Recently postings have been made that explain the derviation of the Ratios of Time field forumulas and it has been shown that all local measures remain the same, according to the Uniform Expansion Theory. Now experimental verification of the model will be given.

A brief summary of the topics to be presented that justifies the Uniform Expansion Theory are:

1. No Dark Matter is needed to preserve the celestial stability of Spiral Galaxies. (Spiral galaxies are apparently rotating too fast to stay together)
2. No Dark Energy is needed to explain the “acceleration” of very distant galaxies.
3. The expansion conforms to a very specific geometric relationship, no inflation theory is needed nor is there any necessity to try and explain some kind of transition from inflation to normal expansion.
4. The theory predicts the energy production from quasars without resorting to super massive black holes.
5. The theory predicts stable orbits of stars within the cores of galaxies with out resorting to super massive black holes at the cores of galaxies.
6. The theory predicts that our sun blew up about 5 billion years ago, as is justified by the following observational evidence.
a. Counter rotation of Neptune.
b. Periods of extensive meteorite activity
c. The asteroid belt
d. The Collision that formed our Moon
e. The isotope discoveries of professor O.K. Manuel
f. The “cooler” than anticipated inner core of the sun (.05 radius of sun)
g. The lack of neutrinos from the sun.
h. The distribution of angular momentum of the Solar system is dispersed outward to Jupiter.
i. The inner planets are “rocky” and the outer planets are “gaseous”.
j. The plane of rotations of the sun, and various planets are off of what should be predicted from the “standard” nebular cloud formation theory.
7. The theory explains how water can be on Mars. (The low surface gravity of Mars results in an atmosphere that is not dense enough to form rain clouds).
8. The theory explains the fast biological evolutionary rate early in the development of the Universe.
9. The theory resolves the issue in which some stars in Globular Clusters appear to be older than the Universe.
10. The theory resolves the issue in which “metals” are observed in very high red shift quasars and galaxies. (Not enough time to form stars that live an entire lifetime that early in the universe. The model predicts the very early formation of the heavy elements.)
11. The theory provides a better explanation for the stability and instability of stars.
12. The theory resolves the ambiguity that current applications of general relativity causes regarding the equivalency between electromagnetic energy and the rest energy of matter.
13. The theory explains perfect balance observed between expansion and collapse. (Which is getting harder and harder to explain as “super massive black holes” appear in extremely young galaxies).
14. The theory explains the problem in which the observed image size of radio galaxies does not correlate to the expected expansion rate of the universe.
15. The theory explains the problem in which the energy variation from quasars does not correlate to red shift. (Hawkins believed this issue presented a fundamental threat validity of the present model of the universe.)
16. The theory unites quantum physics with gravitational and electromagnetic physics, thus resulting in the long sought for Unified field theory.

Now most of these above topics have had various explanations used to keep theory in correlation to observation. Some of these explanations assert that the work of others is just wrong, (such as those who assert that the age of some stars in globular clusters are older than the universe, or O.K. Manuel’s work). Some of these explanations have the property of being a “fix”, which means that when a discovery is made that is not expected from the current model, an adjustment to the theory has to be made. For example, super massive black holes were never predicted in the early formation of the universe, nor were dark matter, nor dark energy. What the reader will find is that if the Uniform Expansion Theory is used to describe nature, there are no “fixes” necessary to keep the theory in line with observation. The observations are predicted or in line with what should be observed.

The theory that prevails will be the one that explains nature simply.

John M. Kulick
AKA Snowflake

"5. The theory predicts stable orbits of stars within the cores of galaxies with out resorting to super massive black holes at the cores of galaxies."

but dont we have observable evidense, showing the orbit of stars.. fast stars around something that must be very heavy, and yet is invisible.. or dark?

-MT

That's nice.

What are "forumulas"? Formulae posted in forums perhaps?

Meanwhile, there seem to be not only a lot of propositions and assertions made here, but also a distinct lack of evidence, supporting data, and other trivialities.

But then, no two snowflakes are alike, right?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I would like to think so. I live in hope, but I think that the Big Bang and utter nonsense like Dark Matter and Dark Energy could be around for some time. After all, they make mathematical sense, however counter-intuitive they may be.

What? Did my astronomy class miss something? Neptune is in a prograde orbit and its axis is in a relatively normal tilt.
One of its moons, Triton has a retrograde orbit.
And Venus spins backwards... slowly...

Why would our sun have to blow up for this to happen? Current theories for stellar formation do a pretty good job at explaining that event. I don't get this sun exploding thing.

What lack of neutrinos? The number found by SNO fits the current calculations.

What?

Also, is there any way you can explain this revolutionary theory? Pointing out things that may or may not be wrong with the current theory is no evidence or explanation for an alternate one.

Hi MT

You asked, in regards to my assertion that there are no supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies that

”but dont we have observable evidense, showing the orbit of stars.. fast stars around something that must be very heavy, and yet is invisible.. or dark?”


According to the Uniform Expansion Model the effect of gravity is a function of time. A prediction of the model is that the region of spacetime at the cores of galaxies are younger than the outer parts of a galaxy. (younger stars now appear in the outer perimeter of a galaxy due to the slower rate of development).

So if the effect of gravity were 10 times greater in the core of a galaxy, it would take 1/10 the amount of mass to create a similar “colored” star in the core, compared to a star in the perimeter of the galaxy. Also, since the effect of gravity is 10 times greater, the gravitational constant, in application terms, is 10 times greater. Given Newton’s Law of Gravity

F = gmm/d^2

The force apparently holding the two stars together would be off by a factor of 1000.

If you did not know that that effect was occurring, one would assume that there was some kind of huge mass located somewhere within the orbits of the stars.

This variation in the effect of gravity, depending upon the temporal or historical relationship the masses, also explains why the velocity in the outer perimeter of galaxies being too fast to remain in stabile orbit. The effect of gravity between the outer stars and the inner stars is greater than current believed.

You can either assume that some kind of dark matter exists, maintaining celestial stability, or you can have a model that allows the effect of gravity to be temporally described.

Snowflake

Hi maksutov

First thank you for catching the misspelling of formulas and the witty response.

You said
“What are "forumulas"? Formulae posted in forums perhaps?”

You also said.


Meanwhile, there seem to be not only a lot of propositions and assertions made here, but also a distinct lack of evidence, supporting data, and other trivialities.

I have found that if you present a complete presentation, which requires more than two paragraphs to read, most will not bother, and each of these topics will take a fair amount of discussion to develop and describe the effects.

However you can check out some of my work here in this “Forum”.

The development of the formulas I call the Ratios of time. (Which predicts that the effect of gravity varies with time (As believed by Gamow and Dirac) at
My (Discovered) Unified Field Theory

A “proof” that all relative measures of distance and time keep their relative measures at
My (Discovered) Uniform Expansion Model – Applied

A discussion that reviews some of the evidence the sun blew up 5 billion years ago at

Did our sun blow up 5 billion years ago?

A calculation showing how to get the energy production from a quasar without a super massive black hole at
Quasars and Supernova Fires

A discussion of the evidence that some stars in globular clusters are older than the universe at
Stars Older than Universe

And a discussion as to the problem of a lack of time dilation associated with red shift from the energy production from quasars at:
Time Dilation and Quasars

Thank you

Snowflake

Hi Sparky56
You said
”I would like to think so. I live in hope, but I think that the Big Bang and utter nonsense like Dark Matter and Dark Energy could be around for some time. After all, they make mathematical sense, however counter-intuitive they may be. “

You are going to like my theory because it makes mathematical sense. And you do not need to know advanced tensor analysis, only basic calculas and basic algebra.
Snowflake

Hi Dakini
Thank you for your response, I am surprised you didn’t metion it was Uranus.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...lanets/uranus/
But you did give even more evidence that something messed up the orbits and spins and orientations expected from the nebular cloud theory. Which is in line with evidence the sun blew up.

Regarding the formation of the Moon,

You said
“Why would our sun have to blow up for this to happen? Current theories for stellar formation do a pretty good job at explaining that event. I don't get this sun exploding thing. “
Where did the Mars sized mass come from?

Regarding neutrinos you said
“What lack of neutrinos? The number found by SNO fits the current calculations “
You are assuming that that the change in neutrinos during flight is the correct adjustment, not yet proved.
Regarding the Angular Momentum issue of the solar system dispersed to Jupiter you said,
“ What? ! “

This issue is discussed in the undergraduate/ graduate text of Modern Astrophysics by Carrol and Ostlie, If the solar system formed as a result of the nebular cloud theory, as matter is pulled to the core, there would be a transference of angular momentum to the sun. Similar as to when a skater pulls in her arms. In our solar system the angular momentum is somehow mostly contained in Jupiter. Something caused the skater to “throw out” her arms.

You also asked
“ …can (you) explain this revolutionary theory? “

If you could review the first two links given to Maksutov, that should explain the geometric development of the theory.
Thank you for the correction and help,
Snowflake

Our sun blew up 5 billion years ago??!!!
In my admittedly limited readings of cosmological theories, I've never heard of this before. Why is it still a yellow main-sequence star? Is there any evidence that any star has exploded and the remnants now resemble the Sun? How did any of the planets survive this event?

A couple of other things: I thought that the prevailing opinion is that observational evidence has confirmed that Sagitarius A* is most definitely a supermassive black hole. Also, what do you mean by "the fast biological evolutionary rate early in the development of the Universe"? Lastly, by what mechanism does the theory explain the early production of metals?

__________________
"Scientific progress goes 'boink'?"

Is it correct then to assume you propose that the quality of space is somehow different at the center of the galaxy than at the arm edges, and that it maybe the level of relative mass in the proximity, that together cause by some means an increase in what would be the normal amount to experienced gravity.. ie. it all works threw each other to magnify it self, and that it all spins real fast at the center because of some kind of conservation of momentum.. where in objects closer to the center spin faster and faster as they get closer to the galactic center?
is that close?
-MT

Hi Absael

The most vocal proponent of the Sun blowing up 5 billion years ago is Professor O.K. Manuel. He came to this conclusion after looking at the types of isotopes discovered from the samples from the moon as well as data from the voyager program. (I think I may be getting my programs mixed up). For about 30 years he has been a lone voice screaming as to the meaning of the observational evidence.

I have had rather long discussions on this topic in the Bad Astronomy forum, a discussion that reviews some of the evidence the sun blew up 5 billion years ago at

Did our sun blow up 5 billion years ago?

Also, regarding the issue as to how did any of the stars survive, and the black hole in Sagitarius, etc, are all resolved by allowing the effect of gravity to be a function of an objects temporal location historically. (Also the effect of mass is also temporally dependant, and clock rates change, but too much information only confuses the issue and without reviewing the theoretical model itself first, any brief comment here will seem unfounded.). The explosion of the sun did so with only about 10 percent of the mass found in the solar system, so the explosion was much smaller.

The only evidence of a super massive black hole in the center of the Sagitarius is the rotational rates of stars. In an area of space where the effect of gravity is greater, the rotational rates can be explained without resorting to a super massive black hole.

Also, look at the pictures of Sagitarius A. The intense dust surrounding the “black hole” is argued to be obscuring the black hole, and is due to matter rushing into the black hole. The same visual and I think more logical explanation is that the dust is formed from the explosion of smaller stars located where matter is streaming into the galaxy.

(In a uniform expansion model galaxies keep their relative distance, there is no convergence to one singularity. Draw galaxies on a balloon and deflate the balloon. The proportional distance remains the same. Matter enters the universe from multiple “singularities” which are at the cores of galaxies. )

Snowflake

Hi MT

Yes. Either add mass you cannot see or allow gravity and clock rates to vary, Pick your poison.

Snowflake

So is this all based on the gravity of these masses, or does the electric and magnetic field given off by each have any bearing on the motions and known expansion of the galaxy.?
And if so, would you then be one to have thoughts along the line of the electric universe theories.. as in these fields playing an intricate part in keeping stars apart, while gravity keeps them all together generally as a group?.

-MT

Snowflakeuniverse, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm still unclear on a few things though:

About the Sun exploding. If this was a full-blown nova, there should be nothing left of our solar system. The age of the earth has been shown to be just under 5 billion years; how could a new sun and planets have formed so quickly? I'm also confused by the mention of "our" sun exploding; this would imply that the same one is still there.

Nothing I've read about stellar evolution explains how a star that exploded could still be burning hydrogen 5 billion years later, or how a new star could form with the same planets in place. Stars explode by running out of hydrogen and, depending on their initial size, turn into a red giant and then a white dwarf (this isn't acutally an explosion, and it results in the expulsion of planetary nebula, which one would think we would be able to see) or go supernova and turn into a neutron star or a black hole. Granted, stellar evolution theory does allow for the rejuvenation of a white dwarf, but only via accretion from a nearby star, the prospect of which causes a lot more problems than it solves for our debate. I left out the possibility of the sun going supernova after accreting material because that doesn't seem to have happened either.

Is everything we know about stellar evolution wrong? If not, how do the proponents of the theory reconcile what we know about star death with their proposition that our sun exploded, but is still here along with all 8 planets (let's save the "is Pluto a planet" debate for another thread )?

__________________
"Scientific progress goes 'boink'?"

Hi absel
Thank you for taking the time to question.

You are correct to assert that a full blown nova would destroy a solar system, This is one of the reasons stated by some of the professional astronomers after a presentation by Professor O.K. .Manuel’s paper asserting the sun blew up.

However this is assuming that one solar mass was involved in the event. According to my calculations using the Ratios of Time formulas only a 0.1solar mass was involved. Some mass was already accumulated in planets, but most of the mass was in the form of a dense cloud of Hydrogen gas. The size of the nova was much smaller than a solar mass nova, and the amount of material to absorb the event was much greater.

This leaves at least 80 percent of the material in the solar system as Hydrogen gas. With the effect of gravity so much greater in the past, and with the iron cores left behind, Matter quickly reformed again into the planets and the sun. The estimated size of the Iron core left to form the sun is about .05R of the sun, which corresponds to the cooler than anticipated temperature estimated at the core of the sun. (Based upon Doppler shift variations observed at the surface of the sun after an explosive event on another location on the sun. Amazing that they can even predict this kind of stuff in the core of the sun).

Is everything we know about stellar evolution wrong? No it is amazing how accurate it is. It is just that with the effect of gravity more powerful in the past, and clock rates faster in the past, adjustments have to be made. Stars have burned up much more fuel than we think. They mostly have iron cores. (Those that do not have much of an Iron core become, I believe, variable stars. Iron in the core acts as a shock absorber, other wise oscillations in energy production inherently occur).

Because stars have evolved more quickly than we think explains how some stars in globular clusters appear to be older than the universe.

Snowflake

You've been talking about the force of gravity getting weaker, and I am curious if you have some concrete idea that could provide a graph of the force of gravity as a function of time. Similarly, is the decrease in the force (in your idea) uniform across the universe, or does it vary from place to place?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi Antoniseb

You asked if I could
“provide a graph of the force of gravity as a function of time “
The formula describing how the accelerative field changes over time, (not just the effect of gravity) is
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)


Which is basically a hyperbolic graph. I have tried to save some graphs for publication but a few numbers give some meaning to the relationships.

Example, in an 8 billion year old universe, how much greater would be the effect of gravity on an object observed 1,000 light years away.
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3) = (7.999;999,000/8,000,000,000)^(4/3)
The effect of gravity would be greater by 1.000 000 16 times (there is a decimal point after the first one)
Virtually no detectable change

Example, in an 8 billion year old universe, how much greater would be the effect of gravity on an object observed 4 billion light years away?
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3) = (4/8)^(4/3)
The effect of gravity in the past would be 2.5 times greater.

You also asked.
“does it (gravity) vary from place to place? “

The model allows gravity to vary place to place, There are two reasons or causes for this to occur. One is due to the effects of Special Relativity, the other is due to the evolutionary process of the universe.

The Special Relativistic effect.
The faster an object moves, the slower it’s passage of time is, relative to the objects “stationary” surroundings. As you may have noticed, in the Ratio of Time formulas, the “absolute” or historical location in time is used. If an object was moving at relativistic speeds, it’s historical location would be “earlier” than that of a “stationary” object.

There are two cases of observational proof of this effect. One case is the lack of time dilation from the energy output from quasars in relationship to red shift, and the second case is the non-correlation of the observed image size of radio galaxies in relation to the expected image size based upon the expansion of spacetime. (I would like to present a paper on this to the American Astronomical Society this winter).

The cores of galaxies are younger.
According to the uniform expansion theory, galaxies keep their proportional measure or distance, (except for the “real” or “proper” motion of galaxies). Using the common “balloon analogy” If “Galaxies” are drawn on a balloon and the balloon is deflated, the proportional distance between the galaxies remain the same. So as one “runs the clock backwards” it is apparent that instead of the galaxies converging to a “singularity” as in the standard big bang model, the universe is converging to multiple galaxy/quasar “singularities”. Matter (and spacetime) enters into the universe forming the cores of galaxies and the entrance of this matter does so from a region of spacetime of some initial starting size. The model is closer to Lemaître’s “egg”. There is more to this, but back to the issue.

Since matter and spacetime are entering the universe from the cores of galaxies, their “beginning” of time, will be different from those regions of spacetime already established. This means that the cores of galaxies are “younger” than the outer regions of a galaxy.

Observational proof of this effect is the high rotation rates of stars observed in the cores of galaxies. If the effect of gravity were 10 times greater in the core of a galaxy, the stars would be assumed to be much more massive than they actually are, also with the effect of gravity being 10 times greater, the “gravitational constant” would appear to be 10 times greater. If one were not aware of this, one would have to assume that there must be some unseen mass about a thousand times more massive than the stars preserving the orbital stability.

Snowflake.

of course gravity varies from place to place.. like at sea level and on the moon...
or in the middle of nowhere between stars.
-MT