The Universe is Otherwise
Part 1 – Red Shift

I have an all encompassing theory of the universe. This particular theory requires no concepts beyond gravity, pushing type gravity particles, and an in depth analysis of the contributions of spins (rotation and revolution). This is one part. I will submit more parts if there is interest. The theory, also called External Gravitation, addresses the major portions of our knowledge. Part one replaces the big bang, expanding universe theory. My overall theory is not dependent upon this solution, but does dispute the expanding universe.. While it is impossible to disprove existing theory, a replacement can fall back on Occam’s razor which suggests that ‘simplicity is best’. Occam’s razor is frequently referenced for theory support, and here it helps in understanding the universe by eliminating the unwieldy load of virtual physical ideas that science has been creating to adjust existing theories.

Retracing Big Bang Logic

The big bang at some initial time is an irrefutable consequence of a system in which all components are continually moving away from each other at speeds which increase with distance. Concepts which conflict with the big bang such as gravity, infinite space, speed limits, and Halton Arp’s findings about the location of Quasars are overcome by legions of followers amending the theory with work arounds and inventing concepts. These concepts include curved space, higher dimensions of space itself, dark energy, strange particles, membranes, time warp, MOND, and singularities. Taken together these concepts suggest a logic flaw in expansion theory, and together with Halton Arp’s findings, cry out for action.

To seek a logic flaw in the big bang, review its foundation. Edwin Hubble first identified redshift of light from distant bodies and subsequently found that the amount of shift increased with the distance, as mostly determined by parallax. An overview of the times suggests that the Doppler shift, recently applied to train whistle frequencies in promoting relativity theory, was on everyone’s mind. That theory overcame the competing ‘tired light’ theory of Edwin Zwick.

Other causes for redshift have subsequently been suggested. But other than Doppler, the only ‘proven’ cause of redshift is gravity. This then is the alternative to Doppler for consideration. Gravitational red shift is misunderstood. Some even consider it a form of ‘tired light’ which it isn’t. Gravitational red shift effects in space, as applied to neutron stars and black holes, are assumed to occur strictly at the source, for example within a Schwarzschild radius. Distance plays no part. That is a big mistake! Consider that satellites attraction by earth diminishes with distance. Earth’s gravitation extends to the moon and beyond. The more distant a planet, the less it is affected by the sun. Galaxies are gravitationally connected. Thus, distance matters when considering gravity and especially if summing up its effects.

I have been told that suggesting the gravity effect as a source of redshift is a form of the tired light view. Tired light was proposed by Zwicky in 1929 as the alternative to Hubble and competed for acceptance for a while. The following paragraph from WIKI is a huge error by Zwicky himself as he refutes gravitational potential as a tired light source. The second statement makes no sense and ignores the idea of an ongoing shift of spectral lines with distance. Its nonsense that spectral shift must end at the galaxy boundary.
• Gravitational potential:
"One might expect a shift of spectral lines due to the difference of the static gravitational potential at different distances from the center of a galaxy. This effect, of course, has no relation to the distance of the observed galaxy from our own system and, therefore, cannot provide any explanation of the phenomenon discussed in this paper."


Consider that gravity is an effect radiated by a mass. Brightness of light is another radiated effect. Just as light reaches us from distant masses, so must gravity. Therefore, gravity acts continually over time. Light beams from a distant mass are continually affected by gravity throughout their transmission. The red shift will gradually increase with distance, even though local gravitation provides a very large component initially.

The components of gravitational redshift are the mass of the source and the distance. Thus, a Quasar and its adjacent galaxy can provide different shifts having different masses even though their distance is the same. Meanwhile two similar stars or two similar galaxies can transmit to us different redshifts due to differing distances.

Mass depends on the spin of component particles. Quasars, which have been defined by Halton Arp’s as being younger, are thus much more actively spinning mass. Arp separates out an intrinsic portion of redshift which he assigns to youth. This intrinsic portion can here be understood as resulting from the Quasar being more massive than the galaxy.

I don’t believe the measuring or summing of gravitation effects on wave lengths over long time periods and long distances has ever been done, probably due to the complexity. How would we determine any gravitational increase of redshift for light as it travels great distances from the source? Solutions would require computers. I have attached an exercise to explain the issue by analogy. It is a simple analogy which if expanded might show that at some distance there will be a nearly linear connection between changes in redshift (wavelength) and distance. While the local gravitation at the source provides the intrinsic and often the major part of the shift, the second effect of gravitation over distance, provides the distance dependent redshift for similar sized bodies, which effect is currently attributed to Doppler.

Red Shift Math Analogy

The speed and distance for light are too large to produce quantifiable measures by time unit when explaining the redshift from gravity. So, I present an analogy using comparable components with much smaller numbers.

Light consists of photon particles. They are separated in sequence by some wave length. Assume 2 particles are departing a massive source, both traveling at what is originally defined as a constant velocity. Being particles, their velocities are both subject to the gravitational pull of their source.

Assume two particles that are at distances of 10 and 11 from the source, so the separation is equivalent to a wave length of 1. Both particles are moving away from the source at an initial speed of 1 distance measure per time period. I investigate a couple of time periods here and maybe someone can computerize the math progression with actual numbers for light wave lengths. There is a gravitational like pull on the particles which is calculated as an inverse square, ie., it slows the velocities by 1/distance squared. We would like to investigate the change in wave length as the distance from the source increases.

After time interval1, the particle at 10 moves a distance of 1 less the gravitational effect of 1/10 squared and arrives at 11-.001 or 10.99. The particle at 11 moves 1 less the gravitational effect of 1/11 squared and arrives at 12-.0082645 or 11.991736. The wave length is now 1.001736.

In the next second particle 1 moves 1 less 1/10.99 squared and arrives at 11.99 – 1/10.99 squared = .0082795 or 11.9817205. The other particle moves 1 less 1/11.991736 squared and arrives at 12.991736- 1/11.991736 squared = .006954 or 12.984782. The wave length is now 12.984782 – 11.9817205 = 1.003062.

The wave length increases with distance as Hubble found for star light. Whether the increases will approximate a 1 for 1 relationship with changes in distance traveled is uncertain, but this 2 step analysis suggests some correlation of wave length change with distance change.

This initial mathematical analysis is only partial as it does not include the gravitational pull from the destination galaxy/sun, our receiving contribution. This pull further separates the particles while restoring the original speed.

The big bang and expanding universe should be replaced by a static, infinite universe whose structure is a consequence of the motion of its gravity particles - see part 2.



Paul Schroeder

Just a quick question, though many might be asked: Wouldn't the red shift from the gravity of a galaxy emitting the light be roughly counteracted by the gravitational blue shift of the light coming into our galaxy? and for any galaxy in between, the light would blue shift on the way in and only red shift exactly the same amount on the way out?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Sorry to shorten it up, but do you have a model for your theory? I really was wondering what shape it had, if any.

Also, if you could stand outside your universe, what would it look like? Just curious...

What do you meen by "pushing type gravity particles"?

Do you consider gravity an attractive Newtonian force, or a curved spacetime phenomenon? Or, is gravity something entirely different?

Are you saying redshift z is due to the gravitational effect on photons trying to escape the local gravitational potential well of the source? If you've done any research at all on the subject, you will have found this impossible, ie., the effect is insufficient to account for observations.

In fact, local gravitation provides a very small component initially.


cc

I wonder if massive bodies at the "edges" of the universe aren't being 'squirted" outwards, so to speak.

If a massive bodiy were to be somehow hurled into the universe, as it moved toward the centre of the universe, all of the pre-existing bodies in the universe would move slightly towards it by gravitational attraction. So it therefore follows that as the massive bodies in the central region of the universe draw together by gravitational attraction, that the massive bodies at the 'edges' would correspondingly move outwards.

Is that the "pushing" form of gravity to which you allude?

So the universe is infinite and steady state and the red shift is an illusion, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ... Just kidding. Actually the infinite part and the "no curved spacetime" part are appealing. I don't understand how you make the leap from expansion to steady state even though I do understand your analogy about gravity diminishing over distance and the wavelength increasing as a result; it just doesn't seem to be significant enough to pooh pooh expansion itself. And there are so many good reasons to believe there really is expansion.

You might have said it or at least intimated that the universe has always existed and appealed to logic and BBT flaws. I like that. But there are problems with a steady state theory that requires expansion and red shift to be wrong. And what do you replace GTR and curved spacetime with? What makes gravity work if space isn't warped by mass. I agree with you but I wonder if you have an alternative?

Just a few comments

It is Fritz Zwicky and the wiki link describes his "tired light" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Zwicky

Also, parallax works within closer regions of our galaxy, but for intergalactic measures, Hubble used Cepheid variables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

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

Also, antoniseb’s point about expecting a blue shift when using your model for light “falling” into our galaxy is a critical issue to resolve, if your model is to be valid.

snowflake

That idea is interesting. Thinking about gravitational redshift in terms of H, it would seem its value might be greater near a body, perhaps varying with the square of the distance, I haven't worked it out yet, and then decreasing in such a way to be proportional to the distance at long range. This might also be similar to that of the rotational speed of stars around a galaxy, although that also has a lot to do with the geometry of the galaxy itself. And perhaps also with something like the Pioneer anomaly. All of these seem to be related somewhat in such a way, having a large potential near a body and then eventually leveling off directly proportional to distance.

The thing is, though, when trying to work out what you were describing about two particles travelling away from a body at the same speed with some initial separation, that if we were to emit these particles in the same way as we might photons of light, from a common source at some distance from the center of the body, then the particles would only have the same speed at the source, but not at some separation between them. So the first particle would be emitted directly away from the body at v, and say a second later, the other at the same original speed. During the difference in the time of emission, the first will have slowed somewhat. This will lessen the separation between them, not lengthen. As the particles continue to travel, the second will always have a slightly greater speed than the first, even though the gravity upon it is greater, since the first has already experienced that same gravity earlier, being a step ahead, and has slowed down more accordingly. Therefore, the separation between the two will continually shorten, not lengthen.

It is just the opposite of dropping two particles toward the body from a distance, but with some time between each drop. The first to be dropped will have undergone some acceleration due to the gravity before the second is dropped, and so will always be travelling faster than the second, the separation between them increasing steadily all the way down, and similarly then, decreasing on the way up.

Perhaps some slight variation on that idea might work out, but it looks like one would be walking a fine line in order to do so.

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

To Antoniseb and others regarding blue shift.
The resulting shift of light is what the observer sees. There are two factors that dictate the resulting frequency. They are the separation of the particles and the velocity of the beam of particles. Consider two photons near the earth and inbound. The gravitation here will have more effect on the velocity of the two than upon the separation of the two. Therefore, relative to their condition nearby, the observer will see a blue shift. But if he could look at the pari at their nearby point, it would be red shifted as I discussed. The resulting blue shift is trivial relative to the long distant red shift.
Paull

Response to astrocat
Since my universe is infinite, you cant stand outside of it and describe it.
The universe is the same in all directions, so its shape is probably best viewed as 3 dimensional sphere

response to coldcreation
my description of pushing gravity particles would be part of part 2. In that section, I reject attractive gravity. I dont have the reference immediately handy, but it happens that Newton said to his associate 'what I call attraction may be caused by impulse. Also, 'gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial I cannot answer.
I crtainly dont adhere to any theories of curvature.
I have no reason to believe what you say that gravitational redshift upon photons escaping a gravity well is impossible or insufficient. There is a lot of redshift at a nutron star and who has measured the ongoing component as the photons travel through space?

response to oldalbert.
I cant relate to your question as there is no edge to my infinite universe.

response to bogie
Redshift is no illusion!
My analogy is not gravity itself diminishing, but simply the effects diminishing with distance from the source as is obvious.
I will answer yours and many other questions about how my gravity works in part 2. In the meantime for your information there was a pushing gravity theory going back to LeSage in the 1700s that you might review.

response to snowflakeuniverse
Yes re Fritz Zwicky.
I addressed the blue shift issue in a prior response.

response to grav
Probably the last part of my overall theory discusses my ideas about the speed of stars in galaxial rotation.
You have mentioned the most difficult prespective of my red shift presentation. It is true that the source would seem to impart its slowing to the first photon at each step ahead of the second and shrink the wave length while slowing the pair. In answer, consider the whole transmission with both the source's drag effect and the recipient's pull effect. Regarding the speed of the 2 photone, in total they are slowed by the source and accelerated by the recipient in a measure that evens out at the end. However, at each specific time period there is constantly a greater drag on the second photon and a greater pull on the leading photon due to the recipient. At the final observation the wavelength/red shift has increased.

(my bold)

Some questions:

1) What, in your ATM idea, is the relationship between the observed 'gravitational redshift' and the mass (let it be 'm') and distance (let it be 'd') of the source? Assume a static universe with just the one source mass and a (massless) observer.

2) How does the mass of an object depend upon "the spin of component particles"?

3) To what extent can you show - quantitatively - consistency between your ATM idea, as presented, and results of Pound-Rebka experiments?

4) To what extent can you show - quantitatively - consistency between your ATM idea, as presented, and solar system observations of bending of light (and radio) by the Sun (and Jupiter, and ...)?

5) How - quantitatively - does you idea account for lensed quasars?

6) How would the observed redshift of a distant star change during a micro-lensing event?

In reviewing comments and my posting, I realized i misrepresented my vision about gravitation redshift because I ignored my ideas about the contribution of the observer as mentioned at the end. The comments, especially by Grav alerted me to the errors. I am sorry. The proper perspective is as follows.

Gravitational frequency shift is complicated. The red or blue shift of light is determined by the observer. The frequency is a function of both the separation of the photons (wavelength) and the speed at which the arriving beam is traveling. Light sent down to earth from a nearby source is blue shifted to the observer. Gravitation is causing two things. It is speeding up the beam’s velocity and it is increasing the physical separation between the photons by pulling harder on the first than on the second. The speed increase applied to the beam is a greater factor than is the wavelength increase, so the photons arrive faster in seemingly shorter waves than when they started. The wavelength passage time – frequency - is shorter even though its length is longer.

Next consider two photons departing a source. The beam containing the two photons is continually slowed by the source gravitation. Thus the light is redshifted to an orbiting observer in logically opposite explanation of the blue shift discussed above. Extending the logic no further we have the localized redshift as applied in various theories. Beyond that, I first thought there would be further frequency shift by considering the ongoing gravitation, however small. But the issue is more complicated than that and requires considering the speed and wave length coincidentally with the gravitation of the source and of the recipient. In general the recipient can be considered to be similar to the source whether we and our sun receive light from another star, or we and our galaxy receive light from another galaxy.

Whatever the original separation of the two photons, the source gravitation is always closer to the second photon and slows it more at every time interval that it does to the first photon. However the first photon was gravitationally slowed first before the other existed so it started slower (Grav). Until some point in time the second photon will gain on the first. I don’t think we know when that point occurs. Since the beam velocity reduction exceeds the length change we may never know.

To bypass these issues consider the entire transmission. The frequency shift caused by slowing the beam near the source is exactly offset by accelerating the beam as it approaches the receiver. The second half of the path is a mirror image of the first half in regards to velocity. However, the physical separation is not mirrored. Throughout the transmission the first photon is attracted/pulled more by the receiver than is the second photon. Likewise the second photon is more pulled back by the source than is the first photon. The redshift over the entire transmission ignores velocity changes. Instead it is the wavelength difference of the pulls by each mass at every time interval. The result is most likely consistent throughout the transmission and thus is a linear summation.

A special perspective about redshift may apply to Quasars. The treatment above was explained as transmissions between similar bodies. We, as observers, do not have a nearby Quasar to serve with us as destination. Therefore Quasar redshift is mostly determined at the source. There is no offsetting acceleration of the beam. The result may be a continuous slowing of the beam throughout and a redshift due entirely to the slowing of transmission speed.

I apologize for the delay in responding.

1. What does ATM stand for here? Possibly this question no longer relates to my correction.
2. My gravitation theory proposes that the spin of a mass defines its density. To account for the relative motions of the particles making up the mass, it is their motion that causes there to be density. The more density, the more interference with the penetration of paeps and thus the more gravitation. Note that The spins and motions involved include those of the smallest particles to the spin of the massive body itself.
3. ?
4,5,. My gravity particles produce the same impressions as current theory. The resultant bending should be the same.
6. Good question. Possibly the secondary gravitational effect the slowing that accompanies the lensing, would cause additional slowing of the beam and result in a greater redshift like my explanation of the redshift for quasars
Some questions:

1) What, in your ATM idea, is the relationship between the observed 'gravitational redshift' and the mass (let it be 'm') and distance (let it be 'd') of the source? Assume a static universe with just the one source mass and a (massless) observer.

2) How does the mass of an object depend upon "the spin of component particles"?

3) To what extent can you show - quantitatively - consistency between your ATM idea, as presented, and results of Pound-Rebka experiments?

4) To what extent can you show - quantitatively - consistency between your ATM idea, as presented, and solar system observations of bending of light (and radio) by the Sun (and Jupiter, and ...)?

5) How - quantitatively - does you idea account for lensed quasars?

6) How would the observed redshift of a distant star change during a micro-lensing event?[/quote]