Video Article: The Destiny of the Universe

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.htm

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves, their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer - the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be: f'=f(1 plus Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the speed of the wave."

Clearly the speed of the waves relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer in accordance with the equation:

V' = Vwave plus Vo

which is in fact the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory of light:

c' = c plus v

The moving observer scenario refutes Einstein's special relativity but does not discriminate between Newton's emission theory of light and some ether-based theories:

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf

The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics, Stephan J.G. Gift

"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c plus v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c plus v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Professor Aharonov's theory that the future affects the past is an interesting adaptation of quantum physics. After many years of thought and notations, which was first generated for me by reading Wheeler-Planck theories on Black Holes in space in 1969, I reached my own cosmological interpretation of the genesis of known and unknown sub atomic structures of our known and unknown universe. It is what I call, "TIME, SPACE & RELIGIOSITY" (c)oliver. I agree that time and space are finite. Rather than a model of an expanding universe, it is am "imploded" universe within a vacuum, a Big Bang, which created everything for a few seconds and ended all existence as we now know, within a few seconds or a millisecond. Everything we know to exist, was created and ENDED within that millisecond. However, the creation of time and space places us in a slow component of time, in between the beginning and end. Our known universe is a slow moving slide show of what happened from beginning to end, after that millisecond phenomenon. What is observed as an "expanding universe," appears to be an expansion from within the matrix of time and space. However, what appears to be an expansion is the "constriction" of everything after the implosion within a vacuum. Time & space are finite. Time, space & matter were created on implosion, with the matrix of what was created being stretched in a constriction (expansion from our observation) and had ended within a few seconds after the Big Bang. Time and space are the slowest components of what was created and quickly ended. We are the slow moving components now in between the beginning and the end. We are like a time lapse video of inside a light bulb which blows out when you turned on the light switch. The phenomenon took a second. What happened inside the bulb, within that moment of blast of light is taking millenia to play out for us, because of "time and space" lapses within it. I'd appreciate comments on my theory. google: rayoliveresq

Balanced attraction and repulsion that involves balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity is the requirement of fundamentally unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Both gravity and inertia must [necessarily] be at half strength/force for such a union to occur. This is required of quantum gravity as well. This can only be done by making space equally (and both) visible and invisible. Opposites must be combined, included, and balanced. Gravity enjoins and balances invisible and visible space. Space must be contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in an equivalent and balanced fashion.

Mathematics cannot fundamentally and ultimately combine, include, and balance opposites. That is obvious. The ultimate understanding of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. Do you agree or disagree? Dreams fundamentally combine and include opposites. Dreams generally and fundamentally unify physics.

Gravity and inertia are both fundamental to distance in/of space. The visible AND YET INVISIBLE (equivalency and balancing) of inertial/gravitational space in dreams even allows for vision, as this is evident in the invisible and visible space of/inside the body/eye while waking. (Vision begins invisibly inside the body/eye.) HALF GRAVITY AND HALF INERTIA ARE EQUALLY (AND BOTH) VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE IN DREAMS in keeping with the middle distance in/of space and middle force/energy. Indeed, the space [as a whole/generally] IS semi-visible/semi-invisible in dreams. The space in dreams is equally (and it is both) visible and invisible.

This is the fundamental and general unification of physics in/as dream experience.

Gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing (both at half strength energy/force) is required of any fundamental unification in physics. It is so fascination that, in dreams, this is inseparable from combining, including, and balancing larger and smaller space as the same space -- FUNDAMENTAL INSTANTANETY! Indeed, the space is entirely inertial and gravitational -- in keeping with balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion -- in an equivalent and balanced fashion. Accordingly, the space is both, and it is equally, visible and visible -- and it may or may not be touched in keeping with such fundamental middle strength force/energy (and inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing). The space is both potential and actual in keeping with instantaneity and the fact that the space is equally (and it is both) visible and invisible. (Remember that vision begins invisibly inside the BODY/EYE.) VICTORY!

Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie's solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early October 2012 and the second was in Shanghai a week or so ago. On both occasions El Naschie presented a revision of Einstein's theory leading to an equation very similar to that of Einstein's namely Energy equals mass x the square of the speed of the light. However unlike Einstein's equation, the result is divided by 22. His explanation of 22 is as follows: As in the old string theory of strong interaction, space time of relativity should have been considered 26 dimensional. Taking 4 only is what Einstein did and that is how he got his famous result. Nevertheless Einstein ignored 22 dimensions. This is a scaling factor following Nottale's theory as argued by El Naschie. Even in simpler terms, he reasons that Einstein knew only one elementary messenger particle namely the photon. He knew nothing about the other 11 messenger particles of the standard model which were not known in 1905. Adding 11 super partners it turned out that Einstein did not know about an additional 22 elementary particles. These are the particles needed to explain the missing dark energy. In this way El Naschie was able to show that 95.5% of the energy of the Universe is missing. Alternatively this energy was never there to start with because space time is a fractal and although it looks puffed up it boils down to very little similar to cotton candy. In addition the compactified 22 dimensions are the cause for the negative pressure which increases the acceleration of the Universe's expansion. He claims to have tested his theory using 25 different methods including Witten's M-Theory and reached the same result. Even more importantly this result agrees completely with observation. In other words mathematics and physics have been substantiated by measurement which led last year to the award of the Nobel Prize to the 3 team who obtained this incredible measurement and data. Click on this link to get more info re the above (under news) http://www.msel-naschie.com/ and also http://mohamed-elnaschie.blogspot.com/.

"Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong (...) So for now the standard model [of cosmology] remains unchanged... (...) It's the best we have. And it's so nearly a perfect fit. It's just that it could be totally wrong."

The standard model of cosmology may be totally wrong but this is Divine Albert's world: Dangerous alternatives (e.g. the "tired light" hypothesis) are not even mentioned, Jean-Claude Pecker and Halton Arp are unpersons forever, etc:

Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les « redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de cette vision de l'univers."

Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en expansion."

Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi de Hubble, prédite très simplement."

Halton Arp : Victim Of Rational Scientific Society

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

"Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light

"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?"

"No one can escape friction, not even in a vacuum. On earth, we're slowed down by the muck of the everyday world. Matter slows us down, rubbing against us and taking away our speed and power. Gravel, air, even slip-n-slides, exert some friction on us. This frictional force runs counter to our motion, and it can't be escaped anywhere on earth. Eventually, inevitably, it will slow us to a stop. Ah, but in space all the rules are different. In a vacuum, with no matter to rub up against like a strangers on the bus, we could move forever. If we started in a spin, we'd never stop unless we had a collision with some kind of asteroid. It turns out, that even in the vacuum of space, we'd get dragged back. The vacuum isn't as entirely devoid of matter as most people make it out to be. It's only devoid of permanent matter. In a vacuum, tiny, temporary, particles pop in and out of existence all the time. (...) If a particle hits a spinning object in the direction of its spin, a part of its momentum may be transfered to the object. If, however, a particle hits a spinning object counter to its direction, more of its momentum will be transferred to the spinning object. If particles moving counter to the object's motion hit with more force than particles moving with the object, the object will eventually stop moving. Not even in space is motion preservered."

If vacuum friction as described above is a fact, the following hypothesis is more than hypothesis - it can be regarded as a valid consequence of this fact:

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.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Slowing light produces blue shift. It does so in a medium of higher refractive index, which equates to Polarisation Mode Dispersion (PMD) which slows the bulk propagation speed due to interaction density.

A GRIN lens shows this by having an effective graded density, producing curved light paths and non-linear blue shift. When light re-emerges from the denser medium it reverts to local c and reverts (redshifts) back to it's original wavelength. All this is irrefutably proved in optical science experimentation.

I agree cosmic redshift does not prove accelerated expansion, but you have again wrongly identified the cause of the redshift. That does not aid the task of getting physics back on track so more care is needed not to give dissent a worse reputation than it already has.

Consider; If space with a wave embedded within it expands, what might you expect to happen to the wavelength? In an intelligent approach accelerated expansion can be shown to be self defeating.

Best wishes

Peter

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light II

"Vacuum has friction after all (...) But what if the vacuum itself creates a type of friction that puts the brakes on spinning objects? (...) Now, Alejandro Manjavacas and F. Javier García de Abajo of the Institute of Optics at the Spanish National Research Council in Madrid say these forces should slow down spinning objects. Just as a head-on collision packs a bigger punch than a tap between two cars one behind the other, a virtual photon hitting an object in the direction opposite to its spin collides with greater force than if it hits in the same direction. So over time, a spinning object will gradually slow down, even if equal numbers of virtual photons bombard it from all sides."

It takes a Divine Albert's world to draw the above analogy and conclude that vacuum friction slows down spinning objects, and at the same time purge any thought that vacuum friction could in the same way slow down photons that we find Hubble redshfted:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

Petcho,

Space makes things spin not stop spinning. It's a gyrokinetic effect which is well verified and quantified, yet with a cause no better understood (generally) then any other fundamental of nature. Of course there is a limiting factor, which the stuff the Madrid guys identify will contribute to, but space has the exact opposite effect than the one they describe. Things always keep spinning, as observation shows. Their science is as well thought through and evidenced as most! But crimestop seems to make all look away from evidence (including you so far I'm afraid!).

Put any matter in space and it will start to rotate on a virial radius. You only need to look into space to see the evidence. Even probes we place in space would do so without stabilising provisions. There are scores of papers on it. This is probably as good as any;

Spontaneous Intrinsic Rotation, 2011.

I hope that helps.

Peter

Akinbo,

Space seems to treat objects as objects with no barrier to race creed or class. I suspect we've just stupidly invented those.

Peter

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light III

A combination of texts that confirms the idea of the Hubble redshift as an expression of the slowing down (or tiring, to use an euphemism) of light by vacuum friction (in a STATIC universe):

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."

"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?"

Mario Cosentino: "Nous savons que l'espace inter-galactique est loin d'être vide et nous ne connaissons pas toutes les interactions que les photons, nous venant des supernovae, subissent au cours de leur très long parcours. Si les photons en interagissant avec le vide quantique viendraient à perdre de l'énergie, sans diffusion, alors toutes les interprétations seraient fausses et l'Univers ne serait pas en expansion accélérée. Ainsi la théorie de la "lumière fatiguée" d'Einstein, et d'autres, garde toute sa pertinence."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light IV

Einsteinians also consider energy loss of photons caused by vacuum friction but insist that their "model of dissipation" has nothing to do the tired light model, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "What is the viscosity of space-time? (...) If space-time was viscous, the photons would lose energy during their travel. (...) Yeah, Einstein was right, again. (...) Our model of dissipation and the tired light are different in two ways. An obvious one is that in our case this emergent spacetime induced effect could be there in principle for any particle not just for photons. The second, and more important point, is that the energy dissipation is in our case an energy dependent effect (mainly effective only for very high energy particles) which as such would give a very different signature w.r.t. tired light."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light V

Eugene I. Shtyrkov, The Evolved-Vacuum Model of Redshifts: "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."

Clearly variable-speed-of-light interpretations of the Hubble redshift (for a STATIC universe) converge to an equation of the type dc(t)/dt = -Ho.c(t) (I presented it as dV/dt = -K'V). Mainstream cosmologists should not stay too long in this position.

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VI

Philosophers help science to die:

"Popper's purpose with his letter in Nature was to discuss the generally accepted expansion of the universe in relation to theories that explained Edwin Hubble's redshift data on the assumption of special mechanisms operating in a static universe. According to one alternative the speed of light decreased with time, while another alternative (the class of "tired light" hypotheses) assumed that light gradually lost energy during its journey through empty space from the nebulae to the Earth. Clearly inspired by Milne, Popper examined two alternatives to the relativistic theory of cosmic expansion, arguing that they agreed in regard to observable effects, that is, they led to galactic redshifts of the kind predicted by the expansion theory. "The three theories are logically equivalent," he wrote, "and therefore do not describe alternative facts, but the same facts in alternative languages." But does the universe really expand? Or does the speed of light instead decrease? Or is it rather the case that the frequency of photons changes with the distance they travel? According to Popper, the question was "not more legitimate than, when prices of goods fall throughout the economic system, to ask whether 'in reality' the value of money has increased or the value of the goods has decreased."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VII

Paul Davies: "I have argued that a heuristic way to regard dynamic vacuum energy effects is by appealing to a sort of vacuum friction. This leads to mechanical back-reaction effects, such as the slowing of rotating black holes or the viscous drag between moving plates. It also leads to particle creation from the vacuum."

Question: Does vacuum friction lead to the Hubble redshift as well?

Einsteinians:

"No! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe. Yes we all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe."

"We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe. Yes we all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VIII

Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology, Martin Lopez-Corredoira: "Cosmologists do not usually work within the framework of alternative cosmologies because they feel that these are not at present as competitive as the standard model. Certainly, they are not so developed, and they are not so developed because cosmologists do not work on them. It is a vicious circle. The fact that most cosmologists do not pay them any attention and only dedicate their research time to the standard model is to a great extent due to a sociological phenomenon (the "snowball effect" or "groupthink"). We might well wonder whether cosmology, our knowledge of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other fields of physics or a predominant ideology. (...) Alternative theories die because they are being killed by the same people who say that they are dead."

Pentcho Valev

Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light IX

"New evidence, based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies, indicates that the Universe is not expanding after all, says a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. (...) Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena - something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space."

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.

Pentcho Valev