appropriate to discuss here, I repeat...

On the cosmology topic. Our universe's mass is said to be about 1052kg. Was this mass there from the beginning of its evolution? That is, was it always constant by means of your "Mass 'flow' is continuous" mechanism? Does your model universe have a fixed or infinite size, or was it smaller in size in the past and increasing? Or as in my opinion, was the mass of the universe and its radius both smaller in the past and both increasing, with their fixed ratio given by the parameter Omega ~ 1 from the beginning, thus making unnecessary an inflationary scenario to convert Omega >> 1 to ~ 1? Recall that the purpose of inventing inflation was for this purpose to resolve the 'flatness' problem. So, what if the universe was born already flat?

Akinbo

Pentcho,

That really is asking what the nature of light really is. One basic property it expresses, is expansion, just as a basic property of mass is contraction, ie. gravity. Yet they seem to be intimately entwined.

Now we think of light in terms of photons, or quanta of light, which is a point particle, of sorts. This is because whenever we attempt to measure it, that is what we detect. Yet the only method we have of measuring light is to interrupt it with something necessarily heavier.

So what if light and mass are two sides of the same cycle and when we try to measure light, we are actually starting a contraction process by which it is reverting to mass like qualities, by this effort to measure it?

Then ask yourself, if this light in its expansion state is essentially holographic and each quantum extracted is an expression of the whole, not just some atomized, digital unit, then as light progresses through space, much is lost to innumerable contacts with mass and possibly that below a certain energy level, it might just condense out as a form of cosmic ray, gas, etc.

This might explain why the background radiation is so flat at 3.7k, as a form of dew point, below which the radiation collapses on its own. Then these quanta start binding together and eventually fall back into the gravitational vortices.

So it is not that the light loses energy and slows, but that the energy that is light is constantly being lost to mass.

Regards,

John

Including the retina of our eyes.