The Uniform Expansion of Space-time

www.uniformexpansion.com (Web link added a month or so after original posting, nothing else changed.)

Traditional models stop the expansion of space at the boundary of galaxies. If galaxies were drops of water on a large expanding membrane, the drops would increase their distance measures between each other, yet would remain the same size. The proposed model allows galaxies and even matter to expand with the expansion of space.

This first posting is on Traditional arguments against a Uniform Expansion of space-time with a brief rebuttal.

A. Arguments against a uniform expansion of space-time

After Sir Edwin Powell Hubbell published the correlation between the increased wavelength observed from the spectra of galaxies with their distance in 1929, it was logical to consider were this expansion stopped. Should galaxies themselves expand? William de Sitter in 1931 addressed this issue with his paper “Do the galaxies expand with the universe?” The conclusion of de Sitter’s paper was that galaxies do not expand and that the gravitational forces within the galaxy is responsible for preventing galaxies from being expanded. This conclusion was the result of what appears to be severe problems if the expansion were allowed to continue beyond the boundary of galaxies. The major problems are listed below, along with a brief rebuttal.


1. If galaxies expand, where should the expansion stop? If galaxies expand, then should solar systems expand? Since even matter itself is mostly space, should matter expand? If the expansion of space includes matter, then everything remains proportionally the same and thus nothing changes. Double the size of two objects and double the distance and double the size of all the rulers then proportionally everything remains the same.

Brief rebuttal to argument number 1.
The answer to the “sameness” problem is that while proportionally things have remained the same size, the effect of gravity has been reduced. If two objects are now twice as far apart, then the effect of gravity between the objects should be reduced by a quarter. If the size of a planet doubles, then the surface gravity is reduced by a quarter. This theory predicts that the effect of gravity should vary with the passage of Cosmic Time. (Cosmic time begins at the moment of creation and demarcates a point’s historical location). Just to temper the initial disbelief about the effect of gravity varying with cosmic time; this belief was shared by Nobel Prize winner Paul A. Dirac but he was not successful in producing viable relationships.

2. If the expansion of space includes celestial objects, then the necessary balance between centrifugal and gravitational forces are no longer maintained. If the earth were slowly moved away from the sun to where it is twice as far away, the centrifugal force would be reduced by a half, but the gravitational force would be reduced by a quarter. Without the necessary gravitational force, planets would no longer be bound to the sun, so solar systems like ours would fly apart. Since solar systems have been stable for billions of years, expansion must be impossible.

Brief rebuttal to argument number 2
The answer to this problem is that while space expands, it draws away energy. As will be shown, the velocity of orbiting systems is reduced with the expansion at exactly the correct rate to maintain the necessary balance between centrifugal and gravitational forces. The loss of energy from all systems is one of the sobering aspects of this theory. This loss of energy is correlated to what is currently called “dark energy”.

3. If the expansion of space were to include matter, then the stability of the atom becomes jeopardized. Electrons that are expanded away from their nucleus would no longer be held to the nucleus and the atom would fly apart. The Atom is such a defined structure that expanding it would seem to be impossible.

Brief rebuttal to argument number 3
The answer to this problem is the same as it was for maintaining celestial stability. Just as the orbiting celestial objects loose velocity with the expansion of space, so too do the electrons. The loss of energy will be shown to be exactly what is necessary to maintain stability while the atom expands.

The loss of stability for celestial orbiting systems and of the atom itself is therefore a resolvable issue. The necessary stability is not only maintained, the uniform expansion of space imposes the structure observed in celestial structures and atoms in the first place.

Next posting, Advantages of a uniform expansion of spacetime.

Snowflake

Space (between galactic groups) expands. Right now (since the 1990's) there is observed to be an expanding, accelerating universe. Forget about what you might have learned before the late 1990's. Observations have shown that the universe is now observed to be accelerating in its expansion (due to standard candles of Type 1a Supernovae). The expansion is mainly occurring inbetween large galactic groups. Sooner or later, inhabitants of the Milky Way will be unable to see the rest of the Universe, other than members of our Local Group of Galaxies. However, not to worry. We will not be around to see that and Andromeda will have merged with or otherwise disrupted the Milky Way (also disrupting Andromeda), the Sun will have by that time evolved to become a White Dwarf Star and everything will be different.

Sweet dreams...

ljbrs

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

Hi ljbrs

Thanks for the posting.
In my "mistakes in astronomy" you will find arguments that describe the universe as expanding but it is decelerating

snowflake

B. Arguments for a Uniform expansion of space-time.

1. The first advantage for the Uniform expansion of space is it’s simplicity. The expansion is the same everywhere. The expansion becomes a unifying structure or background upon which reality is based. Since the expansion is uniform everywhere, every location becomes the center of an expanding universe. There is no “offset” within galaxies, as previously required. Now every atom, from every location in the universe becomes the center of an expanding universe, and each location remains this way from the beginning of time to the end of time.
2. Since it is space that is expanding between galaxies, and since there is space between the stars within galaxies, and since there is even space within the atom, it is at least reasonable to consider a relationship that describes the expansion of space that is uniform at all scales of observation.
3. If the universe is expanding everywhere, and it does so at the quantum scale of observation, then a physical explanation for the nature of quantum relationships becomes realized. As the universe expands, it must do so at an incredibly small “piece” at a time. This quantum-sized bit of reality causes the existing framework of reality to move aside. Since the expansion around each point is probabilistically described, it induces the patterns associated with quantum relationships.
4. This theoretical model for the universe is a unifying theory in that the largest observed phenomena in the universe, which is the universe’s expansion, is directly associated with the smallest observed phenomena, which is described by quantum relationships.
5. Additionally, along the lines of proposing that this theory is a unifying theory, it will be shown that the dimensional structure of space-time is conformant to the probable dimensional structure of matter itself. The dimensional relationships that describe space-time are the same as the probable dimensional structure of matter itself.
6. A theoretical model describing the expansion of space will establish the “Laws of Gravitation” and impose those same dimensional relationships for the Atom.
7. A number of Astrophysical relationships are explained.
a. The early formation of stars and galaxies in the evolution of the universe is due to the increased effect of gravity.
b. The intense energy production from small regions of space associated with quasars can be explained without resorting to “black holes”.
c. It resolves the “age problem” in that some stars seem to be older than the universe.
d. It can rain on Mars even though the present density of the atmosphere is much too thin to support rain clouds and the present surface gravity does not establish a dense enough atmosphere.
e. Advocates of an iron core for our sun will find that this theory will describe a galactic evolution that produces enough Iron in most galaxies that it is a common and plentiful material. In fact Iron cores will be required for most stars in order to maintain celestial stability.
f. An energy source for the Great Red Spot will be provided.


In a few days I should have the bugs out of my web site. (The drawings are giving me a hard time).

This is a geometric theory that is mathmaticly based. I look forward to the feedback.

Snowflake

Hi Snowflake,read your post with much interest,and concurr with much
you say,but not all.Paul Dirac was concerned much with how we
observe time,and by default,how we evaluate such things such as the
expansion of the universe and its age.You mention gravity frequently,
but do not seem to observe or comment on how gravity can effect
the time frame of the observer,and therefore influence the opinion
of the observer.Time is a variable,determined by the gravitational
environment the observer is in.My point Snowflake,is that the idea of
a uniform expansion of spacetime does not include the influence of
gravity,and it's local and none local effect on time.
Am not in contest with you Snowflake,find your post very interesting,
just responding to the points you have raised.
Nokton.

if space xpansion is accelerating/decelerating, then galaxies are doing the same relatively to space. means they need/give energy to accelerate/decelerate.

any evidence of this xchange of energy ??

I'm not so sure this is correct. The expansion is not said to simply "stop" at the boundary of galaxies, but it becomes so small at this scale as to be insignificant and undetectable. Even galaxies in local clusters are not appreciably separating from one another due to cosmic expansion. Out in the hugely vast distances between the galaxy clusters - that's where the cosmic expansion becomes detectable, and it's difficult to appreciate just how hugely vast these distances are.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

That is already solved, isn't it? There aren't any stars thought to be older than the universe anymore.


While I'm posting, could you please spell Hubble correctly? It's not Hubbell. I know that constitutes nitpicking, but you keep repeating it so often and it grates.

No Cable,the expansion rate is relative to gravity.Gravity slows time down
Space is thinner in a low gravity field,so time passes faster,relatively.
This is by,implication,not uniform across the universe.the 'independant'
observer would see the passage of time as universal,but that is the
observers evaluation within the time frame the observer is in.Change
the gravity field the observer is in,and change the perception of the
observer,Galaxies do not expand,gravity holds the whole thing together.
The space between galaxies expands because the matter it contains
is so diffuse as to present no resistance to the expansion.Gravity does.

What's the URL to your website?

Snowflake, have you ever read any astronomical texts? I mean to say that most if not all of the "quandaries" you posit are well-treated by the mainstream. Any decent intro-astronomy text will give you the standard explanations from which you can provide critiques if that pleases you.

First I must apologize for the lack of response on my part. I hope those who have written in the past or have followed previous postings will forgive me.

I have finally posted a web page that contains the essential development of my Uniform Expansion Theory. Those interested may link to www.uniformexpansion.com

I thought that what I should do here is post a few of the responses to questions others have had in response to the proposed relationships.

I also will be posting some applications of the theory. The first will be rather basic, but soon I will be posting the first “good” applications of the theory. I am not sure which I will post first. It will either be to explain the energy output from quasars without resorting to black holes, or will be the significant reduction in the amount of dark matter needed for observed celestial stability.


Basic formulas: "The Ratios of Time"

With a notation standard that "1" represents the younger age of universe, and "2" represents an older age, the following ratios describe proportional relationships that change due to the expansion of space. The size of an object, or the distance between two points in an expanding space field, is D, the velocity between two points is V, the energy of an object is E, and the effect of gravity (the gravitational "constant") is G. (Coulomb's constant, which is associated with the effect of charge, matches the relationship found for the gravitational constant).

Ratios of Time
dS/dT = T (Space changes, therefore time exists)
S = T^2 (The volume of “absolute space” varies to the square of Cosmic time)
D2/D1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3)
V2/ V1 = (T1/T2) ^(1/3)
E2/ E1 = (T1/T2) ^(2/3)
"G2/G1" = (T1/T2) ^(4/3)


1. Why don’t the dimensions in the "Fundamental Formula" dS/dT =T balance?

The formula describes a geometrical relationship between distance and time. Special Relativity also has a similar dimensional imbalance between distance and time. (delta t^2 = delta x^2 + delta y^2 + delta z^2). For relativity, it is the geometrical relationship between distance and time as described by the speed of light that allows the dimensional "imbalance" to become resolved. For this theory, it is the geometrical relationship between distance and time as described by the expansion of space that allows the dimensional "imbalance" to become resolved.

2. Given the above relationships, at what age from now, would an object to double in size, assuming the Universe was 6.5 billion years old? (I know this is not the accepted age, more on this later).

L2/L1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3)
2/1 =(T2 /6.5) ^ (2/3)
2.828 = T2 /6.5
T2 = 18.4 billion years, (or T2 -T1 = 11.9 billion years from now.)

3. In the above example, how fast are the two points moving away from each other?

If we use a meter stick as a measurement of length, then one end of the meter stick moved one meter away in the course of 11.9 billion years. Of course, locally the meter stick will expand with the expansion of space so it is only by the establishment of an “absolute” ruler that the proposed change can be described.

More soon.

Thanks

snowflake

Dear Andreas.

Thanks for the correction on the correct spelling of Hubble, I appreciate your help. It would grate on my nerves a little too. ops:

(My spell check allows Hubbell, probably after the Pitcher Carl Owen, and I just remembered in my mind visually two ll’s with Hubble, probably due to his middle name being Powell. (Hubble, Edwin Powell)

Regarding the issue of the age of stars, I must admit that the amount of discrepancy has become less, depending upon whom you talk to. The leading advocate of the age discrepancy of stars is, or has been, Robert Kirshner. http://www.harvard.edu/hco/astro/peo.../kirshner.htmlof Harvard. Two years ago it was an issue he normally presented to his astronomy classes, I am not sure what he teaches now.

The age of stars within Globular Clusters has been slowly massaged in the last few years into conformance to the age of the universe, with the youngest possible range in the age of stars within these clusters fitting into the oldest possible age of the universe; !4 billion years, give or take a billion years.

One thing to note, if the Hubble constant is constant, the age of the universe is ok, but if the rate of expansion was faster in the past, then the age problem reappears. It is likely that the rate of expansion of the universe was much faster in the past, this is the only way galaxies could avoid being gravitationally drawn back to each other. If this is the case, then the age of the universe is not 1/H but something smaller.

In my theory the rate of expansion is not linear, so the age of the universe is much less, something between 6.5 to 8 billion years.

Does it really make any sense that the rate of expansion is constant? If so, why? If there is an apparent “acceleration” shouldn’t there be a theoretical reason that conforms to the observed rate of expansion?

Thanks

Snowflake

The only thing wrong with this theory are those darned observations that indicate that the expansion rate is faster today than it was in the past.

If the expansion is accelerating, as recent measurements and observations indicate, then there is definitely a reason for it. That doesn't mean we know what that reason is.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Hi Cougar

Thanks for the inquiry. The debate about expanding galaxies was “closed” by W. de Sitter in his 1931 article in the Bulletin of the Astronomical Institute of the Netherlands Volume number 6. Once one allows galaxies to expand, where do you then stop the expansion? Do solar systems expand? Since atoms are mostly space, do atoms also expand? If solar systems expand, then how can they maintain their stability? When the age of the universe was 1/2 of what it is now, the distance between points would be 1/2, if one assumes a constant rate of expansion. if the earth were twice as far from the sun, the centrifugal force would be reduced in half, but the gravitational force would be reduced by a quarter, solar systems would fly apart. Since solar systems and galaxies have been stable structures for billions of years, they “can not expand”. The popular argument is that they are gravitationally bound, so they resist the expansion of space. (Note the proposed theory maintains the necessary stability is maintained by requiring the velocity of objects be reduced by the expansion.)

This is not a closed topic of discussion though. There are a number of articles/theories that allow galaxies to expand, or not expand, mostly in an effort to explain the spiral structure of spiral galaxies. A check of recent published articles will give a more current review on the topic.( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html use galaxies and expand as title search words).


Thanks

Snowflake

Hi Cougar

Again the issue of the rate of expansion pops up. This is one of the mistakes in astronomy that I discussed earlier. It is a mistake that is allowed to continue in popular press, but is horribly misleading. I think I will address this issue in my web site just to clear things up.

The evidence of the change in the rate of expansion from the constant locally observed rate is from very distant high red shift type 1a supernovas. This departure from linear reveals the rate of expansion in the past, not the present.

Again, the main problem is the improper (my opinion admittedly) use of a coordinate system involving time. If one measures events historically, with the beginning of time representing the origin, and all events are described from this type of reference frame, the universe will be found to be decelerating.

Try it your self

take a piece of graph paper with the y axis representing v and the x axis representing time (or distance away based upon the speed of light).

If you plot the velocity of galaxies as a function of time, you will find that you end up with a curve that is becoming less steep. This corresponds to deceleration. (Note most of the published rates of expansion made by the current teams determining the rate of expansion swap the x and y axis due to the accuracy allowed for velocity measures associated with red shifts, and the inaccuracy of the distance measures.)

Yours,

Snowflake

Hi Cable

Yes there is evidence of this loss of energy. As space-time expands, it requires energy to do so. This energy is extracted from our universe. This is what is usually associated with “dark energy”. Recent articles on the distribution of galaxies have proposed a rather significant amount of dark energy. Sloan Digital Sky Survey News Release http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/20...rspectrum.html There is no theoretical explanation for the distribution for this dark energy and dark mater. It is just observed.

If you have time, check out the theory section of my paper and you will see a balloon that is expanded. Usually if you look at most college level explanations for the expansion of the universe, you will see something, putting air into the balloon to blow it up, which is supposed to represent the expansion of the universe. This would cause an increase in the amount of energy in the balloon- universe. If instead the tension of the balloon decreased, the balloon would still expand but the energy contained in the balloon would be diminished. This is somewhat like the loss of energy our universe experiences as the universe expands except instead of a two dimensional surface, it is more like a three dimensional surface.

yours,
snowflake.

Hi Nokton

Thank you for you very diplomatic correspondence.

Paul Dirac published an article which had gravity expressed as a function of time (Hard time finding it in my notes, it was not a very well accepted paper since matter had to be increased in order to maintain celestial balance, He got a lot of flak for that)

If the expansion of space is a uniform consistent property of the universe, meaning that matter itself is part of that expansion, then the density of all things becomes less over time. If the earth were twice its size, with the same amount of matter, the surface gravity would be reduced by a quarter. This is a much different type of time/gravity relationship than what is usually associated with clocks or time running slower when in part of a “denser” (my term) or more highly curved region of space-time.

This proposed loss of density has profound implications regarding the evolution of stars. If in the past the sun were twice as dense, the gravitational force on the sun would be four times as much. Since the rate of energy production from stars is very dependent on pressure, the rate of energy production in the past would have been much greater than we presently assume. Current models of stellar evolution have stars settling in at one location on the Hertzsprung Russell diagram and living rather uneventful lives there for billions of years. The proposed model asserts our sun started of as an incredibly bright blue burning star, and with the decreased effect of gravity, and some loss of fuel, began to cool.

This process will be part of how I explain the energy production found for quasars.

Thankfully yours,
Snowflake

Hi J C Princeton

You are right, as you state “Any decent intro-astronomy text will give you the standard explanations from which you can provide critiques if that pleases you.”

But just because it is written in a book, does not necessarily make it right. The Ptolemaic system was written in lots of books and was accepted for centuries.

All I am proposing is a very simple model that states that the expansion of space-time is uniform and this process adheres to fundamental relationships. I will be challenging a lot of presently held beliefs, and will attempt to prove them at least in terms of adherence to a consistent mathematical model. Hopefully you will become one of my advocates, but if you wish to be a critic, feel free to prove me wrong.

Snowflake.

I am a novice at astrophysics and may need some help understanding. But I will post these questions to make sure I understand what you are saying.

Your iron problem solution indicates that the stars should have iron in their cores. I seem to remember in my astronomy courses that when a star reaches the point that it is fusing iron, it explodes... or something like that. Anyways, if there is iron at the heart of the star, then would it not follow that more energy is required for fusion of the heavier elements? And if the star is expanding like the balloon, then there should be less energy for fusion, not more over time. This appears to me to be a paradox.

Are you suggesting that the process is still hydrogen fusion but occuring in a spherical volume enveloping the iron core? How large is the iron core, and would the star's increasing density actually reduce the size of the star over time. Also, what is the state of iron at the core? Is it liquid or solid, or even gaseous? Would we have iron vapor at millions of degrees, and if so would that still be at the core, or would it diffuse into the upper regions of the star and eventually be expelled into space through cellular upwelling? What effect would this iron have on the sun's magnetic field. Also if ejecting of iron is accepted, has it been imaged in spectra? Even if we stipulate that the meterstick of space is expanding, would not relative relationships maintain themselves in the short term... in otherwords, are we observing iron absorption or emission spectra?

As for the great red spot, I thought I read that it has been observed only for about 300 years, that earlier observations did not detect it, so that is a relatively recent phenomenon. Are you suggesting that it comes and goes, and that it was there and went away then came back after we developed the technology to resolve that level of detail?

I am not familiar with radio galaxies and their manner of imaging. Could you explain that in more detail? I have some familiarity with optics and assume radio photons follow the same rules of propogation as visible light. If a galaxy is far away, it should seem smaller in proportion to the imaged field. The light may be brilliant, but at distance the inverse proportion law kicks in: the larger the distance the less light we see per unit area. While our sun, due to it's proximity creates umbral and penumbral shadows due to it's visible disc area, a distant star is imaged as a point source. We should not expect distant galaxies to send us collimated light for imaging. right?

If we stipulate that the meterstick of space is expanding (more than just doppler), then would that just reduce the available light? While the expansion would space out the rays of light, the angle is what determines the image size. We can only see what enters our aperture at a selected angle of view. If in a static spacetime the angle results in photons being x distance apart, and in an expanded spacetime it is, say, x*2, it won't affect the apparent size of the object because our aperture increased in a linear manner. However, the expansion of the ray's trace is propogated over time and is continuously compounded and would be depicted as a curved line. Thus it would not fall within our view and not be imaged.

About galactic redshifts. If the universe is expanding from a point source at the big bang, then the movement out from that center means everything will have a different angle of dispersal. That small velocity difference would, I think, account for at least some of the red shift by simple doppler effect. We would not see a redshift in the Milky Way because we are all moving together. That's why I don't detect a doppler shift from the radio in the car. Indeed, if the universe were expanding uniformly and within galaxies then we might expect to see a local doppler effect.

The Doppler Effect is the elongation of waveforms due to recession or compression of the signal source. However, if the universe were expanding outside of the galaxy, then the red shift could be caused by the stretching of the signal wavelengths after origination. A uniform expansion should show this within our galaxy and even between the sun and earth. However, the sun still seems yellow-white.

Another thing that seems odd to me. If I understand correctly, everything expands equally in your uniform expansion hypothesis. Would this not appear to have the same effect one sees by softening focus in a camera. Everything becomes diffuse and blends together. If everything expands apace at the same geometric rate, then would not, say, our sun's volume in time equal that of the universe? Would this result in a quantum mush and, maybe, start the big bang all over again?

It seems like everything would expand and we would not notice the difference with the exception of gravity. Have we finally decided what causes gravity and how it relates to or creates spacetime? My understanding is that gravity has infinite reach and is assymptotic. Do we know that gravity will remain constant? If it is directly related to mass, then will it also expand it's reach and force to compensate? Have we also tied it all up with the Strong and Weak and electromagnetic forces? If these nuclear forces lose their force, then would fission and fusion emit less energy? If electromagnetic repulsion is lessened, then would atomic nuclei coallesce to form super dense matter conglomerations? That would seem to counter expansion.

I just seems inuitive that light propagating as a wave through a medium is therefore affected by alterations of that medium, yet matter does not propagate, it transits space and therefore experiences time. If both matter and light are affected by a scalar expansion then how would we even detect the redshift? The yardstick we use to measure the wavelength also expands by the same factor! The fact that we are observing an expansion seems to indicate that we are, therefore, not undergoing it.

Moreover, if gravity is a function of matter, then it stands to reason that the two must remain constant, or at least be directly related. If matter becomes energy via Einstein, where does the gravity it created go? Indeed, if all matter in the universe suddenly transitioned to energy, would there be any gravity? And if not, then how would energy propagate, and through what medium? And if there is no spacetime to travel through then what is its speed, and if the speed is not c then it should be matter instead of energy. We don't know what speed c would be because there is no more distance and no more time. It just seems that E=mc^2 becomes meaningless and E becomes an imaginary number.

The hypothesis may seem to explain current observations, but my attempts to extrapolate the future and past don't seem to jive. Indeed, it seems counter-intuitive. The end seems to resemble the beginning and vice-versa.

But I'm not an expert, I just wonder about these things...

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Hi Snowflake,
Thanx for your reply,without guile or arrogance,much
appreciate.Am somewhat in contention with your evaluation of what
amounts to perception in our understanding of expansion,you mentioned
the balloon idea,don't accept that for a minute,feel you don't either.
Searches for 'dark matter' have come up zilch after 30 years.
My reasoning is,we have to look at things in a different way.Spent almost
a year,trying to get respected astronomers to visualise the light we see
from a pulsar is not a 'searchlight beam' traversing the heavens,but is
a spiral to the independent observer.
On the subject of expansion,expanding into what?Comes to mind,
if the 'what' is an attractor,and we have no knowledge of it,how can we
be so certain our description of expansion is correct.I know we can only
relate to science as we grasp it,and formulate our theories relating to our
current understanding of science.
Much enjoy your posts Snowflake,reasoned,erudite,persuasive.
Look forward to more.
Nokton

Hi Jypax 2003

Thank you for the detailed response to my posting. You listed a number of points to discuss. Briefly the issues were:
1. The iron core within our sun conflicts with standard models in which iron is only produced within stars when they are near the end of their lives.
2. The Great Red Spot, when observed and the relation to energy.
3. The image size of radio galaxies.
4. The relationship to the expansion of the “meter stick” and the observation of light
5. Your interesting idea that the angle of dispersion could result in observed Doppler shifts, thereby accounting for galactic red shifts.
6. The issue of expansion and its effect on the increased wavelength of ligh, inside and outside a galaxy.
7. The ultimate result of continuous expansion, and quantum mush
8. What causes gravity?
9. Implications of the theory on an atomic scale
10. The observation that not only is a proportional or uniform expansion “impossible” do measure with a local ruler, but it also seems to result in unmeasurable energy changes.
11. Problems encountered when looking at the beginning, and the end of time. (Energy issues and matter issues)

First I would like to respond to number 5 since it is an idea you have. It is an interesting idea, I had never heard of this angular dispersion as a possible explanation of the Doppler shift within galaxies. Your idea may be ok, especially since the transition between the inflationary phase and the standard expansion phase is not that clear in terms of whether or not the “seeds” for galaxy formation may actually be started in the inflationary phase, (despite the high temperatures which would tend to disperse structure).

To tell the truth, I am not a fan of inflationary theory. I have trouble imagining everything starting at a “point” then rushing out ward. I favor a multidimensional collapse of a super “egg”, as the formation of the universe. It is a bit like the collapse of a black hole, except when the mass in the “black hole” reaches the “quantum limit”, the structure of one reality is pressed into another reality. The emergence of space time into a new reality marks the beginning of a new universe. Since the structure of space time was compressed when it entered the new universe, it becomes free to expand. This topic is a bit off of the original theory of a uniform expansion, heaping theories on top of theories is a bit distracting, unless they tie together well. Sorry about that.
I still like your idea about angular dispersion and Doppler shift but I am not sure how well the numbers will work out.

Back to my theory. I will try to respond to each of your points, but it will take awhile. I think the next posting will be about the energy source for the Great Red Spot since it also lays a good background for the energy production of quasars without resorting to “black holes”

(P.S. I really dislike using the term “black hole”. Matter falling to the accretion disk releases energy, making the area around the “black hole” bright. Also if the “black hole were big enough for someone to pass by the event horizon with out being stretched out to a thread, the inside of the “black hole” would be incredibly bright. So Black holes are not Black. Also they are not holes, they are incredibly massive. )

snowflake

Hi Nokton

Thank you for the encouragement. Guess you know what it is like to be in my shoes. If you have had a chance to create a web page describing your ‘spiral’ description associated with pulsars I’d like to check it out.

My quick answer as to where we are expanding is “into the unknown”. But this is an answer of little value without some adherence to a consistent model.

If every galaxy in the universe is observed to be moving, or carried by the expansion of space, then every galaxy has momentum, except our own. Does this make sense? Why should our galaxy be any different than any other galaxy?

If the expansion of the galaxies has now stopped, then this would allow us to be “stationary”. The indicated motion of galaxies would simply be a measure of the velocity in the past. But there are a few problems with this model. First there is still the problem of describing our velocity before we “slowed” down to where we are now, so the same problem is back. Also it is extremely unlikely we are observing the expansion at just at the right time in a multibillion-year-old universe.

To resolve this issue I propose that our universe is moving (expanding) in an unobserved dimension. If you look at my web site you will see a drawing of a Flatland Universe moving in an unobserved dimension.
Every “galaxy” in the Flatland universe would have the same speed or momentum. If the Flatland universe slowed down, galaxies observed in the past (since they are far away) would have a greater Doppler shift than those observed locally. This model depends on Light being apart of our observed reality, and the unobserved dimension.

snowflake

I anticipate your responses to my questions. I am just an amateur and hobbyist in this field, and I am not a mathematician. I work from thought experiments and concepts. I try to bring synergy where I can. I do, myself, have a proto-hypothesis about universal origins. I would be willing to share it with you if you are interested. However, I do not have a website at present. It's not a fully formed hypothesis, just a working idea.

I agree with your disfavor for the unfortunate nomenclature of "black holes." Can you suggest an alternative? GFA for gravity-field-anomaly? I know some suggest that GFAs are composed of "quantum foam" because the gravity is too powerful to maintain even subatomic material structure. However, if gravity is linked to matter, as I suggest, then it can't be singularity of Heisenbergian Uncertainty. Although we can not observe the interior of a GFA, we can observe its effects. Since we are observing gravity via imaging of accretian disks (assume this is what is being seen), then we are observing the effects of gravity, directly relating to matter. This would seem to indicate that a high density of matter exists within the GFA, but would counter the proposition that it was in a state of quantum uncertainty. Of course, it may eventually be demonstrated that a GFA contains both within its internal structure. A core of quantum foam or mush and a hollow sphere of dense matter surrounding it but existing within the event horizon.

I suppose this is off topic somewhat, and maybe I should check the blackhole thread, but it is pursuant to this discussion, and I have not read, nor do I want to read, the entirety of the BH thread prior to posting there.

My proto hypothesis has another possible suggested structure for GFAs. I'll follow up on it if you want.

The angular dispersion idea is just that, an idea of mine. I don't recall if I heard it somewhere else first or not. Now the doppler effect it should produce may not be sufficient to explain the observed redshifts. I am just guessing, and I admit I may be wrong, but the observation should account for some of the effect.

I think we might draw a distinction in redshift causes. I have suggested that there are two possible causes, and that these causes are not exclusionary, in fact they should compound. First is the Doppler Effect (DE) caused by compression and (in this case) recession. Second is the Intra-Medium Wavelength Expansion (IMWE). (Or should we call it the Lambda Delta?) Of course this assumes that wavelengths expand with the medium of propogation. If wavelength does not increase, then we should observe a net increase in frequency (inversely proportional to the expanding yardstick).

I've revisited my idea about the curved trace of light paths. Per your hypothesis, light propogation through expanding spacetime might seem to curve the path in all directions, creating a bugle-cone. Would this somehow diffuse the light, would it increase the amplitude? What should be the observed effects?

Back to the balloon. If we think of the balloon expanding and a galaxy drawn on that balloon would seem to expand. Thus the galaxies should experience internal expansion, you say. If a fly lands on the balloon as you blow it up, would the fly also expand? The fly's stance might expand, but not the fly itself. Perhaps we should visualize a bacterium. But the result should be the same. If we look at the molecular structure of the balloon, we might see that while chemical bonds may be stressed in varying degrees, the atomic nuclei stay the same size. It is the electrochemical bonds that reorganize.

Now, if we stipulate that expansion does exist within galaxies (I am not oppsed to it), could it simply mean that the material simply adjusts to it, without inflating itself at the subatomic level? Like the drawing of a galaxy on the balloon, the medium expands and the galactic image expands, but closer inspection reveals that the individual atoms/molecules of ink did not expand, they merely separated.

Perhaps this is happening on an intra-galactic and intra-solar-system level. It may even happen within our own earth. If spacetime expands, but we continually readjust, we might be able to detect it as a cyclical event. If it is a low-order electrochemical adjustment, it might be observable in dense materials, where it would be magnified. Perhaps this could account for observations made with Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) equipment within the earth's environment. Perhaps I should contact www.elfrad.com and post this as a possible soultion to their enigmas.

Well, I'll leave it here for now.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Hi Snowflake,
Hope life is good to you,and you well and happy.
The first law in this forum is challenging accepted wisdom,that
is why I contribute.There are are those who believe what they are
told,and those who question what they are told,I am of the latter.
And I think this is what this site,and it's host,is all about.
In the spirit of friendly reply,cannot understand your difficulty with
the concept of the configuration of the light from a pulsar,that is,from
the point of view of the independant observer.Lightspeed is fixed,
a beam of light traversing the universe????.
Take your point about expanding into what,so many things we have
not the knowledge or imagination to conceive of,yet.But that does not
excuse those who do their best to tell us,we are the students,and their
knowledge is not to be challenged.If I may,share many of your thoughts
Snowflake,enjoy discourse with you.
Nokton