Critiques of Presentation of Uniform Expansion Theory

Every couple of years I have the opportunity to present my Uniform Expansion Theory to a group of Advance Placement High school physics students, many of who will receive college credit for the course. These are smart kids.

Historically, I have been able to convince the students that the model makes sense and they have always signed a statement that others with more expertise in the field should review the model. This year I will be forwarding their request to the American Astronomical Society in an effort to convince the organization to allow me to present an oral paper for the January Meeting.

(Specifically, the paper I wish to present will show that based on the Uniform Expansion Model, the correlation of the brightness of type 1a supernovas verses the cosmological red shift corresponds to a “flat” universe. There is no dark energy required for the model, nor is there any need for dark matter. Since the model predicts that the effect of gravity is greater in the past, it would take less mass to reach the Chandrasekhar limiting pressure, which would mean that the supernovas should be smaller by a predictable amount, and therefore dimmer by a predictable amount. Once this effect is accounted for, and mapped to the red shift predicted by the model, the rate of expansion conforms to being “flat”, meaning that there is no dark energy needed. )

In the interest of truth, I thought that this year I would also post on this forum what I taught, thereby allowing a more diverse critique of the model. If I was teaching something wrong, someone within this forum could show the error. (Someday, someone with authority, and more importantly, someone with courage, will acknowledge that what I am teaching is right, and it is the presently taught model that is wrong, but at this site I know I can depend upon critiques).

As I am still in the process of organizing the presentation, it will be a couple of days before I can post it to this site. It may seem a bit premature to begin this thread without the theoretical presentation, but I wanted the link to this site to be available to the students in the material I am providing them tomorrow. The presentation will be on Tuesday June 6.

Thanks

John M. Kulick
AKA Snowflake

We've been over this before. High school students, gifted or not, even undergraduates, are not the audience that matters. The AAS will not be any more impressed with your petition signed by high-schoolers than I am. Which is not impressed.
You can depend on the critiques (and you will get them), but are you capable of learning from them? Have you finally learned the difference between two independent dimensions and two parametrizations of one dimension? Your ideas will make no progress as long as you persist in this error. Graduate students and professors will notice this first thing. (As I have done.)
I'm looking forward to it.

__________________
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.

That is quite an achievement, if that is indeed what you have done.

However, it seems that it would create a whole host of other inconsistencies, not least due to the wide range of independent, mutually consistent sets of observations showing the existence of DM, on a range of distance scales, in a range of environments, obtained through use of a range of different kinds of processes and (ultimately) physics.Me too!

Hmmmmmmm, a D-Day, of sorts. We'll be waiting snowflake.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Umm, I don't think anyone has shown the existence of DM, merely inferred it from the difference between calculations and observations. If anyone did, please give references, I'm very curious what DM actually is.

Cheers.

Not sure I follow you (nor does it seem relevant), but "merely inferred {X} from the difference between calculations and observations" pretty much describes most of astronomy, doesn't it? Think of exo-solar planets (any method of detection), star-spots, spectroscopic binaries, the SZE, even all (radial) Doppler motions, magnetic fields, ...

[Edit: as the observational basis of DM is a popular topic, I have started a thread in the Q&A section - What is the observational basis for (cold, non-baryonic) dark matter?]

Here's another analogy: what you're trying to do is present a musical by touring dinner theaters in the Midwest, and hoping that positive reviews from the audience will land your show a run at a Broadway theater. That isn't how it is done. The standard procedure here is for the show to be given a dry run in New Haven or Philadelphia, and then after some numbers dropped and new numbers added and all the kinks worked out, then and only then does the show open on Broadway. Broadway first, then the touring companies and dinner theater productions.

You need to take your "show" before graduate students and professors, not high-school students however gifted.

__________________
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.

There's another problem here. Since it's a course for college credit, I would imagine it's graded. And that you (SFU) would be doing the grading. That fact alone disqualifies the class members as objective reviewers. Whether unconsciously or not, the class members will consider the instructor to be the gateway to a passing grade high enough to get the college credit, and thus do what they think the instructor wants them to. For high school students in a college environment this tendency would be even more pronounced.

This isn't idle speculation. While in high school I took a number of college credit courses in such things as molecular biology, physics, astronomy, etc. We essentially took as fact whatever the instructors told us. After all, we were just high school students.

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

I'm not sure that snowflakeuniverse is actually teaching the course. In the OP he wrote:
It's probably a case of the teacher saying "And now for something completely different" and turning the floor over to Mr. Kulick for one session.
Very true, and the reason why snowflakeuniverse needs to present his ideas somewhat higher up the academic food-chain.

__________________
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.

Re:
However he later writes

in which he uses "taught" and "teaching" twice. Then again perhaps he considers a one-session presentation to be teaching.

Agreed.

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

The students will be given this note June 6, 2006

It is my belief that I have discovered the long sought for Unified Field Theory. If I am right, then this represents a major advancement in theoretical physics. What is called modern physics will become 19th-century physics and a whole new era of physics will begin.

Such a claim deserves skepticism.

Be skeptical, if what is presented does not make sense, question it.

You will be asked to decide if the model presented seems valid to you. If you do, I will be asking you to help me have others with a more extensive knowledge and experience in physics to seriously review the work.

I want to present a paper for the members of the American Astronomical Society this coming January. The paper will take about 45 minutes explain. I will show that there is no need for Dark Energy to describe the relationship between the observed brightness of Type 1a supernovas and their corresponding cosmological red shift.

I will also show that the model can eliminate the necessity for Dark Matter.

I will also show how this theoretical model establishes the foundation for a Unified Field theory.

If you think the theory deserves a serious review, then please contact Kelli Gilmore at the American Astronomical Socity. Email address is . gilmore@aas.org

Kelli Gilmore is a part of the Committee that decides what topics and speakers will be invited at the next meeting. Technically, we are a few days past the date for application but the members of the committee are still being assembled.

Please, if you honestly think others more experienced in the field should review the theory, make the request.

If want to review and evaluate the reactions others may have to this presentation, I have tried to include most, if not all that will be presented to you today at a web site called Bad Astronomy and Universe Today.

The direct link is
Critiques of Presentation of Uniform Expansion Theory

It might be easier use a search engine
Search for “BAUT”
Click on “Against the Mainstream”
Click on “Critiques of Presentation of Uniform Expansion Theory”

Thank you for your time and interest.

John M. Kulick



The following is roughly what I will be presenting to the Students.

The Uniform Expansion theory

The Limited Expansion Model – The mainstream model
The current expansion model is a limited expansion model in that the expansion is assumed to stop at the boundary of galaxies. The common example used in most astronomy texts is that of pennies representing galaxies, which are glued on to an expanding balloon. Another common example is that of raisins in expanding dough. Neither the pennies nor raisins expand with the expansion of the medium they are in.

The following links substantiates the assertion that the mainstream model stops the expansion at the boundary of galaxies. In the classroom presentation I will read a quote from John Wheeler, one of the authors of “Gravitation”.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...1542.As.r.html
http://www.universeadventure.org/universe_15.html
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2405.html
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1950.html
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1384.html
http://www.ktca.org/newtons/10/galaxy.html
http://www.as.utexas.edu/~sheila/exp...se_updated.pdf
http://msowww.anu.edu.au/cas/present...y%20Mould.html

There are several reasons or arguments for stopping the expansion at the boundary of galaxies.
1. Galaxies are gravitationally bound. A clump of distributed mass has a tendency to pull together due to gravitational interaction between the masses. Stars in a galaxy are no different and would “fall” to the center, thereby resisting the expansion of spacetime.
2. If one extended the expansion to include galaxies, where does the expansion stop?
3. If Solar systems expanded, the planetary systems would fly apart since the gravitational force would diminish faster than the centrifugal. (Fg ==1/R^2, Fc == 1/R).
4. If Atoms were expanded, electrons would no longer be bound to the nucleus for the same reason that solar systems fly apart.
5. If atoms expanded, than all rulers used to measure the expansion would be expanded. If everything expands the same amount, and all the rulers used to measure the expansion expands the same amount, then everything remains the same and there is no expansion.

No Problem
The above issues are not a problem, as will be shown in the development of the theory, but before delving into the details, there are a few statements about the proposed Uniform Expansion theory that should be made.

The effect of gravity diminishes with the passage of time
It is invalid to say that a true uniform expansion that expands matter results in no change. If objects are uniformly expanding, then the centroidal distances between the objects is increasing. This means that the effect of gravity will diminish with the passage of time. For example, if the Earth were to be expanded to twice its present size, the effect of gravity on the surface would diminish by 1/4. (1/R^2) A prediction of this model is that the effect of gravity diminishes with the passage of time. Two Nobel Prize winners in physics, Paul Dirac and George Gamow, believed the effect of gravity diminishes with the passage of time. Dirac tried to establish a model but was never successful. I have done what he tried to do. (Unless someone proves me wrong).

Stronger Gravity negates Dark matter and Dark Energy
If gravity were stronger in the past and the gravitational relationship between objects is described by when the relationships are formed, then there should be observational evidence of this effect. Orbiting objects should appear to be in a stable orbit even though it presently looks like there is not enough mass to preserve the orbit. The larger the separation in time between objects, the greater the gravitational attraction should be and if one did not know this, the amount of extra unseen or “dark” matter needed to preserve orbiting clusters of galaxies would seem to increase with scale.

Also, if the effect of gravity were stronger in the past, it would take less mass for a Type 1a supernova to reach the Chandrasekhar limiting pressure. Less mass would mean a smaller supernova that would be dimmer. If one did not know this one would assume that the supernova was further away, requiring the existence of some kind of dark energy moving these galaxies further away. (The paper I wish to present to the AAS is the application of the relationships predicted by the Uniform Expansion theory to 1asn’s. It turns out that the expansion rate conforms to a flat and not an accelerating universe).

Uniting Gravity with Electromagnet relationships
One advantage of a uniform expansion theory is that it is a process that can be geometrically applied to all physical properties. It will be shown that with the proper rate of geometric expansion, the inverse square laws are derived as a characteristic of spacetime, thereby uniting the force of gravity with electromagnetic forces under the same causative structure. The principles of conservation of momentum and energy, which are observationally assumed, become geometrically established by a uniform expansion.

Quantum Physics
A uniform expansion theory also creates a physical explanation for Quantum physics. If the expansion of spacetime occurs a small “piece” at a time, then as each infinitesimal piece of spacetime integrates itself upon the existing structure of reality, there will be a probabilistically determined variance or disturbance.

A True Unified Field Theory
Since the relationships of Quantum Physics and the inverse square laws can all be predicted as a result of the same physical process, the uniform expansion theory represents a major step in establishing a Unified Field Theory. A fundamental property of this theory is that all physical relationships are the result of a geometric expansion of spacetime. It is all geometry.

Continued with next post.

A True Uniform Expansion Model

Absolute Measures

Absolute and Relative measures of Distance (Expansion and the “Eye of God”)
We can use a ruler to measure the size of a pizza. If the pizza and the ruler proportionally expand the same proportional amount, it is impossible to describe the change using our relative rulers. However, if we look at the expanding ruler and pizza from an “Eye of God” perspective we can see how much bigger the ruler and the pizza have gotten compared to their initial observed size. A uniform expansion introduces two measures of length, relative and absolute. Humans measure the Universe in relative terms and God measures it in Absolute terms. As humans we would have no direct local measure of a uniform expansion and it takes an “Eye of God” like perspective to describe the expansion.

Absolute and Relative Time
Relative time is defined as the time interval between points, with the speed of light defining the interval of time. Relative time is also the measure of time we use locally. The cumulative measure of relative intervals of time is experiential time.

Absolute time demarcates a point’s location historically, relative to the moment of creation, the beginning of time, or the “Big Bang” if you prefer. We each have a unique moment in history. Absolute time is unique.

An Absolute measure of time is needed in this model for the same reason an absolute and relative measure of length is necessary to describe a uniform expansion. All clocks and physical process slow down at a geometrically defined proportional amount with the expansion of spacetime. In order to describe how our relative measures of time are all slowing down, an absolute or fixed reference to measure time is necessary, it is necessary to use an “Absolute Clock”.

All Clocks slow with the expansion of spacetime
A brief explanation as to why clocks must slow with the expansion of spacetime is realized by considering a Pendulum. If the length of a pendulum increases, the period increases. It was also stated that in this model the effect of gravity diminishes with the expansion of spacetime, since the centroidal distance between the center of mass of the pendulum and the Earth increases. This diminished effect of gravity would also increase the period of a clock. What is especially surprising is that all clocks and physical process slow down the same proportional amount, preserving the relative measure of time. The only way to describe how our relative measures of time are slowing down is to establish a “fixed” or absolute measure of intervals of time.

Why use “absolute” measures?
The advantage of using absolute measures is that they reveal a hidden geometry of nature. The inverse square laws become based upon a specific geometric expansion described by absolute measures of spacetime. Principles of conservation of Energy and momentum become geometrically defined by absolute measures. It is all geometry.


Continued next post

Physical description of the model
The Physical Characteristics of the Uniform Expansion Model are as follows:
1. The expansion is uniform, meaning that matter expands with the expansion of spacetime
2. The expansion is easiest to describe in absolute measures since all local or relative measures appear constant.
3. The expansion occurs at a specific geometric rate, double the age of the universe and the volume of absolute space increases 4 times. (Relative measures of spacetime remain constant)
4. The expansion includes an extra dimensional relationship. Just as we can imagine a Flatland universe moving from expansion along an unobserved dimension, so too is our universe moving and expanding along an unobserved dimension.
5. The velocity of our Universe along the unobserved dimension is conjectured to be the square root of two times the speed of light. This way the Kinetic Energy of a Mass moving along the unobserved dimension corresponds to what Einstein called the “intrinsic” energy of a rest mass. Va = sqrt 2 c. (c = speed of light) K.E = 1/2 mVa^2, = mcc.


All the fundamental laws or principles of physics are based upon a geometric expansion of Spacetime.

Continued next post

Derivation of the Ratios of Time Formulas
The derivation of the formulas describing the uniform expansion of spacetime was originally posted in this thread My (Discovered) Unified Field Theory . I have neatened a few things up for repeating them here but I do not wish the comments and analysis of others who have already reviewed the formulas to be ignored since the comments and insight they provided was good and they helped me to improve or make clearer this explanation.

The basic geometry

Nomenclature
Relative measures of time and distance are written with lower case letters. Absolute measures are capitalized. When a letter is followed by a 1 or 2, such as T1 or T2, this establishes which measure is earlier and which is later respectively.

Before delving into the details the result can be simply stated. A volume of spacetime varies to the square of the absolute time elapsed. If you double the age of the universe, the absolute volume enclosed increased 4 times. Simple but tricky. There will be no local indication of the increase in size since all local relative measures of distance have similarly expanded.

The initial idea.
One day I realized that if nothing ever changed, time would not exist. Stated in the positive I thought; “Because space changes, time exists”. This led to the following equations.

S = Volume of Spacetime
T = Absolute time

dS/dT = T, Because space changes, time exits.

Integrating this relationship yields, in its simplest form,

S == T^2

(The == notation can be considered as meaning “proportional to”, but the relationship is more analogous to the relationship described by the speed of light, a relationship between distance and time).

The volume of any object is a distance measure cubed, times some constant,

D^3 x k = S = A Volume of spacetime.

Combining the relationships results in the following

D^3 = k T^2[/b]

Note; this is the exact form of Kepler’s Third Law. This is not a coincidence; the theoretical model truly produces Kepler’s law. It will be shown that this is indeed the relationship predicting the inverse square law required for celestial stability and the principle of conservation of momentum. Kepler’s law, which was experimentally established, is now theoretically predicted from a geometric model. Epistemologically, the relationship proposed, (dS/dT = T ), is as important a relationship as E= mcc, or e = hv

Rewriting the above equation we get

D = k T^(2/3)

Taking the first derivative with respect to absolute time we get how the absolute velocity will vary for two points in spacetime

V = k (2/3) / T^1/3

Similarly for Acceleration we get

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

We do not know the value for k but since this is a geometrically described rate of expansion, it is possible to state that at a particular time, T1, points in spacetime are a particular distance D1. Similarly at another later time, T2, the objects are at location D2. Dividing the two relationships by each other eliminates the constants resulting in

D1/D2 = (T1/T2)^(2/3)

Similarly for Velocity and Acceleration we get

V2/V1 =(T1/T2)^(1/3)
A2/A1 = (T1/T2)^(4/3)

These formulas are actually field formulas in that they describe, in absolute measures, the properties of an object when associated with a point in free space. (Free space means that no other unaccounted force is acting.)

The Ratios of Time
(Capitol letters indicate “absolute measures”, 1 and 2 are earlier and later measures respectively)
D1/D2 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)

E = energy, which for now can be considered just the square of the velocity term but this relationship is valid for all forms of energy in which spatial relationships are involved.

(Nuclear energy appears to be a partial exception to these relationships of expansion. It seems that at the nucleus, the expansion of spacetime does stop; nuclear relationships involve measures that are essentially fixed in size. This is discussed in more detail in the paper on Type 1a supernovas).

Physical Explanation
The physical relationships that the Ratios of Time formulas describe need some explanation. The basic derivation of the formulas was based on considering a small discrete volume of spacetime. Within this discrete volume of spacetime physical relationships concerning Absolute measures of Distance, Velocity, Acceleration, and Energy are described.

Consider a Balloon and its enclosed volume to represent the discrete absolute volume of spacetime. If we were to reduce the surface tension in the balloon, the balloon would expand, which is analogous to our expanding spacetime. Molecules of air hitting the retreating walls of the expanding balloon would rebound with less energy and the velocity of the rebounding air molecules would decrease. This slower velocity would eventually be shared with all the molecules in the balloon and the temperature of the air in the balloon would drop. Similarly a discrete or infinitesimal object with its own velocity within a discrete or infinitesimal volume of spacetime will also “lose” velocity as spacetime expands.
(Drawing of expanding balloon with “relaxed” walls used for class).

A mass can be considered a collection of discrete points residing in a collection of discrete absolute volumes of spacetime. Since the collection shares the same physical relationships as its parts, it is possible to generalize the relationship to the entire collection.

If an object has a given absolute velocity, then according to the derived relationships, the absolute velocity of the object should slow with the expansion of spacetime, just as the molecules within an expanding balloon all slow down in an expanded balloon.

Now comes the amazing part , Time
These changes in absolute measures of distance, velocity, acceleration and energy cannot be locally observed using relative measures. It is only from the “Eye of God” perspective that these changes can be described. If an object slows to 1/2 its original absolute velocity, all local measures of time, or all local physical process will also slow to 1/2 their original rate. Just as all relative measures of length maintain their proportional measure in a uniformly expanding spacetime field, all relative measures of time keep their proportional measure.

Continued

Physical relationships and Time

It has been proposed that all relative measures of time slow with the expansion of spacetime. This will be verified for the following physical processes.
1. A light Clock
2. A pendulum
3. A spinning planet or object
4. An orbiting planet or object


The Ratios of Time
(Capitol letters indicate “absolute measures”, 1 and 2 are earlier and later measures respectively)
D1/D2 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(2/3) [/b]

The light clock,
Based upon absolute measures, the speed of light slows and the distance the photon must travel increases with the expansion of spacetime. This means that based upon absolute measures it is going to take a photon longer to travel back and forth between two mirrors. Locally there should be no indication of the change, which requires all physical measures of time (except nuclear decay rates) to all slow down the same proportional amount. Sounds impossible, but it is actually amazing.

First off, the change in distance is not observed since proportionally everything else proportionally expands. This leaves the challenge of checking that all measures of relative time also stay the same.

Using the Ratio of time formula describing how the distance the photon travels will vary, we have
D1/D2 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
If the age of the universe were to double, the corresponding increase in absolute distance is
D2/D1 == (T2/T1)^(2/3) = 2^(2/3) = 1.59… The light clock is longer by this proportion.

Note that since the age of the universe is billions of years old, and the ratios of time formulas use this measure of time as a basis for describing relationships, events over a few thousand years represent a small, almost insignificant change.

Using the Ratio of time formula describing how the speed of a photon changes with the expansion of spacetime,
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
If the age of the universe were to double, the corresponding decrease in the absolute velocity of the photon is
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3) = (1/2)^ (1/3) = .79….

In the case where the age of the universe doubles, it would take the photon D/V = 1.59/.79 = 2 times longer to describe a cycle.

Generally the relationship is
D/V = interval of time = D2/D1 / V2/V1 = (T2/T1)^(2/3) / (T1/T2)^(1/3) = T2/T1. Double the age of the universe and the interval of time described by a light clock doubles.

A pendulum
The Period of a pendulum is = 2 pi x (l/g)^(1/2).

The length of the pendulum changes with the expansion of space-time. The locally experienced acceleration is also effected since the centroidal distance is increased with expansion. Rather than use the increased centroidal distance to reduce the effect of gravity, which would be used for g, the change in accelerative field predicted by the ratio of time formula, A2/A1 = (T1/T2) ^(4/3) will be used. The result is the same but I am trying to show the universality of the relationships.
D2/D1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3)
A2/A1 = (T1/T2) ^(4/3)

The Delta T interval of time for pendulum = change in l/g = (D1/D2/ A1/A2 )^(1/2)
T∆2/T∆1=( D2/D1/ A2/A1)^(1/2) = ((T2 /T1) ^ (2/3) / (T1/T2) ^(4/3))^(1/2) = T2/T1
Double the age of the universe and the interval of time described by a pendulum doubles.

A rotating object
Now lets see if a rotating object also takes twice as long to spin if the age of the universe were to double.

The distance the rotating object must travel increases since the object is expanded. For example if the age of the universe were to double, the size of the object increases 1.59 … times, which means all points rotating on the mass must travel 1.59 times further.

The velocity of any point on the rotating mass must, according to absolute measures, slow down. If the age of the universe were to double the corresponding decrease in the velocity of all the points on the rotating mass would be .79… times.

This is the same form or relationship observed in the light clock, so, so far relative measures have been preserved. Double the age of the universe and the object takes twice as long to spin.

An orbiting object
Now lets see if an orbiting object also takes twice as long to orbit if the age of the universe were to double.
Again, if the age of the universe were to double the distance the orbiting objects must travel increases 1.59… times.

The velocity also slows .79 times and again the overall increase in the time it would take for the planet to orbit the sun would double if the age of the universe were to double. Double the age of the universe and the object takes twice as long to complete an orbit.

Chemical and Biological reactions
Since the electron conforms to the same inverse square law relationships in “orbit” around the atom (Orbit is in quotations indicating a somewhat simplified statement), the same temporal effects would be expected for atomic or chemical reactions. Some may quickly note that a potential problem arises here, potentially destroying the proportional relationships. This is because electrons move at relativistic speeds. However, the gamma “correction” factor used to “adjust” for the relativistic effect keeps the same proportional relationships since the V/C term in “gamma”, (which is the velocity of the electron / the speed of light) is proportionally preserved. So when the universe was 1/2 its present age, even chemical reactions transpired twice as fast. An organism lived twice as fast, did twice as much and died in half the time, compared to today’s organisms. This “speeds” up the evolutionary process. Double the age of the Universe and physical process take twice as long to occur.

Nuclear Decay Rates
Nuclear decay may be an exception to the proportional variation in clock rates. The spatial separation and conformance to the inverse square laws has no obvious correlation to the relationships within the nucleus. Since astronomical evidence indicates that decay rates observed in radioactive material left from supernovas correlates somewhat well to observed historical locations, it is tempting to assume that the effects of an expanding spacetime field stop at the boundary of a nucleus, thereby resolving the issue as to where to stop the expansion of spacetime. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html If this is the case, then measures of time based on radioactive decay correlate to absolute measures of time and not relative measures of time.


Comparing Experiential and Absolute Time

(Class is shown a graph of T∆2/T∆1 = T2/T1 which shows how intervals of time verses the historical location is a hyperbolic relationship. )

Near the beginning of time, T1, clock rates are very vast, approaching an infinite rate. What we presently perceive as 1 second now would have represented far more passage of time.

Sample problem
When the universe was 1 year old in Absolute or Historical time, how much more quickly did time pass? Assume a 10 billion year old universe.
T∆2/T∆1 = T2/T1
T∆2/T∆1 = 10,000,000,000/1
T∆1 = T∆2 *1/10,000,000,000

What would corresponds to a process that takes 1 second today would only take 1 ten billionth of a second to happen when the universe was 1 year old, assuming we are using our present measure of time as the “absolute” standard of comparison. Everything would be evolving 10 billion times more quickly. In order to determine the cumulative measure of this experiential time requires taking the integral of the relationship.

Cumulative or experiential time elapsed = te =
= To times (Integral of (1/T) dT , from now(To) to T1, =
= To(ln(To/T1)

Sample problem,
How much experiential time has passed from when the universe was 1 billion years old in absolute or historical time to the present? Assume a 10 billion year old universe.

te = To ln(To/T1)
= 10 ln(10/1) = 23 billion years.

Now when we look back into deep space we are looking back in a measure of time that is Absolute or historical. An object observed when the universe was 1 billion years old, in a 10 billion year old universe, is seen as it was 10 –1, or 9 billion absolute years back in the past. The amount of experiential time that has elapsed while the light from that object located when the universe was 1 billion absolute years old to the present is not 9 billion years, but 23 billion years.

As you can see on this graph, as one approaches the beginning of absolute time, the amount of experiential time approaches infinity. The universe is essentially becoming infinitely old.

Now I have not shown how looking back into space corresponds to absolute time. The following explanation should help.

(Class is shown a figure of a string of evenly spaced light clocks separated by evenly spaced distances. )

Using our Eye of God perspective we can see that all the clocks are separated an equal interval of time from each other. Lets say that at T1 the light clocks are all 1 second away from each other, so at T1, the far end of the string of light clocks is 8 seconds away from the observer.

Now by the time the light reaches the observer it will be T2. But notice this, each light clock, even though it is slowing down with the expansion of spacetime, will still preserve the same local measure of time between each of the points. Each point perceives or measures that they are 1 second away from each other. That perception or measure of time will be preserved as the light from the distant source travels to the observer.

This means that the 8-second separation is preserved, but it is the measure of separation at T1, when the signal was sent. The 8-second measure is the absolute or historical separation between the points.

In the time that it took for the light to travel from the source to the observer, more than 8 seconds of experiential time have actually passed. This is because when the signal was initially sent, clock rates were faster, as shown earlier.

So when we look back into deep space we are looking back in Absolute measures of time, not relative measures of time.


A universe with a beginning and an end
A universe with NO beginning and NO end

This description of the universe using two measures of time is surprising. From our Eye of God perspective, the universe had a beginning and eventually it will end. Based on our relative measures of time, the universe is infinitely aged. It also will never end.

Continued.

Next post, orbital stability and the inverse square laws.

Orbital stability and the Inverse square laws
Stability of orbits
The orbiting mass raises another issue, stability. We know that a stable orbit requires a balance between the accelerative field in which the masses reside and the centrifugal force caused by the velocity of the object being confined to a curved path.
Fg = Fc. Force of gravity = Centrifugal force
Fg = g m1xm2 / R^2
Fc = m1 x V^2 /R

The question becomes whether or not the balance between gravitational and centrifugal force is preserved. They are actually predicted.

Force of Gravity
If the age of the universe were to double, the effect of gravity between the two objects would be reduced by the square of the increased distance between the two objects. In this case 1.59^2… = 2.59 times. There would be 2.59 less pull on the orbiting mass preserving the orbit. (The A2/A1 = (T1/T2) ^(4/3) term could also have been used).

In order for celestial stability to be preserved, there must be a corresponding and exact reduction in the centrifugal force, otherwise celestial stability would be destroyed and no stable orbits would exist.

Centrifugal force
If the age of the universe were to double, the absolute velocity of the object is diminished by .79 times and radius of orbit is increased 1.59 times. The net effect of V^2/R = .79^2/1.59 = .39 or a 2.59 times reduction in the centrifugal force.

Balance is preserved
Balance is preserved in orbiting objects in an expanding space-time field. While the specific example of doubling the age of the universe was used, the case is generally true. The effect of gravity is reduced by the square of the increased absolute distance, and the centrifugal force is reduced by the square of the decreased absolute velocity divided by the increased absolute distance.
Fg = Fc
1/D^2 = V^2/D
D2/D1 == (T2/T1)^(2/3)
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
((T1/T2)^(2/3))^2 = ((T1/T2)^(1/3))^2 / (T2/T1)^(2/3)
(T1/T2)^(4/3) = (T1/T2)^(4/3)

The gravitational constant is constant
Note that while the effect of gravity changes with time, the gravitational constant is still constant. The gravitational constant will remain constant in absolute measures. Also, most local or relative measures of the gravitational constant will also remain constant. If the deflection of a spring, or the rate an object falls was used to determine the local gravitational constant, the relative measures will remain constant. Constants are the result of geometry based on expansion, not chance.

The inverse square Law
Note that in the above relationship describing how the effect of gravity and centrifugal force between two objects change in absolute measure is the same relationship derived in describing how absolute acceleration changes
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)

This absolute accelerative field correlates to the same absolute measure of distance by squaring the distance measure.

D2/D1 == (T2/T1)^(2/3)
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
The inverse square law for accelerative fields correlates to a squaring of the distance measures.

(D2/D1)^2= ((T2/T1)^(2/3))^2 = (T1/T2)^(4/3) = A2/A1

Both gravitational and electromagnetic forces are accelerative fields defined by the same inverse square law.

(It appears that the distance measures associated with gravity are very small compared to the distance measures associated with charge. Electric charge measures of distance also have a positive and negative sense).


It is all geometry

Principles result from geometry
It has been shown that if spacetime expands as proposed along absolute measures, then not only do all measures of relative distance preserve their proportional measure; all measures of relative time maintain their proportional value. What is happening is that concepts we assume to be principles, like the principles of conservation of energy and momentum, and Newton’s “Law of Gravity” are actually the result of a specific geometric expansion of spacetime. For example, the spinning mass, which we perceive as indicating conservation of angular momentum, is only a relative description that is established by the geometric relationship of expansion. Kepler’s third law, which can be proved by conservation of angular momentum and the inverse square law, is actually the result of a geometry that results in the perseverance of relative measures of angular momentum and the inverse square law. From an absolute perspective, energy is continuously being lost due to the expansion of space. From an absolute perspective, momentum is continuously being lost due the expansion of spacetime. It is only our relative perspective, which is the result of a specific geometric expansion of spacetime, that yields the conservation principles.

Inverse square field relationships
Also, the field relationships observed in electromagnetic and gravitational relationships become stable and predicted as characteristics of spacetime. The A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3) relationship was derived as a result of expansion, and it is to that relationship the accelerative fields of gravity and electromagnetism is conformant to. While gravity and electromagnetism have different dimensional scales of length, they both respond to the changes in length the same way. Gravity and electromagnetism are both the result of the same physical process of expansion.

The cosmological red shift next

Continued

The cosmological red shift

Generally, the further away a galaxy is, the “redder” it appears. The spectra, which is the light emitted or absorbed by elements, has a longer wavelength the further away the galaxy is. As you know, a long wavelength photon has less energy than a short wavelength photon.

As a point of clarification, sometimes the cosmological red shift is described as a Doppler effect, which is misleading and confusing. The Doppler effect is observed when either the source or receiver is in motion relative to each other. In the case of sound, the relative velocity with respect to the medium is also involved. The cosmological red shift is not caused by the galaxies physical motion away from us, but from the expansion of spacetime. The energy of a photon is “lost” while traveling through an expanding spacetime field. (Most do not know this but this prediction of general relativity represents an example of the violation of the conservation of energy principle. Where did the energy of the photon go? However, if the universe were to stop expanding and collapse, the “lost” energy would be recovered).

The cosmological red shift initially would seem to represent a problem for a uniform expansion model that expands atoms. If an atom is denser in the past, the electric field around the atom is denser. When an electron “falls” from one energy level to another, a photon is emitted. When the electron “falls” in a denser electrostatic field, the energy released is greater. This means that in the past the spectra produced would be “blue” shifted.

As the blue shifted spectra travels through an expanding spacetime field, it looses energy, as predicted by the uniform expansion model, and general relativity. As it turns out the amount of “extra” energy the spectra starts off with is exactly canceled by the amount the spectra looses while traveling through an expanding spacetime field.

E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
How much greater would be the energy of a photon emitted in the past, T1?
T2 = the present. E2 = present energy of a given spectra
E1 = E2 (T2/T1)^(2/3)

How much energy would this spectra emitted in the past lose while traveling through an expanding spacetime field?

E2 = E1 (T1/T2)^(2/3) = E2 (T2/T1)^(2/3) x (T1/T2)^(2/3) = E2

The two effects cancel, no cosmological red shift.

Motion in an “unobserved” dimension

The physical explanation for the cosmological red shift is that our observable universe is in motion along an “unobserved” dimension. Just as we can image a Flatland universe in motion along an unobserved “vertical” dimension, our observable universe is also in motion along an unobserved dimension.

This motion is also the result of expansion and conforms to the same geometric relationship. Double the age of the universe and the volume described by this “unobserved” part of our universe increases 4 times.

As part of what I call the “unifying conjecture” the unobserved velocity of our universe is proposed to be the square root of 2 times the speed of light. This conjecture allows what Einstein called the “intrinsic” energy of a rest mass to be kenematically described.

Va = velocity along unobserved dimension = c(sqrt2)
K.E. = 1/2 m va^2 = mcc
This is a very easy derivation of Einstein’s famous energy equation.


The cosmological red shift

As a photon “drops” from one energy level to another, it is also in motion along the “unobserved” dimension. It is proposed that the faster the motion along the unobserved dimension, the longer the wavelength that is imparted to the emitted photon. It is a bit like a truck painting a line on a highway. The faster the velocity of the truck, the longer the line drawn on the highway.

Two different distances

The limited expansion model has the cosmological red shift created as a result of the expansion of spacetime. The simplest rate of expansion is that of a “flat” universe, which is one that is perfectly poised between runaway expansion and collapse. Such balance requires no dark energy, or extra, unknown force moving galaxies away from each other. It is the simplest model.

For a “Flat” universe, the wavelength of the spectra from a distant galaxy would be described by

D2/D1 == (T2/T1)^(2/3)

Sample problem. In a 10 billion year old universe, how far back in time is a galaxy observed if the spectra are 2 times longer (z =1)?

D2/D1 == (T2/T1)^(2/3)
2 = (10/T1)^(2/3)
T1 = 3.5 billion years

The galaxy is observed when the universe was 3.5 billion years old in 10 billion year old universe. It would be 10 –3.5 = 6.5 billion light years away. (These would be absolute measures of time in my model)

This rather simple relationship describing the spatial and temporal relationship of galaxies based on cosmological red shift is derived in my model for spatial expansion but it is the same relationship derived using general relativity for a “flat” universe.

The “flat” rate of expansion for the mainstream limited expansion model has problems and has essentially been abandoned. One issue is that the age of the universe. To = Age of universe and in a flat universe, To = 2/3 1/Ho, where Ho = the observed rate of expansion. There are a range of values for Ho, typically galaxies are found to be receding at about 65,000 meters per second per million parsecs of distance. (1 parsec = 3.26 light years). If one does the necessary conversions, 1/Ho = about 15 billion years or less, depending on the Ho used. This would place the age of the universe at about 9 to 10 billion years old. This is a real problem since there are rather extensive studies showing that there are stars in globular clusters that are older than this. How could stars be older than the universe? (Answer, the effect of gravity was greater in the past, which accelerated the evolution of stars).

In the Uniform expansion model the cosmological red shift is produced as a result of the velocity along the unobserved dimension. Since the wavelength produced is proportional to this velocity, the equation that defines the cosmological red shift is

V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)

Sample problem, in a 10 billion year old universe, how far back in time is a galaxy observed if the spectra are 2 times longer (z =1)?
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
1/2 = (T1/10)^(1/3)
T1 = 1.25 (For a 7 billion year old universe T1 = .9 )
The galaxy would be observed when the universe was only 1.25 billion years old, in absolute measures of time and it would be observed 10 –1.25 = 8.75 billion light years away. (7- .9 = 6.1 light years away)

According to the uniform expansion model, the galaxy is further away than the limited expansion model. 8.75-6.5 = 2.25 billion more light years away. (This increased distance would also make type 1a supernovas dimmer).

Age of Universe
(There is more to this distance determination issue since the age of the universe is much younger in the uniform expansion model, if the “unifying conjecture” is correct. The age of the universe is, I believe, √2 2/3 1/Ho, which is about 7 billion years old. I almost did not include this statement in this post, and I probably will only mention this in the classroom presentation. The fact that the figure runs into conflict with the 13.7 billion year old figure so commonly accepted from analysis of the Cosmic Background images is sure to raise some concerns. If the relationship assumed for the “unifying conjecture” were altered a bit, the age of the universe would be 10 billion years old, which is not as radical proposition. The following link is good but it is ambiguous. It rightly states that a flat universe should be 2/3 1/Ho but accepts the 13.7 billion year old age with no stated reservation in the acceptance of dark matter or dark energy being required to keep the model correct.( 2/3 15 = 10 which is less that 13.7) http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html . (In the paper I want to present, the data conforms to an age of the universe of about 7 billion years, consistent with the unifying conjecture. )

Photons as “sailboats”

While it is possible to propose a photon with an electrostatic field “gap” in the structure, which causes the photon to pull itself along in spacetime, it is a rather complex structure for an object that is so small.
The motion of observable spacetime along an unobserved dimension results in an extra dimensional relationship that helps establish a simple geometric explanation as to why photons move.

Drawing of a Flatland universe running into an extra dimensional cone.

If an extra dimensional cone is observed intersecting a Flatland universe, a point will first appear and then an expanding ring. Would the observers in Flatland assume that the expanding ring is the result of circular properties only defined by their observed universe, or would they discover that the reason for the expanding ring is the result of an extra dimensional encounter?

If our observed spacetime were encountering an extra dimensional field with geometric properties similar to the cone effect observed in Flatland, except all over, then the same kind of expanding shell relationship could be imposed. It is argued that photons act like sailboats, the keel is fixed in our observed spacetime, and the “wind” of the unobserved field is pressing on the structure of the photon causing the photon to move.

Light as a wave and particle

Conjecture. The proposed model also eliminates the necessity for a photon to exist as a wave and particle. Photons become line/plane objects with spin. The wave characteristics displayed by Young’s double slit experiment is not the result of the property of the photon, but the probabilistic structure of space-time. Within the confines of a slit, the probabilistic variation of spacetime occurs as each small “grain” of spacetime integrates itself onto the existing structure of reality. This variation within the confines of the slit will induce a deflection to the path of a photon.


Continued to
Dimensional Analysis

It seems I can not paste anything more. The dimensional analysis and the observational support for the theory will have to wait till later.

Sorry

John

Dimensional Analysis and Equivalence

This topic may or may not be presented to the class. It depends upon time. It describes the initial reason for my interest in theoretical physics.

Sometimes one only knows the units or dimensions of a relationship without knowing the theoretical basis for the relationship. Often by simply knowing the dimensions or units of a relationship it is possible to get close to the proper equation that does express the theoretical relationship. It will give a clue as to what to look for.

For example, lets say we forgot the formula that describes how far an object falls while experiencing a constant acceleration. We could derive the relationship using calculus, but we can also guess by using dimensional analysis.

We know that Acceleration has units of distance /time^2, D/T^2. We know the answer we want has units of distance and we are trying to determine how far the object falls per a measure of time T
We can guess the equation to be D = A T, but a dimensional check indicates that it does not work
D =? A T
D =? D/T^2 T = D/T is not correct but if the relationship was multiplied by T^2 dimensionally things would be correct.

D = A T^2. This is close, the correct form is D = 1/2 A T^2. But this gives a good idea of the value of dimensional analysis; it will establish the proper dimensional form of an equation that is only off by a constant factor, in this case 1/2.

Now lets look at the Equivalence of Gravitational and Inertial Forces


Drawing of two identical objects experiencing a 1 Newton or 1 pound force. One has the force applied directly by pushing on it, the other force is applied by Gravity using another mass near the mass.

Fg = Fi
1 Newton force applied by gravity = 1Newton force applied directly
g M1 M2/ D^2 = MA

Dimensionally, g is an experimentally derived term. It is not based upon a theoretical model. (Although those familiar with general relativity could disagree with this statement). The F = MA relationship can be directly produced without resorting to an experimentally derived term that carries units. Since the dimensional characteristics are known for inertial forces, and many of the terms for gravitational force are known, this raises the possibility to use dimensional analysis to help give some kind of clue as to what theoretical relationship would be that could establish the force of gravity with no constant that carries dimensional terms to make it work. So by using dimensional analysis it is hoped that the proper dimensional form a theoretical relationship will be found.

An investigation of the terms involved led me to think that measures of Distance and Time are fundamental, but mass is more complicated. It is usually defined by other terms that use units of distance and time. Solving the above relationship equating gravitational force to inertial force, without the ‘fudge factor g”, results in
M M /D^2 = M D/T^2
M = D^3/ T^2

If mass were described by dimensional measures of Distance cubed per time squared, then perhaps I could be on to something. The D^3 term made sense since mass occupies a volume but the T^2 term made no sense unless there was some kind of inherent acceleration or plane.

A dimensional check of the M = D^3/ T^2 led me to believe that I was on to something.

First off, the equations equaling inertial and gravitational forces are now equal with no gravitational constant that carries dimensional measures.

Fg = M M /D^2 = (D^3/ T^2) * (D^3/ T^2) / D^2 = D^4/T^4
Fi = MA = (D^3/ T^2) D/T^2 = D^4/T^4

This is not too surprising since the equation was solved for M to work

However this is

Energy = Force times distance
Energy = Mcc this is a much different form of equation derived directly from theoretical relationships.

Fi *D = MAD = D^5/T^4

E = mcc = D^5/T^4 The same!!


Then when I had the epiphany that “if nothing changed there would be no Time”, and allowed space itself change and found that the dimensional measure for space had units of

D^3 = kT^2 (See original derivation of Ratios of Time formulas), which is dimensionally the same as M = D^3/ T^2. All that was different was a scalar number k, which would correspond directly to the amount of mass or a volume of spacetime.

I knew I was on to something. It matched the dimensional form of the searched for theoretical relationship that would unit gravitational force with inertial force.

To me it made sense that the same dimensional relationship that defines mass should be the same dimensional relationship that defines spacetime.

I became real excited when I applied the relationship to check if celestial stability was preserved, as shown earlier.



Continued
Observational Confirmation

Observational Confirmation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Sun Exploded
As noted earlier, the energy production in the young universe was dramatically greater. If the energy output from quasars is just accelerated stellar physics, then that means our Sun experienced this accelerated rate of evolution. If the variation in the energy output from quasars is from miniature stars exploding in vast chain reactions, it is highly probable that our sun was once part of this process. If this did happen there should be evidence of this.

1. Professor O.K Manuel, a nuclear chemist, has had the opportunity to test some of the samples of material from the moon. He discovered an isotope of “strange xenon” . From the samples he determined that the only way this element could exist is if the sun blew up about 5 billion years ago. http://www.aas.org/publications/baas...s/S025003.html When he presented his findings at an American Astronomical Society meeting, his work was largely ignored. The major problem is that if a star explodes there is nothing left. There would be no planets, only a vast expanding gas spewed out across space. However, in this model, if the sun did explode about 5 billion years ago, then the size of the sun would have been about 10 percent of what it is now, based on my calculations using the Uniform Expansion Model. The explosion would be much smaller and a vast cloud of material representing the remaining 90 percent of the matter in the solar system would have helped muffle the blast.
2. Bode’s law shows that the orbit of each planet roughly doubles sequentially from the Sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodes_law While there is a gap in the sequence between Mars and Jupiter, there is the asteroid belt. Critics of the implication that Bodes law is actually significant point to the fact that the material in the asteroid belt is way too small to make up a planet. However, 5 billion years ago, when the Sun blew up, the size of the planets would have been much smaller and most of the material would still be flying around in fragments and gas. Destroying what would have been the core of a planet stopped the formation of the planet. The lack of planetary amounts of matter would be expected in the Uniform Expansion Model.
3. The evidence of intense crater formation well after the formation of the planets needs some kind of source for meteorites. An exploding sun would do the trick.
4. The discovery of planets around other stars has revealed that most of them have gaseous planets close to the mother star. Why not our solar system? If the Sun blew up 5 billion years ago, it would have stripped the atmosphere off all the interior planets and blown the gasses to the outer planets.
5. The distribution of heavy elements on the surface of the Earth is primarily the result of meteor impact. Presently the Earth has a thin solid crust, but once it was all a hot molten mass. Heavy elements sink. Heavy elements requires a star to explode, the best source of such elements is to have the sun explode and then have the enriched matter rain back down on to the surface of a cooling planet or moon.
6. The distribution of the angular momentum of the solar system only makes sense if the sun blew up. According to the nebular cloud theory, all the planets and sun formed out of a nebular cloud. One characteristic of such a cloud is that eventually all the material in the cloud moves as on large distributed mass with no one particular piece moving faster or slower than its neighbor. If they did not move together, collisions would occur and each collision would distribute and even out the motion of the cloud. As the planets and sun form, the angular momentum of the system would be preserved for each region in which the planets formed. An analysis of the distribution of the angular momentum of our solar system shows that somehow most of the angular momentum has been displaced to Jupiter. This can be explained by having a rapidly rotating Sun explode and disperse its angular momentum out to the outer planets.
Water on Mars
The evidence of water on Mars is extensive. There is evidence of seas, lakes, rivers, and streams. It rained on Mars.

The surface gravity on Mars is about 38 percent of Earth’s. Its surface gravity is so weak that all the atmosphere on Mars has been lost in space. If it were possible to pull a switch and change the effect of gravity on Earth to that found on Mars, the density of the atmosphere would be close to that found on the top of Mount Everest. At this density it becomes impossible to form rain clouds, the only reason there is snow on Mt Everest is that it is blown up from lower elevations.

This raises the question as to how could rain clouds ever form on Mars?

What combination of gasses can possibly cause it to rain water? There is currently no model that I have been able to find that explains how this is possible.

However the Uniform Expansion theory does explain this since the effect of gravity is a function of time. In a 10 billion year old universe when the universe was 3 billion years old, the effect of gravity would be increased by 5 times (A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3) = (3/10)^(4/3) = .2.) . 5 times .38 = 1.9 times the surface gravity of the Earth.

This raises a problem. As time passes, the effect of gravity on Earth will not be strong enough to hold on to its atmosphere, and it will become like Mars. A thinner atmosphere cannot carry as much water. It is interesting to note that the Earth was once quite and wet. It was not that long ago that the Sahara Desert was forested. (Go back far enough and the Sahara Desert was located closer to the South Pole and was glaciated). Could the drying of the Earth be a process that is being felt today?

Stars older than Universe
It takes time for a star to burn all its initial fuel of hydrogen. Once this is done, the star begins a new phase in which it expands dramatically. The time it takes for this process to occur takes billions of years. There are a group of stellar physicists that have determined that it appears that some stars in globular clusters are older than the universe. Stars Older than Universe This thread shows that a rather significant minority believe this is a real problem. All the papers reviewed precludes a flat universe with an age of 2/3 1/Ho. How can this be resolved? If the effect of gravity were more powerful in the past than this is no problem. Stars would evolve much more quickly than assumed.

Galaxies born before the Universe began
There is evidence of high red shift galaxies with high concentrations of metals. A High red shift implies a young age, the galaxy is observed very far in the past. Evidence of metals implies an old age since it takes a star a lifetime of billions of years to form these heaver elements. For this to happen these galaxies would have to exist before the universe began. Critics of the Big Bang often use this example to argue for a steady state model. The increased rate of stellar evolution due to the early effect of gravity is not enough to resolve this issue. However, if such a high red shift galaxy was also in motion away from us early in the evolution of the universe, this would induce a Doppler shift, and it would increase the amount of expansion. Allowing a galaxy to be moving fast enough to generate this kind of red shift is not possible in the limited expansion model since there is no evidence of galaxies moving anywhere near this fast now. The Uniform Expansion model does allow early galaxies to be in motion, since the expansion of spacetime draws of the kinetic energy of all objects, so any object observed recently show little evidence of the early high speed motion.

No time dilation observed in the energy variation in quasars
The expansion of spacetime expands the duration of events. Quasars show a variation in the energy output lasting days, weeks and even years. There is a pattern to this energy variation. The pattern should show signs of time dilation in relation to the observed cosmological red shift; they do not. Most quasars have a red shift factor of about 2, so quasars with a red shift greater than that should have the energy variation periods stretched out. Those with a red shift less than two should have a shorter period. This is not observed; the energy variation periods are almost linear.

The answer to this is issue is to consider the clock rates predicted by the uniform expansion theory and allow the same Doppler effect due to real or “peculiar” motion that was used to explain how a very high red shift galaxy can have metals.

Clock rates

A quasar in motion towards us is older than the quasar moving away by the difference in the relative time that separates the two quasars. The older quasar has a slower clock rate. The younger star has a faster clock rate. Also, the Doppler effect means the quasar moving away is not as far away as thought, and a quasar moving towards us is not as close as thought. This shrinks the expected time dilation.

The net effect is no observed time dilation for the energy variation in quasars.

Quasars interacting with Galaxies
Also, allowing quasars to have real or peculiar motion of various rates allows some of the higher relativistic speed quasars to catch up to their more quickly evolving stationary galaxies. Combined with the increased effect of gravity results in a few quasars interacting with galaxies.

Quasar Distribution curve
The distribution curve of quasars is a bell shape curve that peaks at a z of 2 and is stretched out at higher red shifts and is compressed at lower red shifts. This apparently corresponds to the above time dilation effects. (I have only looked at a few quasars to see if this is true)

Continued
Neat things about the theory.

There are a few parting ideas I’d like to share.

Absolute measures.
This appeals to me because it runs counter to the current philosophical bias in which everything is relative. While relative measures are how we as mortals experience the Universe, it is a limited and incomplete perspective. From an “Eye of God” perspective, which requires looking outside of ourselves, the universe is conformant to a simple geometric order. This order is not revealed using relative measures.

More to life
The model proposes that our observable universe is moving in an unobserved dimension. These unseen relationships are also responsible for establishing fundamental properties that exist in our universe. There is more to the universe than what we can see.

The Edge of the Universe
The proposed model offers a limited but meaningful description of the edge of the universe. Since the expansion occurs everywhere, within and around every location, the edge of the universe is not some far off distant place, but within everything everywhere. We are expanding into an unseen space. We are at the edge of an expanding universe right now.

A Snowflake universe
A growing snowflake is a simple model that correlates to the proposed model. The expansion of space-time is like the overall expansion of a snowflake. Just as a snowflake is confined to a basic dimensional shape, so to is the universe. Just as there are dimensional patterns that are “constant” in a snowflake, so too are the constants of physics. Just as there are repeating relationships found within a snowflake, so to are there repeating relationships found in the universe. Just as a snowflake grows by its expansion a small piece at a time, so to does the universe. Just as a snowflake expands by building structure upon existing structure, so to does our universe. Just as change is observed at the edge of a snowflake, we experience change at the edge of space within. The universe is like an expanding snowflake with every location at the perceived center of an expanding universe.

Belief
Belief is an opinion based on faith. There is no rigid scientific proof that can be applied to a faith, but faith and science share a common test. The guiding rule is that whatever makes life easer to explain or live by, is the rule by which a faith is justified. For some, the belief in the existence of a God makes life simpler to understand. For others the belief in a God only complicates things. I have no right to say which belief is right or wrong. It is a matter of where one places their faith.

This apparent divergence talking about belief is made because of the next section.

The conflict of Dogma
Every educated student is taught the conflict that exists between religion and science. The Copernican System removed mankind from the center of the universe and this challenged the ideology of an established and powerful religion. For one group, faith had merged with religion and established dogma. For another group, curiosity had merged with intellectual rigor and by test, observation, and evaluation, science had established its own dogma. The two ideologies were in conflict about the nature of the Universe. Conflict often causes harm. Galileo, who taught the theory that it was the Earth that went around the Sun, challenged the authority and dogma of the Church. He was sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life, and no one was allowed to publish anything he had written, or anything he might write.

It can be argued that the injustice of Religion against Science has now turned around, and now religion is suffering under the power and attack of Science. It is difficult for someone of science to state what they believe, or how they feel about what they observe if it has any mention of God. It is difficult for someone of faith to say what they believe if they can not justify their beliefs based upon the dogma of science. The real injustice Galileo suffered was the oppression denying him his freedom to think and believe as he wished with out reprisal. It is hoped that respect and not dogma is the basis for responding to each other.

Divine Creation
What follows next is my opinion. It is not a fact. It is equally valid to argue that the order described is entirely by chance. In fact, it could be argued that any other order would fail and would not exist. Chose what ever makes life easier to live.

The universe conforms to an order that is, from my perspective, divine. Everything in the universe, throughout the entire universe, from the beginning of time to the end of time, for all time, is centrally located in an expanding universe. Even the chaotic realm of chance occurrences observed on the quantum scale of observation settles upon and conforms to existing structure. It is my heart felt belief that this is an order that defies chance, it is evidence of creation; and if there is creation, there must be a creator.


Thank you for reading this

John M. Kulick

AKA Snowflake

Why not skip the middleman and go meet some of the "others with a more extensive knowledge and experience in physics"? Why not go to a university and try to speak to professors and grad students?
Once again, this is the wrong way to proceed. Ms. Gilmore and others in positions like hers receive dozens if not hundreds of such missives from wannabes every month. Most of them are discarded for the spam that they are. There is no royal road in science any more than there is in mathematics. You must contact and speak with those "with a more extensive knowledge and experience in physics". There is no substitute for this, certainly not the write-in campaign you propose.

__________________
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 Celestial Mechanic

Good to correspond with you again.


You said,
"Why not go to a university and try to speak to professors and grad students?"

I have presented my theory at a Gravitational Conference at Wake Forest, an oral and poster board presentation at MIT, and two poster board presentations at a Physics Conference in Florida and one poster board presentation and two oral presentations at the University of Connecticut.
This is what I learned from the presentations.

1. People who have spent a decade or more of their life teaching or learning general relativity are not ready to consider any model other than their own. At one conference I watched for a whole week people sitting waiting for their turn to present. 90 percent of the time there was not even a question asked by the audience about the paper presented. Out of the over 40 papers that I listen to, there were only two presentations that had more than two hands raised to ask questions, and these papers were not theoretical, they were observational. At the PHD level no one is interested in looking at anything other than his or her own work. The only exceptions to this are if it is a grad student to professor relationship, or if there is an alliance built out of familiarity. This network of associates is necessary if one needs to have their work published. Each one scratches each ones back.

2. The general responses on a PhD level to the presentation have been , “We are not ready for something so revolutionary”, or “it just isn’t that way”. What kind of criticism is that? I claim to have established a geometric model that produces a variation in the effect of gravity over time, just as Dirac believed. I would think that there would be at least a curiosity as to how that can be done. I would think that there would be an attempt to see were a mistake was made. No such thing. Their minds were made up before I even said a word. This response is characteristic of the field. They are that way to those outside the mainstream and they are that way to those with whom they have not established a personal relationship. It is an incestuous situation that slows the advancement of science.

3. At one presentation I was criticized for not having any proof correlating the theory to observation. When I presented a petition for him to sign that was asking for the right to present an oral presentation that applied the theory to observation, he refused to sign it. When I asked if he wanted to see the paper in which the theory was applied to observation, he was not interested. Rare is the Ph.D. that has a mind fluid enough to consider ideas other than his or her own.

4. At the PhD level, there is a fear to diverge too far from the consensus of the peers. It is safer to blend in than it is to run the risk of looking like a fool. There are some exceptions to this, but these mavericks are usually ostracized from the mainstream and are advocates of their ideas, not someone else’s. What incentive would someone on the PhD level have to be an advocate another persons “radical” work? The odds are it would be wrong, and by endorsing it they only make themselves look stupid. It would take a PhD of extraordinary confidence and understanding of physics to endorse some idea “outside the box”. It is one of the reasons I admire Eddington.

5. At one of the conferences I went to there was a very popular speaker. There were three projectors across the vast room with about 300 people listening to his talk. Afterwards there was group of about 20 or more people flocking around him, wishing to talk to him personally. He stated that he and others in the field were receptive to new theories and were looking for viable theories. I then interrupted and said I have such a theory, would you look at it and respond? He said yes, I gave him a cd describing the development of the theory and I have never heard from him since.

6. I have had the opportunity to talk at the poster board presentations. The vast majority of them are undergraduates and graduate students. Almost all are interested, all ask questions, and at least 1/4 are enthusiastic and think that they are witness to a major advancement in physics. Not one has pointed out a mistake. I think that those who bother with poster board presentations are more curious and open minded than a normal cross section of society.(There was one PhD Professor that I talked to at a poster board presentation, he was not too sure of the model, but he was an advocate of two dimensions of time, which is why he sought me out.)

7. The reason for wanting to present at the American Astronomical Society directly is that there will be a mix of theoreticians and observationalists. Until I find that rare theorist, I do not expect much interest in the work from theoreticians. The observationalists are different. The observationalists do not have a strong theoretical agenda; they have nothing to lose if some theory correlates to their data better than some other theory. Astronomers are yearning for some theoretical model that makes sense of the data without resorting to some kind of dark energy or dark matter. It is my hope that their interest in the work will draw in the truly confident theoretician.

Snowflake

At first glance, there seems to be little, if any, difference between the 12 posts in this thread, and what snowflakeuniverse presented in previous threads, here in this ATM section:
My (Discovered) Unified Field Theory
My (Discovered) Uniform Expansion Model – Applied
Did our sun blow up 5 billion years ago?
The greatest advance in theoretical physics
Absolutely
How the universe began and the future of life.
Quasars without super massive black holes
Two dimensions of time describe the Universe

(There are other snowflakeuniverse threads, but these seem to contain all the aspects of the snowflakeuniverse ideas, cf questions about observations, standard modern astrophysics and cosmology, and critiques of those).

Which leads me to:
Question 1: in terms of significant content, what is new in these 12 posts?

Of course, we now have a concise presentation, with (essentially) everything in one place.

In future posts, in this thread, I will concentrate on how well this "Uniform Expansion Theory", as presented here, matches observational (and to some extent experimental) results.

But for now:
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?

Hi Nerid
Thanks for the response

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……

Ho
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.

Snowflake

Age of Universe Issue

Based on Nerid’s questions, I thought that I would discuss the age of the universe since the predictions of the model results in a discrepancy regarding the age of the universe. What I taught is different from the current mainstream value. Here is a place I could be proved wrong, unless I provide an explanation that is consistent with the model.

The age of a “flat” universe, (no dark energy) , based on principles of general relativity, is To = 2/3 1/Ho. According to my model, the universe is “flat”.

With a measured rate of expansion of about 65,000 meters per million parsecs, 1/Ho = 15 billion years. So, for a flat universe the age of the universe is 10 billion years.

There is a variation in the geometry of my model, which I prefer, that establishes the age of the universe to be the √2/3 1/Ho = 7 billion years.

Note, the 7 or 10 billion year old figure is an absolute measure of time. This does not correspond to a relative measure of time.

Some may argue that this age is too young since there is evidence of some stars already being too old for a 13.7 billion year old universe. (Most of the studies do not have an issue with a 13.7 year old universe, but all of the studies do have a problem with a 10 billion year old universe, much less a 7 billion year old one)

Also some may argue that such a young age is inconsistent with the dating techniques using the cosmic background that produces a 13.7 billion year old universe.

Sample problem,

Assume a star starts burning fuel when the universe is 1 billion absolute years old in 10 billion year old universe. How long has the star been burning fuel in relative measures?


te = To ln(To/T1)
= 10 ln(10/1) = 23 billion years. The observed look back time is 9 billion years, but the star has been evolving for 23 billion years. This resolves the issue in which stars are apparently older than the universe. In fact, the proposed model would justify those stellar physicists that have been saying this is a problem.

The Age of the Universe discrepancy, based on the variations in the temperature in the cosmic background, is a bit more complex to explain.

The proposed model predicts a different beginning of the universe than that assumed by the big bang. If you run the clock backwards in a big bang model, everything converges to a singularity. Lets run the clock backwards for a uniform expansion model

Lets use the popular balloon analogy, but instead of placing hard pennies on the balloon to represent galaxies, this time we draw the galaxies on the balloon. Now as we deflate the balloon, the relative distance between the balloon and the relative size of the galaxies stays the same. The galaxies are becoming denser and each galaxy is converging on becoming a “singularity”. So one characteristic of a uniform expansion model is that the universe began as multiple singularities, instead of one.

Another characteristic of the model is that the universe starts off as a compressed spacetime, and it is into this structure of spacetime that streams of matter enter the universe to create the galaxies. Initially there is form and size to the universe. (Lemaître’s egg idea).

Evidence of the intense energy production from these multiple singularities is seen in the thermal background. The reason for the difference in the ages between a13.7 or a 10 or 7 billion year old universe is that in the uniform expansion model there is an initial separation between the galaxies. The limited expansion model has to have extra time to expand spacetime to end up with the same structure since the expansion rate is initially slower and the “distance” to expand is greater.

Snowflake

You're welcome.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)?Glad that's cleared up.

Hey Snowflake, how have you been? BTW, I moved this from grav's Kepler thread.

I'm aware of the complexity, this was one of the first things I looked at, after getting somewhat of a handle on GR (try looking at the actual numerical equations, if you want to get an idea of the complexity). I'm not quite sure what it has to do with your idea though. The modeling of this in numerical GR it's quite complex, simply due to the number of equations required. But, it can and has been done. Now, what does this GR complexity have to do with your idea? We aren’t talking about GR, we are talking about your idea and how it should match observations. What equations would/are you using to model this in your idea?

Yeah, it’s ok. But, I you should be able to quantify the amount needed, through the entire inspiral, right?

You are aware that there are other observations that indicate dark matter and that these observations are independent of gravity? It's just not the galactic rotational curves that indicate there is dark matter there. That there are several different observations they all arrive at approximately the same quantity of dark matter from different paths.

(tongue in cheek response)I’m also not quite sure why you are bringing up Dark Matter with respect to the inspiral. Your claim is that your idea does away with the dark matter, so your idea should be able to match this observation without dark matter. Now, if you need dark matter to match the insprial, then you haven't done away with dark matter, have you?

Well, that's why I asked about the inspiral. After all, it is an observation. Let's face it, the error bars are large enough in most cosmology observations to admit a lot of different ideas, for any specific problem in cosmology. The insprial provides very tight constraints on gravitational theories. You have mentioned that your idea is a Unified Field Theory. Well, the inspiral of binary neutron stars is the most challenging observation out there for gravity. To be a valid theory, you will have to show that your idea can make a prediciton within those constraints. If it can't predict that inspiral, don't you think you would have to do some more work on your idea?

Well, I'm here.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Right, but today’s academons were once impressionable young high-schoolers themselves. They bought what was sold to them--BB Cosmology--and now preach it as Gospel. These days, the halls of academia are closed to non-BB ideas. Taking a "show" before them is as futile as Galileo taking his show before the Church. So if BB cosmology is wrong, how do we break the chain?