Hi Spaceman Spiff

I really appreciate your response. The questions and concerns you express are important to me. I will try to resolve the two issues you expressed. Both issues centered on my assertion that the expansion is continuous, which means that galaxies are included in the expansion. The standard accepted model is that galaxies do not expand since they are argued to be gravitationally bound. One of the issues was the lack of evidence of the expansion of galaxies, and the other was that the effect of the expansion is so insignificant that gravity prohibits the expansion.

I will address these concerns. First I will show that the proposed expansion predicted by my model will not be obviously detected. You seem to think that if galaxies did expand than we would be able to observe the expansion. Secondly I will contend that the proportional magnitude of a field relationship does not negate its existence or effect.

First issue, detection of expansion within galaxies.

You gave an excellent calculation of the expected expansion of a galaxy if the galaxy were included in the expansion. You said “On the scale of the galaxy (100,000 light years = 0.03 Mpc), the Hubble flow has a value of 2 km/s.” . I think you are suggesting that since It appears this proposed cosmological expansion is not observed, galaxies cannot be expanding.


Reply A Proportional measures are inherently undetected with proportional rulers.

Continuing with your example of a galaxy expanding at 2km/sec, how long would it take for the galaxy to be twice it’s size? Assuming the Ho is constant, (Which it is not in my model) it would take about 14 billion years for the galaxy to be twice as big. How big would we now measure the galaxy to be? Since our rulers are included in the expansion, no observed change is detected.

Reply B The “Doppler red shift” or cosmological red shifting of stars in a galaxy would not be detected.

I think this is the main concern expressed by you, if stars are moving away from each other due to a cosmological expansion, there should be an observed red shifting of the stars in our galaxy.

My response to this is that the variation in relative motion between stars masks the cosmological expansion. Stars in a galaxy are not fixed to a perfect orbit. Stars orbits are elliptical. The orbits of stars have been altered by past interaction with surrounding stars. There is even evidence that the motion of stars is different in regards to their evolutionary development in relation to the evolution of the galaxy itself.

Let’s see what is going on by doing the math and correlating it to observation.

Our sun is moving with the rotation of the galaxy, at about 220 kilometers per second. This is not directly relevant to the question at hand other than it helps give a sense of scale and proportion. It is standard practice to estimate the relative motion of our sun relative to its neighbors using a radius of 80 light years (Britannica). The result of this investigation reveals that our sun is moving towards the star Vega at 19.5 to 19.7 km/sec. (This is based on the standard reference frame, the basic reference frame, gives the speed as 16.5 km/sec).

How much cosmological red shifting would be detected for stars located 80 light years away?

The cosmological red shift associated with stars 80 light years away would be essentially 0. (80/100,000 x 2 km/s = .002 km/s ) The variation associated with the actual motion per my alleged cosmological motion is 1,000 times more important. The effect would be lost in the wash. Stars approaching us would actually have a slightly higher speed than we thought, and those moving away would actually have a slightly slower speed. The cosmological expansion would not be detected.

If we looked further away, the effect of the cosmological expansion would be greater, could we then measure it?

Looking across an entire galaxy presents a problem, there is a lot of dust interfering with our view. Finding stars similar to ours on the other side of the galaxy is not an option. Also the velocity dispersion or relative variation in speed between stars is dependant on the evolutionary development of the star and its location on the evolutionary development of the galaxy. The variational speed varies 10 to 20 km/sec between stars through out the galaxy, (Britannica). If we look towards the core of the galaxy a distance equal to about 1/2 the size of a galaxy, and then look away from the core the same distance but this time towards the outer most stars in the rim, any variation in red shift indicating a 1km/s cosmological expansion is going to be assumed to be the result of dynamic factors that do not include cosmological expansion.

There is a way to possibly to detect the expansion of our galaxy, but it would require a detailed analysis of the motion of hundreds of thousands of stars and categorizing them by there type, evolutionary status and evolutionary location in the galaxy. A statistical analysis of various groups of stars of similar stars at various distances should reveal a statistically significant evidence of this expansion. Since the expansion has been assumed to stop at the boundary of galaxies, no one has bothered to spend the time trying to extract the information.

(A fair amount of papers have been written on our galaxy expanding, but they all fall into two categories. One is the outflow of stars from the center of our galaxy being faster than those at the edge, most of which was done in the mid 1980’s. In the mid 70’s there were some studies looking for observed outflows of stars due to a variation of gravity. This was done after Dirac published his conjecture that the effect of gravity varied linearly with cosmic time. Dirac proposed that to preserve celestial stability mass increased. Since the mass in galaxies is not evenly distributed, certain predictions as to the motion of galaxies should be detected, they were not. None of the 20 studies I found considered statistical sampling to check for cosmological expansion of galaxies)

Reply C The expansion is so weak, it can not effect gravitational relationships.

The second argument you posed as an attempt to invalidate my theory was that this expansion is negated by the far stronger effects of gravity. Specifically you said, “local gravity is far stronger than the tendency of space-time to expand”.

My model requires that the expansion of space-time is a uniform field like expression affecting the entire universe exactly the same way. (Technically my theory falls partially under scalar field theories, but I do not like this term since the geometric structure is not expressed). The expansion of space-time is just like all other field type relationships, (except it forms the basic structural foundation for the other field relationships). Just like all other field expressions, effects are interrelated. For example, electrons are confined to an atom, yet the orbital pattern is shaped slightly by gravity. Electromagnetic fields interact with gravitational fields. Granted the effect is essentially negligible, but you could figure how much the deflection of the orbital patterns should be for each orbital arrangement. I am proposing that the expansion of space-time is also a true field like relationship.

Also thank you for the links to what others have proposed. I have reviewed them and they are fundamentally flawed. The mistake they make is that they are trying to describe our universe without a necessary dimension. There are two dimensions of time, Relative time, which is the time interval between points, and there is Cosmic time, which describes a point’s location historically. Any theory that does not include historical measures is going to become unbelievably complex.

Snowflake