Hi Celestial Mechanic
You again asked
"can you come up with a valid statement and proof of your primary equation?"

I did.

Based upon primary formula, dS/dT ==T, the following relationships are established.

1. I proposed a very specific rate that spacetime would expand. This becomes a physical prediction of the model, double the age of the universe and the volume of spacetime increases 4 times. This relationship is derived from the basic formula.
2. I developed formulas called the Ratios of Time, based on the primary formula
3. I showed that the application of these formulas resulted in establishing the inverse square laws
4. I showed that the application of these formulas resulted in predicting the conservation principals
5. I showed that the model makes predictions, the effect of gravity would be more powerful in the past and diminish with the passage of cosmic time, just a Dirac believed.
6. I predicted that clock rates would be faster in the past.
7. I did a dimensional analysis that justified the relationships.
8. The theory is physically compatible with a unified field theory.
9. I have applied the theory to type 1a supernovas and the observed cosmological red shift. My model requires no dark energy.

This is a pretty strong verification of the model. Just as the bending of light “proved” Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, my model is “proved” by the fact that no dark energy is needed in the model.

Snowflake

Hi Nereid

I am confused about your reaction to the bell type curve distribution of quasars verses cosmological red shift.
1. Why did you use the word “Seems”, and state the report included “caveats”?


While the apparent region of investigation so far represents a small fraction of the observable sky, the shear number of quasars, and the check with some different directions in the sky, seems to imply that what is observed so far will be characteristic of what will be revealed when the entire sky is mapped.

2. It seems that you take issue with the generalization of what is so a far very limited mapping of the sky and applying the observations to be characteristic of the entire sky. Am I interpreting your comments correctly?

3 Do you think the red shift factor generally correlates to distance?

4 Do you think that generally the distribution correlates to the quantity of quasars at a particular cosmological distance? Or do you think quasars that are far away are missed?

5 You used the term “relevant selection effects” when referring to the data. What are you referring to?

6 Is the selection effect indicated by the periodicity observed in high red shifts?
This has been attributed to selective absorption of specific wavelengths of light, which is a “selection effect”. (Although it could also be evidence of a “ringing” of spacetime from the beginning of the universe, something that is allowable in my model which is not allowable in the limited expansion model since it requires inflation theory).

Based on the energy production of quasars, if there were more quasars further away, and there was sufficient time for the light to reach us, there should be more observed quasars observed at even greater red shifts. Selection effects, such as intervening dust, for the most part, does not effect this observation. Since we do not see quasars at real high red shifts, (there will never be a quasar observed with a redshift of 9), then it implies that the universe is not infinitely aged with quasars always there. This is evidence of an evolutionary development of the Universe.

7 Do you take issue with the conclusion that the historical distribution of quasars is evidence of an evolution to the universe?

Snowflake

Quasars and energy variation

When the energy production of quasars is measured over decades, it is discovered that there are energy variations that last days, weeks and years. These energy variations have a kind of periodicity to them, for example within a 1-year period there are so many two-day fluctuations and so many weekly variations and so many monthly variations. Due to the stretching of spacetime, there should be a time dilation effect observed in the energy variation. The number of daily variations should be observed at longer than daily variations with a stretching of spacetime. Similarly all weekly variation should be observed to occur at longer than weekly periods at longer red shifts, and this time dilation effect should be observed with all scales of periodicity.

A “Threat” to the standard model
The variation in the energy output of quasars does not exhibit Time dilation with respect to the cosmological red shift. This presents a problem for the limited expansion model of cosmology. One would anticipate that the greater the cosmological red shift the longer a physical process should be observed to transpire. Hawkins refers to this issue as representing a threat to the standard cosmological model (which is a limited expansion model).

This “Threat” to the evolving universe can be resolved with the uniform expansion model.

As I have stated before, the proposed model has a different big bang, instead of the universe beginning with 1 singularity, it begins with multiple singularities, with each quasar/galaxy being the source of matter in the universe. (Run the clock backwards in a uniform expansion model and all galaxies and the space between them proportionally remain the same. The density of the quasar/galaxies become very great early in the evolution of the universe. )

If all the quasars entered the universe at essentially the same time with an initial separation between them, and
If the intense energy production of quasars is only for a “short” period of time, (less a billion years or so),

Then the bulk of the quasars should be observed within a relatively narrow cosmological red shift.

Since the spread of the distribution curve is wider than expected, Quasar distribution question (red shifts from .1 to more than 5) then there has to be some cause that broadens the cosmological red shift, and produces the distorted bell shape distribution curve.

“Peculiar” motion
The solution is to allow quasars to have real or what is usually called “peculiar” motion within the expanding spacetime field. I previously mentioned how this could occur due to a “sling shot effect” due to the variation in the effect of gravity over time and an initially random like distribution of the quasars.

Those quasars that are “flung” away from our line of sight would have their cosmological red shift increased because the distance is greater, allowing more expansion of spacetime to increase the red shift

The solution to dilation
Normally one would also expect to observe an increase in the effects of time dilation with increasing cosmological red shift. In quasars there is a variation in the energy output, but there is very little observed time dilation in the observed variation in energy output of a quasar. This effect is negated in these higher than 2 z quasars since they are being observed when they are even younger than closer quasars. Younger equates to faster clock rates in this model, this results in the cancellation of the two effects, (There is also a increased gravitational effect early in the universe that increases the number of smaller stars when the universe is young, and this also increases the energy variations observed).

Those quasars that are “flung” towards us would be closer and would not have their spectra stretched as much and their red shift would be less. Since these quasars are closer, they are observed when they are “older” than more distant quasars. Since “older” equates to slower clock rates, (and less but larger stars) this also helps to flatten out the energy variation verses red shift relationship.

The Doppler effect
The Doppler effect due to the motion of quasars also reduces the amount of expected time dilation since the amount of red shift is not entirely due to expansion.

Resolving the issue
The proposed model predicts that there should be a flattening of the energy variation relationship verses the observed cosmological red shift. This addresses what Hawkins felt was a “threat” to the current “standard” cosmological model. (The “standard” cosmological model in this thread is actually a limited expansion model))

A criticism
One criticism of the above explanation is that there are no numbers, just an explanation that is physically compatible with the theory. The criticism is valid.

Pieces of Puzzle must fit
However, what is also happening is that I am beginning to establish a specific geometry to the universe. This geometry has to be compatible with a variety of observations. I have calculated, with real numbers, that if the proposed model is used, there is no dark energy needed to explain the brightness of Type 1a supernovas with respect to their observed cosmological red shift. This establishes a basic geometry of the Universe. This same geometry has to correlate to the historical distribution of quasars based on red shift. It should also correspond to the lack of observed variation in the energy output of quasars, (and the observed image size of radio galaxies). This same structure of the universe has to be consistent with a variety of observations which literally “boxes the theory in”. Either all the pieces will “fit” or the model will break.

I should note that if the same requirement of model consistency were used for the limited expansion model, the model “breaks” which is why there are so many critics of the current big bang model.

Snowflake

You have missed the point entirely. You first state your equation dS/dT = T as an equation without any qualification. Then you proceed to backpedal and write your proportion, fiddle with units, etc., etc.
Any decent treatment of relativity would have told the reader right up front that they are using units in which c=G=1. You did not do this before stating your equation.
But only after stating your "equation" that you then backpedal and declare to be a proportion. That k could have been and should have been in your original statement of the equation. Do you see what I'm getting at? Flawed pedagogy.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

You have not. You have not answered my questions of why dS/dT instead of the derivative of something else, why the first derivative of S instead of the second, why proportional to the first power of T instead of other equally plausible functions of T, etc. Instead of an answer you proceed to give another numbered list. Since you insist, I will have to show you that it is only coincidental that some of these things come from your theory.

Your prediction is the same as that of general relativity for flat space and no cosmological term. I have shown a method whereby dimensional analysis could obtain this result and have shown you the T^2 dependence that results. By the way, do you have a value for the k that should have (but didn't) appear in your equation? If you did you wouldn't have to sling ratios about, you would have explicit equations for your lengths, times, areas, velocities, etc.
The inverse square laws are a result of geometry and have nothing to do with any expansion or contraction of spacetime.
Likewise, conservation principles have nothing to do with expansion, they are the result of invariances of the Lagrangian. You ought to study Langrangian mechanics, variational calculus and Noether's theorem sometime.
Proof? Any way that we can verify this "slowing down" in the present?
How so? This is just verbiage.
Not really, but most importantly not what was asked for. I will ask again. Please give a proof and justification of the equation dS/dT=k*T. Please also give a value of the constant k that makes this an equation instead of a proportion.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Hi snowflakeuniverse.

Before going through your questions, one by one, let me say that this could turn into a very long thread, in its own right.

Why?

Because I fear, based on your statements and questions, that there are some very basic aspects of observational astronomy that you are missing (or seriously misunderstanding), and that trying to 'set you straight' in this regard, via this kind of BAUT "Q&A" is very inefficient.

May I suggest you take the time to bone up on this?Here is what you wrote (my bold):

"1. Quasars have a high cosmological red shift, (The bell shaped distribution has a peak with a z of 2.)"

Here is my reply:

"As it stands, without qualification, it seems to refer to 'all quasars, throughout the (observable) universe'.

The SDSS QSO Catalog III, from which Figure 3 is cited (by Ari), contains a distribution of observed quasars, from several sources, and on which the authors of the paper have entered numerous caveats and careful statements about selection effects.

Further, the distribution in Figure 3 is anything but 'bell shaped', even if you do not mean 'gaussian' (your audience will almost certainly expect you to enter a caveat, or qualification, if you do not mean 'gaussian').

If it is important, for your idea, that the number of quasars - density on the sky, or in space - declines significantly, beyond z ~ 2, then a (serious) challenge to your idea could be made - show that the apparent decline in such QSOs, beyond z ~ 2, still holds, when all relevant selection effects are taken into account."

Now "The bell shaped distribution [of quasars] has a peak with a z of 2" seems to apply to all quasars throughout the (observable) universe - IOW, that, in the (observable) universe, there are far more quasars with a z of ~2 than there are with a z of ~4.

But why have so few quasars been observed with a z of >~4? Is it because there are, in fact, only a few? Or is it because (most of) the millions (billiions?) of such quasars are too faint to have been detected by the SDSS project? Or that they were 'detected', but not identified as 'candidates' (perhaps because their colours were 'wrong')?

You see that these are very different questions.

Consider this: How many stars are there, within x pc of us?

The answer clearly depends upon x.

But any answer also has to factor in our ability to detect such stars!

AND our ability to tell whether a star we have detected is "within x pc of us" or not. (Google RECONS for an interesting project working on just this question).

{BTW, it's very easy to see that the distribution cannot be "bell-shaped" ... there are no quasars with negative z (i.e. blueshifted), yet there are quasars with z > 4. As a "bell-shaped" distribution is symmetrical about its peak, the distribution of quasars, by z, cannot be "bell-shaped".}In many respects this is undoubtedly so.

However, selection effects are the bane of an (observational) astronomer's life, and huge efforts go into identifying, qualifying/characterising, and addressing these (not to mention lots of books and papers).

In the case of quasars and z, a key question is "how can we estimate the 'true' number of quasars, of a given z, in a given part of the sky, from the observed number of such quasars?"

Which leads to questions such as

"How do we know that this object, which is 'a point' within the spatial resolution of our instrument, is a quasar?"

"How do we know how many quasars there are, fainter than our survey project is designed to detect, in this part of the sky?"

"How can we estimate the distribution of z of the quasars that we don't detect?"

Back to our 'stars closer to us than x pc' illustration.

If the faintest we can 'see' stars is 12 (visual, photographic, U, B, V ... you choose), then we would conclude that red dwarf stars are very rare indeed (there are only a trivial number, within 100 pc, brighter than 12). We would also conclude that there are no brown dwarfs.

However, if we can go down to 20, the picture is very different - now red dwarfs are the most numerous stars 'close to' us!

Now, in SDSS QSO Catalog III, we can read the following caveats/qualifications/limitations (these are just examples; my bold):

"The catalog in the present paper consists of the DR3 objects that have a luminosity larger than Mi = −22.0 (calculated assuming {certain mainstream cosmology parameters}), and whose SDSS spectra contain at least one broad emission line (velocity FWHM larger than ≈ 1000 km s−1) or are unambiguously broad absorption line quasars."

"The catalog also has a bright limit of i = 15.0."

"The DR3 catalog does not include classes of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) such as Type II quasars, Seyfert galaxies, and BL Lacertae objects"

"The SDSS filter system was designed to identify quasars at redshifts between zero and approximately six (see Richards et al. 2002); most quasar candidates are selected based on their location in multidimensional SDSS color-space."

"[...] and the selection is based on magnitudes and colors that have been corrected for Galactic extinction"

"An i magnitude limit of 19.1 is imposed for candidates whose colors indicate a probable redshift of less than ≈ 3 (selected from the ugri color cube); high-redshift candidates (selected from the griz color cube) are accepted if i < 20.2."

"The SDSS images of the high-redshift candidates must be unresolved."

"A detailed description of the quasar selection process and possible biases can be found in Richards et al. (2002) and Paper II."

I do not know what quasars are, in the snowflakeuniverse idea.

However, from what I've read of this idea so far, I am pretty confident that they are not at all the same as described and discussed in the mainstream astronomical and astrophysical literature.

Since the two perspective are different, it would astonishing if what's in SDSS QSO Catalog III are only quasars, all quasars, and nothing but quasars in the snowflakeuniverse idea.Yes and no.

I am much more taking issue with what seems to me to be flawed conclusions drawn from observational data such as the SDSS QSO Catalog III; in particular, no apparent effort seems to have been made to address the selection effects.

This is particularly important as, in the snowflakeuniverse idea, quasars are not the same as they are in mainstream astronomy ... ergo, all the issues and questions about selection effects have to be at least considered, de novo

(to be continued)

If you're going with the chain analogy, you'd break the weakest link.

On the other hand, the current model works very well, and we will continue to move along collecting observations and refining our knowledge. If the expanding universe cosmology is wrong, and all of the dark matter, dark energy, etc are the equivelant of epicycles in the Ptolemaic cosmology, it will be only by carefully measuring these things that we'll collect the kind of data that will make switching to a new model worth while. Using this analogy, it wasn't until Kepler showed that Mars was sometimes as much as a degree out of position no matter what epicycle parameters you use that he was able to make the case for his ellipses. He made this case using Brahe's data, and Brahe's cosmology was essentially based on circles and epicycles.

As a mainstream supporter, I have no problem with people speculating that there's another expalantion that is better. I do think it is odd to read it as though there is some crisis that the new system HAS to get discovered and adopted ASAP.

edit: oops. responded to post #30.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi Nereid

So do you believe that the reason there is a decreasing amount of observed quasars at z greater than 2 is because they are too dim to see?

The standard mainstream model predicts that this would not be the case. These objects are so bright that they should be detected at z greater than 4 with no problem. (Unless there was some reason for these early quasars to be less bright).

Snowflake

Nereid,
Admittedly I am being very general in my use of the word “quasar”. It is standard for astronomers to break down the definitions of early, high energy, galactic sized structures into more categories.

When I use the word quasar, it is simply a very young galaxy. The breakdown of quasars into various types, such as a radio galaxy, is primarily due to the evolutionary stage of development, orientation and possible interaction with other quasars early in the evolution of the universe.

Snowflake

Hey snowflakeuniverse,

This all sounds similar to an idea I was exploring in this thread.

I stopped exploring it because I began to dis-believe in the Aether called spacetime but lately I am starting to re-believe in spacetime.

If I were you I would not take my endorsement of your ideas too seriously because a few of the posters around here think I am wrong on everything I post but, oh well.

I started my adventure just because I started thinking about the implications of universal inflation and expansion.

Well have fun because I know that I am. Good luck.

__________________
°
°
My invisible elf ??? Why he is made of dark matter and lives off of dark energy !!!
°
°

That is far, far too simplistic a summary, and I'm sorry if I conveyed that it was this simple, in my post.

Let me try again, addressing your particular statement.

To 'see' a quasar with z>2 many different things have to come together.

First, an object needs to be detected, with essentially a PSF (if observed using a ground-based optical telescope, and assuming no adaptive optics).

Second, it needs to be selected for observation with a spectroscope with sufficient (wavelength) resolution to detect (enough) lines that its redshift can be measured (unambiguously).

(there are other conditions, but this will do for now).

Here are some tasty morsels for you to consider:

This diagram, from 2dF, gives an indication of the range of absolute magnitudes of quasars, by z (yes, it has been developed using a particular cosmological model, but the raw data is publicly available, so anyone is free to re-do the diagram, using different inputs). You can clearly see that, for a given z, the M_B has a range of ~ 3 mag. You can also see that the right-most three curves (the quasars with the highest z's) are offset by ~0.5 mag (unlike the others, which have greater offsets). This suggests that, if the trend is extrapolated, higher z qsos will have absolute magnitudes not much different than those of qsos in this sample with ~2 <z<2.3.

This plot, also from 2dF, shows how the distribution of observed qsos, by redshift, differs considerable according to the selection criteria. In this case it's colour; and indeed, qsos in certain redshift ranges, above 2, are notoriously hard to identify, by their colours alone (even in SDSS).

In the unified AGN model, quasars (and other AGNs) are complex objects, with several different components.

Further, quasars evolve - if one could follow a particular quasar, through its life, one would see changes. The nature of this evolution is an active area of research, with many questions wide open, especially about the early evolution (z>~2). For example, the size and thickness of the dusty torus has a huge impact on the visibility of quasars in the optical. In the absence of any quasar evolution, one could take account of the geometry and range of dusty torus characteristics, and derive some reasonably tight estimates of the expected numbers of quasars, of a given absolute magnitude, per unit of space ('space density').

However, we already know that quasars evolve, so any such estimates would need to have many caveats entered.OK, now that is a very clear, unambiguous claim.

Please provide the appropriate references, to the technical literature, to support your claim.

Indeed.

But as "evolution", in your idea, is radically different from that in mainstream astrophysics, you need to establish - in minute and great detail - what the correspondence between what you read in the literature (such as the plots I gave links to in my previous post), the actual observations, the selection criteria, the methods used to estimate completeness (etc), ... and your idea of what quasars are.

As far as I can see, from what you have posted, you seem to be unaware that any such need exists, let alone have even outlined a program for how to address it.

Now, since we're under ATM rules here, I would like to stop the use of this thread as a vehicle for 'bringing you up to speed' on the basics of modern observational astronomy, and start challenging your idea.

Here's a start: Please provide an analysis of a large quasar survey (e.g. 2dF or SDSS), in terms of your idea. Please present a quantitative description of 'quasar evolution', in your idea, and its match to your analysis of the observational data in a large qso survey.

I expect that this will take you some time; please provide an estimate of when you will be able to answer these two questions.

Should there be anything unclear about my two questions, please ask for clarification.

Hi Nereid

You asked for technical references regarding the statement that distant quasars are so bright that even the very far ones should be seen.

The energy of a quasar, (Actually I should be more accurate and say a “QSO”), is in the order of 300 to 1,000 times that of a galaxy.

Given this energy production, it is somewhat predictable as to the observed luminosity these objects should be at various cosmological red shifts, or their assumed corresponding distances.

If one is trying to establish the density or distribution of these QSO’s at high red shifts, it is necessary to make sure that surveys include exposure times long enough to capture even the dimmer range of quasars at extreme distances. If one does not do that, the information gathered will be statistically skewed.

I assume you have, “An introduction to Modern Physics” by Carroll and Ostlie
Turn to page1174

You will see a plot from the book of “The Environment and Evolution of Galaxies”, by Boyle,

Hundreds of QSO’s are plotted with their red shift factor verses their absolute magnitude. Care was taken to make sure the exposure times were long enough to include potentially dimmer galaxies, if they did not it would be impossible to arrive at the following conclusion.

The further in the past a QSO is observed, the more energy it produces.

With out making sure the dimmer QSO’s are not missed, it would be impossible to make that claim. Note that there is also a corresponding decrease in the observed number of quasars as the red shift increases to a z of 3.

This plot was made in 93 and the resolution and look back time has improved and has extended the above correlation from beyond the z of 3 used in the graph. I have forgotten where I read this, it was a few years ago. Perhaps a reader will provide a more current web link. I am a bit old schooled and still use books.

Snowflake

Hi Squashed

Thank you for your “endorsement”. It means a lot to me, despite how little you think it is worth.

I read your link and there is some common ground in relation to how time fits in to the structure of space.

I also like you little subscript superscript information you place on the bottom of your posts, It is helpful.

I am also glad you are having fun. I am feeling a bit frustrated.

Snowflake

Hi Nereid

You asked,
"Please provide an analysis of a large quasar survey (e.g. 2dF or SDSS), in terms of your idea. Please present a quantitative description of 'quasar evolution', in your idea, and its match to your analysis of the observational data in a large qso survey.

I have presented the physical explanation behind the model, and you are right, the details need to be worked out. It is part of making sure the pieces of the puzzle fit together. It will be awhile before I get all the details mathematically worked out since I am going to spend more time working on a paper resolving the Dark Matter issue.

If that seems like a cop out, let me remind you that I have the quantitative analysis done showing that my model requires no Dark Energy.

Snowflake

What is your source for this?And that's just one of the selection effects.Do you mean "An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics"?Do you mean "The evolution of galaxies and their environment proceedings of the Third Teton Summer School on Astrophysics, sponsored by the Universities of Colorado and Wyoming, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming USA, July 5-10, 1992"?

It seems that "Boyle" refers to B.J. Boyle, and that a much more useful document would be this one, published in 2000, the main summary results from which are in a 2dF link I provided in an earlier post (the ArXiV preprint - which does not require a subscription - is here).

Of particular importance to our discussion is Figure 2 ("Photometric completeness contours in the (bJ, z) plane for the 2QZ"), which clearly shows how poorly 2dF detects high-z quasars; and Figure 6 ("Evolution of L∗_B as a function of fractional look-back time [...]"), with the phrase "The dashed line represents the extrapolated evolution of L∗_B between z = 2.3 and z = 5" (my bold).And in 1993, or even 1998, the data on which broad generalisations like this were based (if they were not simply a misunderstanding or misrepresentation) were limited indeed.

In particular, we see from the 2000 Boyle paper that quasar evolution is fairly well-constrained by 2dF data ... up to z ~ 2.3! (and the paper is full of carefully worded qualifications).And given the tremendous advance in observations of quasars, since 1993, don't you think it would be a good idea to be a little more thorough in your research?

So, back to this: "the statement that distant quasars are so bright that even the very far ones should be seen"; where do we stand?

Links which I provided (to material published in 2000, not 1993) present a good case for this statement ... for z <~2.3. However, the SFU statement concerned quasars with z > 4 ("These objects are so bright that they should be detected at z greater than 4 with no problem").

I am still waiting for a defense of this claim.

These have been addressed, in an earlier post.I think you're asking about the Hubble relationship; if so, it is well-established, for galaxies. Use of redshift as a distance indicator, for quasars, is not so well-established, from direct observations. However, it is the current consensus in the (mainstream) astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology community. (please do be careful though - there are many important qualifications that must be made).

But surely this is irrelevant? I mean, aren't we discussing the snowflakeuniverse idea?Again, to me, this is a far too simplistic generalisation.

For example, the 2dF "Number vs. Redshift Relation" clearly shows one selection effect. These same effects are in play for quasars at higher redshifts, plus others (e.g. large-scale surveys select qso candidates based on colour; however, there are regions of colour-space where qsos are expected, but stars are very common, making the selection of qso candidates - by colour - quite impractical).

Another example: in the unified AGN model, a quasar that we see through the dusty torus will be all but invisible in the UV/optical/IR, but visible in (hard) X-rays and gammas. And indeed, when follow-up work was done on point sources found in X-ray surveys, a great many turned out to be quasars.

The completeness for detection of such quasars is very difficult to estimate - not only are there selection effects in the X-ray band, there are also completeness questions in the optical follow-up work, the range of variation among quasars of dust torus characteristics, evolution of quasars (including the torus), and so on.

But, again, this is irrelevant.

We are not discussing the nature of quasars in mainstream astronomy; we are discussing the nature of quasars in the snowflakeuniverse idea; specifically, the extent to which snowflakeuniverse can defend his claims regarding statements about quasars, using good observational data.I have covered several of these already; there are plenty more.

I suggest that this ATM section is not a suitable place for you, snowflakeuniverse, to learn about selection effects; why not start some threads, in the Q&A section?We are discussing claims made by snowflakeuniverse, in support of the snowflakeuniverse idea.

What "periodicity observed in high red shifts" (presumably, of quasars)?How about you put the observations on the table, so we can start there?I think your conclusion is sound, even if the development leading to it is weak.

However, are you stating something about the snowflakeuniverse idea?

If so, then what?What does "the historical distribution of quasars" mean?

I've marked up this post, Blue indicates a snowflakeuniverse idea (SFUI), Red a "mainstream astrophysics/cosmology is in trouble". There are also questions, but limited to only the SFUI.Source?

Specifically, where are the data (so we can judge for ourselves how pertinent any of it is to the SFUI, and how accurate the summary presented is).How great, and at what times?

Specifically, what is the relationship between the density of the quasar/galaxies and time?How intense is this energy production?How wide is the expected spread (of the distribution curve)?Why wouldn't galaxies also be similarly affected?

What is the apparent (angular) size vs redshift relationship that one would expect from this idea?Why wouldn't galaxies be similarly affected?

How come distant SNe (and GRB) exhibit time dilation?What is the size of this expected effect?

(to be continued)

No Dark Matter

The Uniform Expansion theory requires no Dark Matter.

The first indication for the necessity for “dark matter” was that it appeared that the stars in the disk of a spiral galaxy were rotating too fast for the amount of mass observed within the galaxy.

The necessity for increasing amounts of dark matter with increasing scales of observation is also indicated when observing clusters of galaxies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

The application of the Uniform Expansion Theory eliminates the necessity for Dark Matter. Specifically addressed in this posting are the physical relationships and the formulas that produce the necessary weak accelerations necessary to explain the rotational motion of galaxies.

Motion in the Unobserved Dimension

It was previously explained that this model requires not only a uniform expansion of matter, but also an expansion of the Universe along an “unobserved dimension”. Just as we can imagine a flatland universe moving in an “unobserved” vertical dimension, so to is our observable universe moving in an “unobserved” dimension.

This motion, or expansion, along the unobserved dimension was proposed to conform to the same basic geometry or geometric relationship defining the expansion of observable spacetime.

Intrinsic properties
One characteristic of this motion along an unobserved dimension is that certain physical properties become “intrinsic”. For example, if we look at a “flatland universe” in motion along an unobserved dimension, objects in flatland would have some “intrinsic momentum”. Residents in flatland would characterize this intrinsic momentum of a “stationary” object as a property associated with inertia rather than as a consequence of conservation of momentum


E= mcc
This model of motion along an unobserved dimension allows a very simple explanation for what Einstein called the “intrinsic energy” of a “rest” mass. If our motion along the unobserved dimension was the square root of two times the speed of light, then the Kinetic Energy of the apparent rest mass becomes
K.E. = 1/2 mVa^2 = mcc.

It is the change in velocity along the unobserved dimension that produces the cosmological red shift.


Just as intrinsic properties would be experienced as a result of a velocity along an unobserved dimension, intrinsic properties would be experienced as a result of acceleration along the unobserved dimension.

Since the motion along the unobserved dimension is slowing down, there should be observed a general intrinsic deceleration of a mass in motion.

The deceleration predicted is close to that required by MOND
What will be shown is that based on the proposed geometry, the necessary intrinsic deceleration of spacetime is remarkably close to the deceleration proposed by Milgrom in his Modified Newtonian Dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mod...onian_Dynamics


In order to determine the present rate of deceleration of spacetime along the unobserved dimension, it is necessary to determine the age of the universe.

The age of the universe can be determined by considering the change in velocity along the unobserved dimension and an assumption as to the current rate of motion along the unobserved dimension. This assumption is apart of what I call the unifying conjecture.

Age of Universe assuming unifying conjecture

If the speed of light conjecture is utilized, the present absolute velocity along the unobserved dimension is the square root of two times the speed of light. (Einstein’s “intrinsic” energy of a rest mass)

VA2 = c x 2^(1/2) = 1.414c

If it is assumed that Hubbell’s “constant” is valid to an astronomical distance back in time to 23 million years ago (where “direct” measures are valid), the following relationship results.

To = present age of universe
VA2/ VA1 = (T1/To) ^(1/3) = ((To-23 million years)/To) ^(1/3)
(VA2 is the present velocity along the unobserved dimension and To is the present age of the universe, VA1 and T1 are those measures observed in the past)

The above relationship will yield a proportional velocity description that is dependant upon the Age of the Universe, To. The Difference between the present and the past velocity along the unobserved dimension per the distance between the observer and the distant object results in Hubbell’s “Constant”.

(VA1-VA2)/Distance = Change in velocity associated with red shift/distance to object
= Hubbell’s “constant”

If To = 10 Billion years ( 10^9).
VA2/ VA1 = ((10 – 0.023)/10) ^(1/3) = 0.99923
VA1 = 1.0007678 VA2
VA1-VA2 =0.0007678VA2
VA2 = 1.414c
VA1-VA2 = 1.414c x 0.0007678 = 352,700 meters/sec per 23 million light years =
1.49 m/s per meter x 10^-18


Ho observed is Ho = 2.1 m/s / meter x 10^(-18)

A minor change in either the age of the universe, or the locally determined velocity distance relationship of Hubbell’s “constant” could be made to improve the correlation.
To = 9 Ho =1.66 m/s per meter x 10^-18 VII-25
To = 8 Ho =1.86 VII-26
To = 7 Ho = 2.13 VII-27

The best fit is, assuming the Unifying Conjecture is correct is for the Age of the Universe to be about 7 billion years old.

Some may immediately dismiss this date; it appears to be way too young. Do not forget this is an “absolute” measure of time, not our relative measure of experiential time. I ask the reader to refrain from a hasty dismissal without a due consideration.

It is based on this 7 billion year old age to the universe that universe is found to be “flat”, ie no dark energy is required to correlate the observed cosmological red shift to the apparent brightness of type 1a supernovas. This initially would seem to be an impossible situation to resolve since an even younger universe would place the type 1a supernovas even closer, further complicating the observed dimness of these supernovas. However, gravity is a function of time in this model and at these look back times the increased effect of gravity requires less mass to reach the Chandrasekhar limiting pressure, resulting in a smaller and dimmer supernova. The necessary dimming is predictable within a suitable range to confirm the relationship.

Determining “k”
The Unifying conjecture allows the determination of one of the values of k describing the rate of expansion along the unobserved dimension.

Earlier in the developing the ratios of Time formulas I showed,

V == (2/3 x k)/ T^1/3
A == (-2/9 x k) /T^4/3

The change in velocity of along the unobserved dimension is responsible for the cosmological red shift, according to the proposed model. . This change in velocity occurs over an interval of Absolute time, which corresponds to a deceleration of spacetime.


Based on unifying conjecture, the speed of light is related to the velocity in the unobserved dimension so…

With VA = c √2 = (2/3 x k)/ T^1/3 so..
k = (c 3√2) / 2 x T^1/3

Similarly, the deceleration along the fourth “unobserved” dimension is…
AA = (-2/9 x k) /T^4/3 = (-2/9 x (c 3√2/2 x T^1/3 )) /T^4/3 =
= - c √2 /3 /T =0.4714 c/T = 6.402 x 10^-10

Ho is the observed recessional velocity of galaxies. Ho = ∆ V/ ∆D = 65,000 meters/sec per million parsecs. (Other cosmological objects can be used). The recessional velocity is determined from the increased wavelength of the spectra from the stars of the galaxies.

Ho can be transformed to acceleration by replacing the distance measure between galaxies with the measure of time between each galaxy. This becomes an expression that describes how the observed velocity of the galaxies varies over time.

Acceleration = ∆ V/ (∆D/c) = Ho x c

For the proposed model this deceleration corresponds to deceleration of observable space along the unobserved dimension. This results in the following.

AA = - c √2 /3 /To = Ho x c. .
To = √2 /3 / Ho = 2/3 1/Ha Where Ha = the rate of expansion along “unobserved” dimension.
Ho √2 = Ha
Ho = √2/2 Ha

The above relationship could have been assumed earlier since this is the proportional difference between the velocity along the unobserved dimension and the speed of light, but the check helps prove consistency of the model. Ho is the locally observed expansion rate, while Ha is the actual motion along the unobserved dimension. There is a multi dimensional field interaction occurring.

Age of Universe based on Unifying Conjecture

To = 2/3 x 1/Ha = √2/3 /Ho = .4714 /Ho

To = .4714 x 15 billion years = 7.07 billion years = age of universe

This reconfirms the age of the universe using some different variations of the formulas created by the model. It is a check on the consistency of the relationships.

The intrinsic deceleration of spacetime

Based on the geometry proposed, the intrinsic deceleration due to the deceleration of observable spacetime along the unobserved dimension should be
AA = - c √2 /3 /To = Ho x c. .

This deceleration should manifest itself as a scalar interaction. It makes no difference as to the direction of an existing acceleration, there would be a deceleration in direct opposition to the locally established deceleration. To visualize this imagine a flatland universe decelerating. All points in flatland would be experiencing a “deceleration”. How this deceleration manifests itself is dependant upon the inter-dimensional relationships assumed in the geometry. One such relationship is the one used in the Unifying Conjecture.

MOND
If you click on the Wikipedia link, you will find the following quote by Milgrom.

“…the acceleration you get by dividing the speed of light by the lifetime of the universe. If you start from zero velocity, with this acceleration you will reach the speed of light roughly in the lifetime of the universe”
The value of the acceleration required to close the spin rate of galaxies was, a0= 1.2 x 10 ^-10 meters/second squared.

Compare the value to that derived by the Geometry of the Uniform Expansion Theory

AA = 6.402 x 10^-10 m/ss

This is remarkably close. It is only about 5 times larger than the force Milgrom figured to maintain galactic structure. It is exactly equivalent to the somewhat epistemological observation of Milgrom.
AA = - c √2 /3 /To = Ho x c

If the proposed “intrinsic deceleration of spacetime is correct as predicted by the Uniform Expansion model, no dark matter is necessary to explain the rotational rates of galaxies.

Not the only one
Note,

I am not the only one working on a Uniform, or as John Hunter or John Masreliez call it, a “scalar” expansion.

J. Masreliez has developed a similar intrinsic deceleration, which he calls “Cosmic Drag”, the magnitudes of the relationships are identical to those developed by my model. What is interesting in Masreliez’s work, (and that of John Hunter), the relationships are derived from relative measures as opposed to my “absolute or “eye of God” perspective.

The following link shows Masreliez’s work, which negates the necessity for Dark matter in Spiral Galaxies, and explains the spiral arms in a galaxy. The key is the fact that the intrinsic deceleration is larger than necessary. I had started to work out the relationships to spiral structure but Masreliez has been me to the punch.

http://www.estfound.org/galaxy.htm

Snowflake

In BAUT's Q&A section, there is a thread, started by Nereid, called What is the observational basis for (cold, non-baryonic) dark matter?

So far, I have presented the observational basis for DM in rich clusters.

I would like to challenge you, snowflakeuniverse, to present material that shows the consistency between your "no DM" idea - as presented above - and the six+ types of independent observation of rich clusters.

Please note that it was recognised early on that MOND failed (badly) to account for these 'rich cluster' observations, so showing that your idea is (essentially) the same as MOND is to show that your idea is also strongly inconsistent with these 6+ sets of (independent) observations.

In particular, please show how your idea accounts for the many, detailed observations of:
- rich cluster galaxy radial velocity dispersions
- strong gravitational lensing, for (certain) rich clusters
- the intensity and SED 'radial' profile of x-ray observational data
- the SZE
- the intensity of FIR 'light' from rich clusters (ISOCAM observations).

While a 'word salad' answer may be interesting, I am expecting a level of quantitative results, at least equal to those from MOND proponents, wrt rich clusters.

Sorry to say, but this merely makes things much more confusing.

For example, the "bell shaped distribution" that you referred to earlier (and later modified) seems to refer to observationally selected objects (point source, to the resolution of ground-based telescopes without adaptive optics; redshifts > {x}; spectra with broad lines; etc), with implicit or explicit exclusion of Type II quasars, Seyferts, BL Lac objects, and so on.

The "very young galaxy" term only adds to the confusion.

To today's astronomers, "very young galaxy" refers as much to the ages of the (predominent) stellar population(s) in the galaxy as it does to galaxies at high z. So, an irregular galaxy (with no nucleus) and no discernable Population II stars would be a "young galaxy", if only because (all, most of) its stars are "young".

What adds to the confusion is the fact that snowflakeuniverse has - explicitly - sought to re-write (all of?) modern physics, but has not developed the ideas sufficiently to be able to provide a consistent description of what, in the SFUI, astronomers 'see' - e.g. galaxies.

So, some specific questions for snowflakeuniverse:
- what proportion of galaxies detected in a deep survey of your own choosing are "very young galaxies"?
- what is the relationship between the (observed) redshift of a galaxy and its "age"?
- are AGN galaxies, such as M87, "very young galaxies", in the SFUI?
- are dwarf irregular galaxies, such as the LMC, "very young galaxies"?
- what is the difference, in the SFUI, between galaxies with high redshifts and quasars?

Nereid stated,

would like to challenge you, snowflakeuniverse, to present material that shows the consistency between your "no DM" idea - as presented above - and the six+ types of independent observation of rich clusters.

Are you ever satisfied? You repeatedly ask for quantified relationships, and in the few situations in which I have done so, you ignore the results and the analysis entirely. All you do is go on listing a vast number of other situations to explain. This is hardly fair.

Do not forget what I have done, I have presented a viable geometric model that predicts that the effect of gravity is a function of time, just as Dirac and Gamow believed. I have also applied the theory to Type 1a supernovas and no dark energy is needed for the observed brightness of these objects to correlate to their observed cosmological red shift. This was a quantified analysis. I have also just applied the relationships to negate the need for dark matter within spiral galaxies.

When you say
Please note that it was recognised early on that MOND failed (badly) to account for these 'rich cluster' observations, so showing that your idea is (essentially) the same as MOND is to show that your idea is also strongly inconsistent with these 6+ sets of (independent) observations.

If you read what I posted, you would see that my idea is not (essentially) the same as MOND, it just results in an acceleration that coincidently corresponds to the same magnitude as Milgrom determined was necessary to preserve galactic structure. The relationships developed also corresponded to the epistemological observation Milgrom made, but he had no theoretical model from which he derived his empirically established relationships.

My application has, what Masreliez, (another scalar expansion theorist) calls “cosmic drag”, as a fundamental property of spacetime, it is not “radius of galaxy” dependant as assumed by MOND.
Also, the explanation for the increased gravitational effects between clusters of galaxies requires not only considering cosmic drag, but considering that the effect of gravity was more powerful in the past.

Rather than assuming that there must be some kind of dark matter keeping these groups of galaxies together, the proposed model allows the effect of gravity to be more powerful in the past. Also, these objects would be smaller than assumed, further increasing the spatial distortion due to gravity around the galaxies. Add the intrinsic deceleration of spacetime and the increased effect of gravity to the relationships observed within galaxies, and everything falls into place.

Now you can ask for a quantified analysis, but based on what I have presented so far, you could show how my model fails to explain the relationships observed in galaxy clusters yourself.

One thing for certain, my model predicts that the further in the past objects are observed, the greater the gravitational relationship. If one did not know this, one would assume that there had to be additional matter somewhere within the system.

You can choose either model, vary gravity or add dark matter. The thing is, the limited expansion model never accurately described gravitational relationships over galactic or cosmological distances, requiring dark matter to somehow magically appear in varying amounts at various scales of observation, whereas the proposed Uniform Expansion Theory does explain gravitational relationships over galactic and cosmological distances according to a geometry based on expansion.

Snowflake

Let's examine snowflakeuniverse's track record, wrt answering Nereid's questions, in this thead.

Q (source) "Question 1: in terms of significant content, what is new [cf 9 earlier threads, devoted to discussion of the SFUI] in these 12 posts [in this thread, prior to post#25)?"

A (source): "Yes you are right that I have presented the content previously over the past few years. This is what I “taught” the students about the theory. I thought that if someone in this forum had an issue with what I said, they needed to know what I said. This allows the opportunity to “set the record straight” . Someone could say, “Look, snowflake is wrong because of this……"

Comment: not a quantitative question; not a very satisfactory answer.

Q (source): "Question 2:
a) Does the value of H₀ (the Hubble constant, "now") require any observational inputs, for it to be determined?
b) Or can it be derived from the "Uniform Expansion Theory"?

c) If the former, what observational inputs are required?

d) If the latter, what is the derived value?"

A (source): "The rate of expansion “now” has to be measured. It tells us our historical location in time. If one knew the age of the universe, then Ho could be calculated.

The method to determine the current rate of expansion is to determine the distance and cosmological red shift to a galaxy. "

Comment: this is a particularly important answer, in light of subsequent Qs&As.

Q (source): "Those nine other ATM threads, in which your idea was discussed, contain a number of open questions - questions about your idea which were not answered, or adequately addressed.

To what extent does the material in the 12 posts in this thread address those unanswered questions?

Knowing the answer to this question will help other BAUT members - can they simply start from the open questions, in the other threads, or must they mine the 12 posts in this for new questions (both may be possible, of course)?"

A (source) "I know that there were some loose ends left, particularly with the many questions you posed .(You know a lot and the issues are interconnected). If there are some that you feel are unresolved, please bring them up again.

I would appreciate it if you could pick just one or two at a time. It is almost impossible to respond to a list of 10 questions with one post, but if you have a list, tell me which ones you think are the most important to address first. Decide which issues to you think need clarification, those usually easiest to respond to. Decide which issues you think present a problem for the proposed model; they take me more time to respond to.

I think it is good to have a kind of summery post at this stage. Some of Celestial Mechanics concerns with two dimensions of time caused me to keep going back over stuff that was presented in posts that he was not aware of. Also, many assume that the model is just some idea, instead of a theoretical model that makes predictions or explanations that are different from the mainstream. By including some of them in this post it helps improve the validity of the model."

Comment: my bold; questions not quantitative, but the answer is quite unambiguous wrt the quantitative scope of the SFUI (unless, of course, "theoretical model" has a quite different meaning than is used in science today). As it turned out, I found much more serious problems than I had expected - the "model" is nothing less than a complete re-write of most of astrophysics, and contains terms that looks familiar but are used with quite different meanings (and without any definitions).

Q (source): "I have no idea what this question means; would you be so kind as to clarify please?"

Comment: I don't think this question was answered (if it was, please point out where).

Q (source): "Can we have the full references to these five papers [reporting stars with ages greater than ~13.7 billion years] please?"

Comment: I don't think this question was answered (if it was, please point out where).

Q (source): "1) what are the objects we call 'galaxies', that we observe to have redshifts in the same range as quasars (you may choose 2, to correspond with your quasar choice)?

2) what is the nature of the 'fuzz' which we observe around (mostly low z) quasars? In the mainstream, these are called 'quasar host (galaxies)' (an example).

3) in the mainstream, quasars are merely one member of the general class of object, galaxies with active nuclei (or, AGN galaxies); the class also includes BL Lac objects, and Seyferts. Do you use the same 'speeded up stellar physics' to account for BL Lacs and Seyferts?

4) jets are a common feature of quasars; jets have also been observed in galaxies such as M87; in the mainstream, these are a similar phenomenon to the (radio) lobes observed in many radio galaxies. How does 'speeded up stellar physics' account for the jets and radio lobes?

5) Slightly OT, but nonetheless related: if you do away with SMBH at the heart of quasars (and, presumably, radio galaxies, Seyferts, etc), how do you account for the observations which lead mainstream astronomers to conclude there's an SMBH in the nucleus of our galaxy (SgrA*)?"

A (source): snowflakeuniverse's answers triggered a great many questions from Nereid; these snowflakeuniverse answers were milestones in Nereid's realisation that the SFUI uses terms that seem familiar (e.g. "quasar", "galaxy", "spacetime") but have meanings that are at least somewhat oblique to their normal meanings; analogies used in popularisations as if they were accurate representations of the fully quantitative treatments that are what really count (e.g. "The mainstream often describes the expansion of the universe by using a balloon with pennies taped to the surface"); and the introduction of terms that seem critical to the SFUI, but which are not described, much less defined (e.g. "their normal evolution disrupted by a gravitional tearing apart of their initial structure").

So, since the only place where the SFUI is presented is this thread*, and since we need at least a common understanding of the (apparent) key terms used in the SFUI, what course of action is open to Nereid?

Answer: ask for explicit, quantitative, detailed answers concerning the key terms used in SFUI.

Q: how to meet snowflakeuniverse's request ("I would appreciate it if you could pick just one or two at a time"), when it seems (to Nereid at least) that what snowflakeuniverse has presented is a mere word salad, full of misunderstandings (of observational results), inconsistent use of key terms, misapplied analogies (rather than use of math, equations, numbers and stuff), handwaving, and so on? I mean, where does one begin?

(detailed examination of snowflakeuniverse's track record wrt answering questions to be continued).

*questions about the extent to which older material, presented in other BAUT/BABB/UT threads, is superceded or not having been not answered, and when apparently explicit inconsistencies are left untouched, this seems a quite reasonable working assumption.

Snowflakeuniverse:

I have read your post entitled No Dark Matter. Several comments and questions follow.

First, you write KE = (1/2)m(V_a)² = mc². Have you read nothing about special relativity in all these "decades" that you have supposedly been performing this research? Even as bad as I think many of the texts are, they should have done a better job of explaining the energy of a particle in motion than this.

In special relativity, the energy of a particle moving at uniform velocity v in an inertial frame is gamma*mc² in that frame. Some authors will write something like m=gamma*m₀ and refer to m₀ as "rest mass" and m as "relativistic mass" but I don't think that is very good, as it has caused so much confusion such as the confusion you are having.

If the velocity is small compared to c the energy may be expanded in a series as:

E = mc²*(1-v²/c²)^-1/2

= mc²*(1+(1/2)v²/c²+(3/8)v⁴/c⁴+...)

= mc² + (1/2)mv² + (3/8)mv⁴/c² + ...

The first term is the rest mass energy, the second is the Newtonian kinetic energy, the third is the first relativistic correction term, and so on.

Second, you mention something that you call the "unifying conjecture" but you never actually put it into words and equations. Could you please state this "unifying conjecture" so we don't have to guess what it is?

Third, you restate your "ratios of time" formulas,

V == (2/3 * k)/T^1/3 and
A == (-2/9 * k)/T^4/3,

After some manipulation you claim that

k = (3/2)*sqrt(2)*c/T^1/3.

k is no longer a constant, yet it was treated as a constant when you performed the differentiations that led first from D to V and then from V to A in your "ratios of time" formulas. And if you say, "well, c is scaling as T^1/3", (which would make k independent of T) then you will have to explain why c behaves differently from other velocities which scale as T^-1/3 in your "model".

Lastly, I haven't pursued your "unobserved" spatial dimension because I have been concentrating on getting a straight answer as to how you state, prove and/or justify your fundamental equation, dS/dT=k*T. Do you have a proof of this? But your unobserved spatial dimension raises a lot of questions, such as the following:

• Why do you only count the three observed dimensions when forming your fundamental equation?
• Why does the unobserved dimension expand at a rate different from the other three?
• Why does everything move at one and the same velocity in the unobserved dimension?
• Does light also move at this velocity? If the photon is massless, how does it acquire any energy at all in your model?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Dear followers of this thread,

I must apologize for the delay in responding to posts. I have been busy and it is difficult to respond in a timely manner. Please have patience, I will reply as quickly as possible.

Snowflake

HI Celestial Mechanic

Thank you for the review of the equations.

First regarding your criticism of

KE = (1/2)m(Va) ² = mc².

This equation asserts that Einstein’s “rest energy” for a mass is kenematically based. The equation E = mcc, can be derived as a simple kinematic expression in which the velocity of an object along the “unobserved” dimension was square root of two times the speed of light. K.E. = (1/2) m Va^2 = mcc

This does nothing to negate the relationships of Special Relativity.

Your response, which by the way was an interesting and expresses the concept well, does show how a mass at rest has energy equivalent to mcc.

You said,

If the velocity is small compared to c the energy may be expanded in a series as:

E = mc²*(1-v²/c²) ^-1/2


Actually what you meant was that the above relativistic expression can be expanded into the following series, and if the velocity is not a large proportion of the speed of light, continuing the number of terms in the expansion beyond the first 2 or three does not need to be considered.

Continuing your post,

= mc²*(1+(1/2)v²/c²+(3/8)v⁴/c⁴+...)

= mc² + (1/2)mv² + (3/8)mv⁴/c² + ...

The first term is the rest mass energy, the second is the Newtonian kinetic energy, the third is the first relativistic correction term, and so on.

Your post is conceptually accurate, however, I am making an additional assertion, or extension to relativity.

Note that in
Mcc ( 1 + 1/2m(v/c)^2 + ……)
Mcc is a constant.

What my model does is describe the Mcc term as a kenematically based relationship. It is not altering the relationships of special relativity at all. The reason for the Mcc term exists is that it is the kinetic energy of a mass due to motion along the unobserved dimension.

Does the velocity along the unobserved dimension effect “gamma”
Gamma is the “correction” term to account for relativistic effects. (Quotations around “correction” since it is not really a correction, it just translates the relationship in ways we are familiar with),

E = mc2 * gamma
gamma = (1-v2/c2) ^-1/2

It could be argued that adding a velocity along an “unobserved” dimension would alter the relative velocities used in special relativity. Vectors add based upon vector mathematics. However, in this case the addition of vectors is replaced by a scalar factor affecting a vector relationship. This is explained a bit better in question 3 below.

It is interesting to evaluate gamma in terms of the velocity along the unobserved dimension.

gamma = (1 – (Vu/c)^2)^(-1/2)

Vu = velocity along “unobserved” dimension = square root 2 times speed of light
c = speed of light

gamma = (1 – (Vu/c)^2)^(-1/2)
= (1 – (√2c/c)^2)^(-1/2)
= -√-1 = a constant of unit measure along complex plane, (The complex plane describes spin. Any translation or expansion generates spin or a “vortex” as an inherent property of spacetime. )

Since the “correction” or gamma is “first” a constant, and “second”, a unit measure along the “unobserved” dimension, and “third”, it translates to a constant scalar effect on observable spacetime, the velocity along the unobserved dimension would have no locally observed effect on the relationships expressed by the “gamma” in special relativity when applied to observable spacetime.

Motion and Mass
Special relativity indicates that the effect of mass has to include the velocity of the mass. The faster an object moves, the more massive the object becomes. Move an electron fast enough, and it will have the mass equivalent to a ton of lead.

The association between the velocity of an object and its mass becomes a universal property in this model. Once the volume of spacetime that an object fills is in motion, the object then has the properties of mass.
It is the motion of an object along the “unobserved” dimension that is responsible for establishing not only the “intrinsic” energy of a rest mass, but also the physical property of mass itself.

Resolving an ambiguity in General Relativity
One prediction of the proposed model is that the velocity along the “unobserved” dimension diminishes with the expansion of spacetime. This means that the property of mass also diminishes with the passage of time.

This assertion that the property of mass is not an absolute constant, but a function of an ever-slowing velocity along an unobserved dimension, resolves an ambiguity existing presently in general relativity. A “gram” of light after traveling through an expanding spacetime field, will no longer be a “gram” in equivalent mass, according to general relativity. In this model, the loss experienced by a “gram” of energy for the traveling photons exactly corresponds to the loss a gram of mass would loose over the same intervals of absolute time. The equivalence between mass and energy is preserved. All local measures maintain their relative proportional relationships.

Second
You said I did not explain what my “unifying Conjecture” was.

I did, at least partially. It has to do with the velocity of “observable spacetime” along the “unobserved” dimension, which is a part of my model. It was assumed that this velocity was the square root of two times the speed of light.

Proposing motion along an “unobserved” dimension poses questions or issues, as you point out. The velocity along an “unobserved” dimension could be anything. How would one know what it was? How would a “flatlander” in a flatland universe recognize a velocity along an “unobserved” vertical dimension?

The only way to deduce a relationship with an “unobserved” dimension is if physical properties of our observable spacetime were related to this extra dimensional relationship. I have argued that properties such as inertia and the intrinsic energy of a rest mass are physical manifestations of this relationship. I then conjectured that the speed along this unobserved dimension was the square root of two times the speed of light. This resulted in the Kinematic derivation for E=Mcc.

Continued next post

Third
Third, in response to your request for a determination of k, which led to the paper that eliminates the necessity for dark matter to explain the rotational rate in spiral galaxies, you wrote,

“Third, you restate your "ratios of time" formulas,


V == (2/3 * k)/T^1/3 and
A == (-2/9 * k)/T^4/3,

After some manipulation you claim that

k = (3/2)*sqrt(2)*c/T^1/3.

k is no longer a constant, yet it was treated as a constant when you performed the differentiations that led first from D to V and then from V to A in your "ratios of time" formulas. And if you say, "well, c is scaling as T1/3", (which would make k independent of T) then you will have to explain why c behaves differently from other velocities which scale as T-1/3 in your "model".”

k is still a constant.

Consider the expression of an object experiencing a constant acceleration.
S = 1/2 at^2.

“a” is a constant, and S and T are variables. Lets say we want to determine what “a” is. We can do this by measuring a specific distance an object falls over a specific interval of time.
a = 2S/t^2

This is exactly the elementary procedure I did to determine a value of k in my model. By knowing the present velocity along the unobserved dimension and the present age of the universe, k can be determined.

Lastly

You again question my expression describing the expansion of spacetime,
You said
dS/dT=k*T. Do you have a proof of this?

Yes, and it has been posted on this thread several times. Please refer to the previous posts and if the explanations are unclear or unsatisfactory, please be specific as to how they have not established the validity of the relationship. Asking the same question over and over and ignoring the response and explanation given without explaining why the answers given is unsatisfactory to you, makes my task of explaining the model difficult. Perhaps it is best that we leave this question as unanswered by your perspective and answered by my perspective.

You asked five questions, which I have numbered
1. Why do you only count the three observed dimensions when forming your fundamental equation?
2. Why does the unobserved dimension expand at a rate different from the other three?
3. Why does everything move at one and the same velocity in the unobserved dimension?
4. Does light also move at this velocity?
5. If the photon is massless, how does it acquire any energy at all in your model?
Question 1
Why do you only count the three observed dimensions when forming your fundamental equation?

Expanding dimensions
I apply the expansion formula to more than the three common dimensions that are usually described by an x,y and z axis.

But first I should state that my definition for dimension is a tied to how physical measures change, and not an abstract coordinate system. What is traditionally described as a three-dimensional space, with an x, y and z measure, actually represents one spatial measure/dimension with three degrees of freedom. Degrees of freedom becomes a dimensional relationship, based on my definition.

For example, according to my definition, what would traditionally be defined as a four dimensional space would be described as one spatial dimension with 4 degrees of freedom. Four spatial dimensions, by my definition, would require the 4 spatial measures to correspond to 4 unique physical characteristics.

The three spatial dimensions that conform to the expansion formula, (dS/dT == T) are:
1. Distance measures describing relationships along the unobserved dimension
2. Distance measures describing gravitational relationships
3. Distance measure describing electromagnetic relationships

All these three spatial dimensions have a fixed proportional size relationship of one to the other.

All these three spatial dimensions expand with the same proportional expansion of spacetime.

If the distance measure describing relationships along the unobserved dimensions doubles over an interval of absolute time, then the distance measure describing electromagnetic and gravitational relationships will correspondingly double.

Also, the expansion formula is based upon a derivation using “absolute” time, which introduces two dimensions of time, relative measures of time and absolute measures of time.

Distance measures describing forces within the nucleus do not conform to the expansion formula. It appears that at the nucleus does not expand with the expansion of spacetime or if it does, it does not vary according to the proposed expansion formula. (There may be a linear relationship).

Question 2 You asked
Why does the unobserved dimension expand at a rate different from the other three?

All three spatial dimensions expand according to the same geometry; just the relative scales are different. So your question becomes, Why are the scales of length for the three spatial dimensions different? I do not know.

There should be a geometric explanation as to why electrostatic forces are 10^ 40 times that of gravitational forces, but I have not yet established why. So presently my model just observes the differing scale lengths as defining a geometric relationship. It is a bit like observing the six-sided structure of a snowflake. The order indicates a geometric relationship but without knowing the underlying geometry of the water molecule, the complete understanding of the structure is incomplete.

This is therefore not a complete unified field theory, it is just a fundamental step forward.


Question 3. You asked.
Why does everything move at one and the same velocity in the unobserved dimension?

This is part of the geometry of the model. For example, if a flatland universe were in motion along an unobserved “vertical” dimension, and that motion was orthogonal to flatland, all points in flatland would experience the same effects of that motion at the same time.

Extending the relationship from velocity to acceleration along an “unobserved” dimension resulted in the elimination of the necessity for dark matter to preserve the structure of spiral galaxies.

Just as there is an “intrinsic” velocity due to the motion along an unobserved dimension, there is an “intrinsic” deceleration due to the decrease in the expansion of linear relationships defined by the uniformly expanding spacetime field. This “intrinsic” deceleration predicted by the model was shown to be slightly greater than what was required to stabilize spiral galaxies without dark matter.

Question 4

Does light also move at this velocity?

No, but with the same relative magnitude. Our velocity along the unobserved dimension was conjectured to be the square root of two times the speed of light. The motion of light is the result of the field interaction of our observable spacetime with the field relationships defining an absolute or fixed field relationship.

Question 5,
If the photon is massless, how does it acquire any energy at all in your model?
The property of mass, according to the proposed model, is a characteristic of an object if it exists within a volume of spacetime and that volume is in motion. An object with mass will have a measure of length width and height, (with relative time intervals separating the points within the object), and that volume of spacetime will be in motion. A photon does not exist within a volume of space, and as such, it does not exhibit mass properties.

Physical properties of a Photon.
A photon has a linear measure attributed to it, which corresponds to its wavelength. It also has a spin measure, which is geometrically tied to its wavelength. A scalar multiple of the intrinsic spin of a photon determines the energy of the photon. The faster the spin, (or the larger the scalar multiplier of the property of spin), the more energy the photon possesses. Two orthogonal properties, consisting of electromagnetic and electrostatic measure, are “carried” by the spin of the photon.

While the photon does not have mass because it has no volume, there is a volume of spacetime that is described as the photon moves with its rotating electrostatic/magnetic field. Since there is equivalence between mass and energy, the energy contained within the volume of spacetime described by the photon can be converted to mass; an atom absorbing a photon increases in mass.

Again, thanks for taking the time reviewing the theory.

Snowflake

Hi Nereid,
One of the criticisms you make is that I have not provided quantitative answers. While I have not responded to every one your many questions with a quantitative analysis, I have been making a good faith effort to do so.

Also, while the responses to your many questions have not been quantitative, many of the responses have been consistent with predictions or characteristics of the model. The majority of the questions involve the prediction that the effect of gravity should be greater in the past and the observational evidence of this effect.

However where I have provided a quantitative analysis for your review, you have chosen to ignore the analysis, which is a little disappointing.

Examples of quantitative analysis I offered for your review
1. A quantitative explanation that eliminated the need for dark matter in spiral galaxies,
2. A quantitative explanation that eliminated the necessity for dark energy based on data from Type 1a supernovas and their observed cosmological red shift.
3. A quantitative analysis that predicts the principals of conservation of energy and momentum as a characteristic of spacetime.
4. A quantitative analysis that predicts the effect of gravity is a function of absolute time, just a Dirac and Gamow believed.

I have presented a model that does not require dark energy. This is a pretty big deal.

I have presented a model that does not require dark matter to preserved the dynamic structure of spiral galaxies. This is a pretty big deal.

I also have the detailed quantitative analysis to back this claim.

Snowflake.

Stars older than the Universe.

Request for links

I had mentioned that there were professional astrophysicists asserting that there is an age problem with some stars apparently older than the universe.

The following link and post number 21 summarized the abstracts written on the topic in the last decade or so,
Stars Older than Universe

Nereid made the following request
"Can we have the full references to these five papers [reporting stars with ages greater than ~13.7 billion years] please?"

The Yale Library is the closest place for me to read the papers, which makes it difficult for me to have them available for review by members of this forum. Perhaps someone here could provide a link to some of the papers for review by other members interested in this topic.

I have only spent a few hours in comparing the papers but it is my opinion that the individuals and groups that are asserting there is an age problem are conducting the best analysis.

Also, I should point out that ALL the stars studied are older than the universe if the expansion of the universe was “flat”, (meaning that there is no dark energy). Age of universe, if it were “Flat”, is 2/3 1/Ho = 10 billion years.

For my theoretical model, such an age problem should be occurring. The effect of gravity is a function of time in my model and an increased effect of gravity in the past would accelerate the evolution of a star much faster than is presently assumed.

Snowflake

snowflakeuniverse:

Your recent replies indicate a complete misunderstanding of physics, both Newtonian and relativistic, and the math underlying them both. I will start with your first mistake. Your formula for kinetic energy is invalid because it only applies in the domain of v<<c where our everyday lives are lived out. The correct expression for kinetic energy is KE = E-mc² = mc²*(gamma-1) = mc²{[1+(1/2)(v/c)²+(3/8)(v/c)⁴+...]-1} = (1/2)mv²+(3/8)mv⁴/c²+... . In the limit of v<<c it reduces to the familiar (1/2)mv². The Newtonian expression is the low-velocity limit of the Einsteinian expression and is valid ONLY WHEN v IS MUCH LESS THAN c. I will repeat this as often as necessary.

Saying as you do that "This does nothing to negate the relationships of Special Relativity" only demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of what special relativity is. Please study and review special relativity again until you understand the meaning of mass in Newtonian and relativistic mechanics.

By the way, it is not necessary for you to interpolate the interpretation "... if the velocity is not a large proportion of the speed of light, continuing the number of terms in the expansion beyond the first two or three does not need to be considered." This is the standard meaning of ellipses in a formula; you might have to explain this to your preferred audiences but you don't have to explain it to most of us. We know this stuff already.

The fact that you plug a velocity of sqrt(2)*c into the standard SR formula and get an imaginary number should tell you that you are doing something wrong; ascribing this to spin is completely wrong. Again, your problem is blindly using formulas outside their domains of applicability.

Later, in your section "Resolving an Ambiguity in General Relativity" you write:
But I thought that everything moved at sqrt(2)*c in the unobserved dimension! Are you saying that the speed of light c is a decreasing function of time? If you are, how many of your equations take this into account when differentiating/integrating with respect to time? Maybe you better check your formulas again. See how many of them are hiding c=1 in there somewhere, you may be in for some unpleasant surprises.

You have yet to explain what your "unifying conjecture" is. Your "answer" in your recent post didn't answer it either. I think it has to do with motion along the "unobserved dimension", but why don't (or won't) you tell us? Put it in the form of an active sentence, "The Unifying conjecture is ..." and take it from there.

To be continued ...

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.