Observational Confirmation

If this theory was right, there should be observational confirmation. One prediction was that the effect of gravity would be more powerful in the past. This should be apparent if one looks back far enough in time. The following are examples that corroborate or is consistent with the model. The explanations, I believe correspond to what we see better than the explanations offered by the limited expansion model.

No Dark Energy
Type 1a supernovas appear to be dimmer than they should be, based upon the limited expansion models expected rates of expansion. Because they are dimmer than expected, it has been stated that the universe has to be accelerating, and some kind of new unknown source of energy and force would have to be moving the distant galaxies these 1asn’s are in. Hence the invention of Dark Energy.

In the proposed model, Type 1a supernovas should be dimmer for two reasons. The effect of gravity was more powerful in the past, which would reduce the amount of mass necessary to reach the Chandrasekhar limiting pressure, resulting in less energy production. Also, as shown, the distance of an object is further away due to the different relationship describing the cosmological red shift.

The reduction in luminosity of a Type 1a supernova is somewhat predicable, as is the difference in the distance for the cosmological red shift. I have taken the predicted decrease in the luminosity of these supernovas and compared them to that the supernova group has stated in their web site as to what would be required to have a flat universe with no dark matter. The corresponding fit is perfect. No Dark Energy.

It is the application of the Uniform Expansion theory to 1asn’s resulting in a universe with no dark energy that I want to present to the American Astronomical Society.

In the presentation to the class I show the graphs used by the supernova group to show the necessity for dark energy. http://supernova.lbl.gov/ Figure 6. I will show them the predictions my theory makes regarding the expected decrease in luminosity verses red shift.

Observations consistent with model but not mathematically verified
The following examples of the proposed theory conforming to observation have not been as explicitly analyzed as that which eliminated the need for dark energy. The examples are general in nature and are simply consistent with the model.

Dark Matter
Admittedly I have not worked the detailed numbers on dark matter as thoroughly or as well as I have for Dark Energy, but conceptually the elimination of the necessity for dark matter is there. Since the effect of gravity was more powerful in the past, the gravitational relationship between objects separated in time are base upon the gravitational relationship they established in the past. Spiral galaxies with their outer stars moving too fast to be bound to the amount of mass within them have a stronger gravitational relationship to the core than is assumed. This would reduce the amount of dark matter.

(So far the numbers still do not account for all the matter necessary but I have not spent too much time working on this problem. There are a few variations to the model I have not tried. It appears that the cores of galaxies may still be a place where matter is entering our Universe. This would mean the region of space in the core of a galaxy is young with a stronger gravitational field relationship. This would dramatically alter the assumption that the cores of galaxies contain super massive black holes. For example, if the effect of gravity near the core of a galaxy was 30 times more powerful, then the size of the stars becomes much smaller, probably something to the inverse square of the effect of gravity. Stars this much smaller would not need a super massive black hole to be kept in orbit around each other).

The need for additional dark matter with increasing scales of observation, galaxy groups, groups of galaxy groups forming clusters, and super clusters, is consistent with the increased effect of gravity in the past and negates conceptually the need for extra dark matter that increases with scale. Again, I have not worked the numbers, but the concept is consistent with observation.

Quasars - a different explanation for the energy production
Galaxies evolved from Quasars. Quasars put out 300 to 1000 times or more energy than a galaxy. The mainstream explanation for the intense energy production from a quasar is that it is matter falling into a super massive black hole at the core of the galaxy.

When the proposed uniform expansion model is used, it is not necessary to assume that there is a super massive black hole; it is just speeded up stellar mechanics. Quasars generally have a red shift factor of about 2. Using the ratios of time formula for a 10 billion year old universe locates the historical location of the Quasars to be at about 2.7 billion years from the beginning of time.

V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
V2/V1 = 3 = (T1/10)^(1/3)
T1 = 2.7 billion years
Quasars are observed 7.3 billion light years away

The effect of gravity at this time is increased
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
A2/A1 == (2.7/10)^(4/3)

A1/A2 = 5.7 times, the effect of gravity would be 5.7 times greater.
I have not shown in this presentation that the effect of mass, a property of our motion along the unobserved dimension, was also greater in the past, according to the increased momentum imparted.

Between the increased effect of gravity, and the increased effect of mass, and the faster clock rates, the energy production from a galaxy skyrockets in the early universe. It takes less mass to form a star, so more stars are formed with less mass. I presented an analysis of this effect here at the BA at Quasars and Supernova Fires

This model changes the variation observed in the energy output from quasars. Instead of mass falling periodically into a black hole, it is a chain reaction of exploding miniature stars.

One of the reasons for eliminating the super massive black hole from the core of a galaxy is that the model is extremely unstable and would not result in the universe we see today. Lets say we have two attracting magnets. As they get closer together, the force drawing them together increases by the square of the distance. If super massive black holes formed early in the universe, when everything is so much closer together, it becomes extremely likely to have super massive black holes fall into other super massive black holes. The fact that the mass of every galaxy in the universe tends to not exceed a few times that of the mass of our own galaxy precludes the early formation of super massive black holes from the “singularity” of the big bang.

Galaxy formation different
The formation of galaxies, or initially quasars, is different in this model compared to the big bang. Using the balloon analogy where galaxies are drawn on the balloon, by letting air out of the balloon, it is seen that galaxies keep their proportional measure, and separation. They are just getting denser. Instead of everything converging to a singularity, as in the standard limited expansion model, this time multiple singularities are forming with the cores of galaxies being the place where matter enters the universe.

This establishes form right from the get go. This is in stark contrast to the current limited expansion big bang model. How does the hot, thoroughly mixed plasma created in the Big Bang, arrange itself in to essentially uniformly sized and distributed galaxies across the universe? There is currently no model that explains how that is done.
Continued