My (Discovered) Uniform Expansion Model – Applied

[snowflakeuniverse]

My (Discovered) Uniform Expansion Model – Applied

This is a continuation of a posting began in June 26 2005. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18805)
The primary goal of this renewed thread is to show how this model makes predictions or mathematically describes nature. If the reader has not already seen this original post, it is recommended to look over the text but it is not necessary as most of the ideas are summarized here.

Since so much time has passed, and because the newly merged Forum mixes together a whole new cast of characters, a brief explanation of my model is in order. Once that is done I will respond to Nereid, who placed the last posting on the above thread. (Nereid’s questions involved the application of the theory). (A am sorry for the delay in response, but I work 7 days a week during the summer, presently I have 2 or 3 days a week in which I can respond to postings).

Review
Key Premises of Uniform Expansion Model

1. It is proposed that the expansion of Spacetime is uniform, meaning that matter itself expands with the expansion of spacetime.
2. Spacetime itself is in motion due to expansion along an “unobserved” dimension. (Just as a Flatland universe can be visualized moving in an unobserved “vertical” dimension, our spacetime is similarly in motion due to expansion along an unobserved dimension.
3. This expansion conforms to a specific geometric relationship. (Briefly, an enclosed arbitrary volume of space, (including the “objects” contained in that bounded volume), will increase to the square of the “absolute” time elapsed. Double the age of the universe and the “absolute” volume increases 4 times, apparently very simple geometry).
4. There are “absolute” and “relative” measures of reality. All Relative measures of distance and time are maintained in the proposed uniformly expanding spacetime field but from an “absolute” or “eye of God” perspective outside the expansion, it is possible to describe how spacetime is expanding. The reader can visualize such an “Eye of God” perspective by imagining an 18-inch pizza next to an 18-inch ruler. Over time, the Pizza and the ruler are proposed to expand, maintaining their relative measures. From the readers perspective it is possible to visualize how the Pizza and Ruler expanded.

The basic formulas
The following formulas describe the properties of a point in “Absolute” space. These are essentially “field equations” that describe the physical behavior of objects from the “Eye of God” perspective. At the sake of being too repetitive, all relative or local measures will proportionally remain the same.
Notation
D = Distance measure between points in an expanding spacetime field,
V = Velocity of a point on an object,
A = Acceleration of a point on an object,
E = Energy.
Capitol letters indicate “absolute measures”, 1 and 2 are earlier and later measures respectively.

The Ratios of Time
D1/D2 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
E2/E1 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)

The derivation and a discussion of these formulas are included in the posting of June 6.

Fundamental predictions of the Model

1. Gravity diminishes at a predictable rate with the passage of time. If an object is uniformly expanded, as well as all the surrounding rulers, distance measures remain proportionally the same. This observation has usually been argued to “prove” that such an expansion is trivial. However, density is diminishing with the passage of time, which means the effect of gravity is diminishing.

Example, .
If the mass of the Earth were confined to a region of space in which the radius of the Earth was 1/2 of what it is today, the effect of gravity on the surface of the Earth would increase 4 times. This model asserts that the effect of gravity was more powerful in the past and is diminishing over time. Similar effects are predicted for the electromagnetic forces within an atom.
2. The inverse square law is predicted as a property of spacetime. Newton’s Gravitational “Law”, which is observationally determined, is predicted as a property of spacetime.
3. The Principles of Conservation of Energy and Momentum are geometrically predicted. These important principles have been observationally determined, the Uniform Expansion model predicts these principles as a result of geometry.
4. No dark matter, no super massive black holes and no dark energy. The application of the gravitational relationships proposed on a cosmological scale eliminates the necessity for some of the wildest ideas currently in vogue in cosmology today.
5. Resolves problems with the Big Bang Model. Briefly, a few of the inconsistencies this model can resolve are:
a. The energy variation from the output from quasars shows little evidence of correlating to red shift. This was an issue that the famous physicist Steven Hawkins felt threatened the present understanding of the Bag Bang Model. This was discussed in this forum at this thread. http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=11559&highlight=energy+variation+quasars
b. The observed angular size of radio galaxies does not conform to theoretical predictions of the expansion rates predicted by the Big Bang Model.
c. The age problem in which some stars in globular clusters appear to be older than the universe.
d. The discovery of galaxies with high red shifts leaves little time for these galaxies to form, given the assumed experiential age of the universe. This is compounded by the observation of heavy elements or “metals” which require stars to have lived an entire lifetime before the presently observed stars existed. The metalicity issue is also true for high red shifted quasars.
The Dimensions of Spacetime

Dimensions are defined by change. If you can describe how something changes, that description is using a dimensional measure. Admittedly this is an unconventional definition for a dimension but it is consistent with the proposed model. Fundamental dimensions are unique, and this model proposes additional fundamental dimensional measures beyond the conventional three spatial and 1 temporal dimension.

Two of the additional dimensions are Absolute distance and absolute time, which will be the primary focus in this section. However, the very general definition for dimension used here results in more dimensional measures. For example, the dimensional distance measure used to express gravitational relationships is different from the dimensional distance measure used to describe distance relationships for electromagnetic relationships in the atom. These two dimensional measures can be directly transformed one to the other by a scale factor combined with a positive or negative sense. The necessity for indicating a positive or negative value for electromagnetic relationships helps in justifying the concept that electromagnetic relationships are correlated to an additional dimensional volume of spacetime. But I digress.

1. Absolute distance. This model requires the establishment of an “absolute” ruler to describe the expansion of the “relative” rulers. All “relative” or local measures of distance maintain their proportional measure. It is from the “absolute” measure of distance that the expansion of relative measures of distance can be described.

Example.
An object is 1000 meters across today, how much smaller was the object when the universe was 1/2 the present age of the universe?
The formula that describes how Absolute distance measures change over time is
D1/D2 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
D1 and D2 are “earlier” and “later” absolute distance measures, respectively.
T1 and T2 are Absolute measures of time that describe a point’s historical location. The beginning of time is the “zero” point in time and all points after that have a “unique” moment in history.
D1/D2 == (T1/T2)^(2/3) = (1/2)^(2/3) = (1/2)^(2/3) = .63
If the object is 1,000 meters in diameter now, it was 630 ‘absolute’ meters in diameter in the past.

Note that the “present” size was used to describe the relative change in size. This “present” size is “fixed” in order to describe the change in distance measures in the past. This allows the creation of a “temporary” “absolute” ruler to describe how relative rulers change over time.


Continued.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Absolute and Relative measures of Time

2. There are “absolute” and “relative” measures of time. For example, if a pendulum is “expanded”, its length increases and therefore the period of the clock increases. One of the amazing results of this model is that all measures of relative or “local” time all correspondingly keep their same relative measures. All physical processes, orbital periods, angular momentum, chemical reactions, the speed of light, biological process, etc., all slow at the same proportional rate maintaining the same relative or local measure of time. “Clock rates” would be faster in the past than the present. The preserving of relative measures of time for all physical processes is responsible for the prediction of the Conservation of energy and momentum principles.

Example – Predicting relative measures of time from Absolute field relationships

Given
1. a light clock to describe an interval of time, (which is simply a pulse of photons traveling back and forth in a tube with two mirrors on the end),
2. a pendulum describing a specific interval of time,
3. the revolving of the Earth describing an interval of time,
4. and the orbiting of the Earth around the sun describing an interval of time,
show that these measures of intervals of time keep their relative measures in an expanding spacetime field using absolute measures. Specifically compare present intervals of time to when the universe was 1/2 it’s present age.

This problem requires that the changes observed from an “absolute” or “eye of God” perspective outside the expansion of spacetime maintain their proportional relationship. It is a “test” of the validity of the Ratio of Times formulas. From this “eye of God” perspective, all “clocks” should run faster the same proportional amount in the past. This preserves our local or relative measure of time. It also will help prove that our experiential measure of time passing was faster in the past than it is today.

First, the light clock

According to the Ratio of Times formulas a photon traveling down a light clock took less time to do so in the past. This is for two reasons. In the past the light clock was smaller, and the speed of light was faster in the past.

The time it takes to describe in interval of time in a light clock is the velocity of light, times the distance traveled. Delta T = D/ V.
Given the Ratio of Times relationship for how velocity and distance change for “free” objects in an
expanding space time field…
D1/D2 == (T1/T2)^(2/3)
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)

The Delta T interval of time = D1/D2 / (V1/V2) = (T1/T2)^(2/3) x (T1/T2)^(1/3) = T1/T2

So according to the proposed relationship, when the universe was 1/2 of it’s present age, it took half as much time for the light to describe an interval of time, compared to our present measures of time. Will all relative measures of time conform to this same relationship?

The spinning Earth
According to the Ratio of Time field formulas, the Earth spun faster in the past, and the radius was smaller in the past. Delta T = D/V
This has the same form of the equations as the light clock, so the result is the same. When the universe was 1/2 its present age, the Earth spun twice as fast as it does today.

The 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 which corresponds numerically to a change in g, the gravitational constant. According to the ratio of time field formulas the length of the pendulum was smaller and the accelerative field was greater. (The accelerative field will be directly used using the equation for acceleration, the same increase in the accelerative fielding the past could also be determined by considering a denser earth with less centroidal distance between the centers of mass of the earth and the pendulum)

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

The Delta T interval of time for pendulum = (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

This time the result is a bit more surprising since the basic formulas seem too different to have the same result. When the universe was 1/2 it’s present age a pendulum swung twice as fast.

The orbiting Earth
The Orbital distance traveled is proportional to D, and the Velocity of the planet is V. The orbital time is proportional to D/V.

D1/D2 = (T1/T2)^(2/3)
V2/V1 = (T1/T2)^(1/3)
T∆2=D2/V2, T∆1 =D1/V1
T∆1/T∆2 = (T1/T2)^(2/3) /(T2/T1)^(1/3) = T1/T2
Again the same proportional change. When the universe was 1/2 it’s present age it took half as long to complete a year, compared to today’s measure of a year. Note that proportionally all measures of time have also kept their proportional relationship.

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.

Time summary.
In absolute measures, time is slowing down but all relative or local measures of time keep their proportional relationship. When the Universe was 1/2 it’s present age, everything evolved twice as fast compared to today’s measure of elapsed time.

Unified Field Theory

1. If the expansion of spacetime occurs a very small “piece” at a time, there would be a “disturbance” observed as each “piece” of spacetime integrates itself upon the existing “fabric of reality”. This disturbance would be probabilistic in nature and would introduce an uncertainty in the precise measurement of the location of a point. Expansion is thus responsible for the effects observed in Quantum Physics.
2. Since the Expansion produces the inverse square laws as a property of spacetime, and it produces the effects associated with Quantum physics, the proposed model is a unifying theory.

Application or Predictions of the Model

The development of the predictions of this model will be the primary focus of this thread. The strongest evidence supporting the proposed relationships is on the cosmological scale of observation. Objects observed in the past are not “local” so evidence of the increased “clock speed” and the increased effect of gravity should be observed. Increasing the effect of gravity dramatically increases the energy output from stars, so there should be evidence of this increased energy output and there should be evidence of stars evolving faster. A few of the examples are:

1. The energy production from quasars is not from matter falling into a “black hole” but standard stellar physics that is “accelerated”.

2. Since the effect of gravity is dependent upon temporal relationships, new explanations for the velocity profile observed in the rotational rates of galaxies is possible without resorting to “Dark Matter”.

3. High red shifted type 1a supernovas appear dimmer than expected, resulting in the assumption that they are further away than expected which results in the assertion that the universe is “accelerating”. This requires a new form of energy to move galaxies faster. However if the effect of gravity were greater in the past, it would take less mass to reach degeneracy pressure. Less mass would mean the explosions would be smaller, and therefore dimmer. There is some evidence of high red shift 1a supernovas taking less time to occur but the error bars are so large that a definitive answer is not yet possible.

4. A proportional expansion of space-time preserves the proportional distance between galaxies. Instead of all matter entering the universe from a “singularity” , matter streams in to the universe from the cores of galaxies. The cores of galaxies are actually quite young, with the remains of previously exploded stars surrounding the cores. Since this region of spacetime is predicted by the model to be quite young, the effect of gravity would be much greater. Stars would form and since the effect of gravity is greater, their size would be smaller. Without knowing this one would have to assume that there must be additional mass somewhere within the rotating masses maintaining celestial stability. The size of this unseen mass would be tremendous resulting in the assumption that the cores of galaxies contain massive black holes.

These are but a few topics to be addressed. It is of some importance to note that the “new” explanations resolving the Dark Matter issue, dark energy issue, stellar evolution, etc. are predicted to be observed. The current mainstream model is not predictive in character. For example the Mainstream logic is, objects appear to be moving too fast for celestial stability, therefore there must be unseen mass, this unseen mass was not predicted in the mainstream model but in the proposed uniform expansion model, such effects are predicted and expected to be observed.


Cont

[snowflakeuniverse]

Interesting Philosophical properties of the model

1. The schism between science and religion began when the Copernican model dared to remove the Earth from the perceived “hallowed” center of the universe. The proposed model makes all locations the center of an expanding universe. (Note the mainstream model has each galaxy as the center of an expanding universe, and therefore introduces an offset from the center of the expanding universe, depending upon how far one is from the center of the galaxy. The proposed model has every atom the perceived center of the expanding universe.) If one wishes to maintain the sanctity of centeredness, this model allows such beliefs to be a property of the Universe.

2. The introduction of an additional “historical” dimension of time allows everyone to exist in a unique moment in history. No one can occupy the same moment in time in the same place. Your location where you are now, reading this in front of your computer, is a unique moment in history.

3. The two dimensions of time impart an interesting physical description of our Universe. Based upon absolute measures of time, the Universe has a beginning and it will have an end. Relative time is what we as living beings experience. Since relative measures of time passed more quickly in the past, and is continuously slowing down based on a comparison to Absolute time, it means that in experiential time, which represents the cumulative effect of relative time, the universe is nearly infinitely aged and will never end. Thus both the Big Bang model and the Steady State model are correct !

4. For me personally this model is evidence of a Creator. All things are centrally located in an expanding universe. While some may argue that such order may be by “accident” it is impossible for me to imagine such structure to be the result of chance. This is an order that exits from the beginning of time to the end of time, for all time.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

John M. Kulick AKA snowflake

[cfgauss]

Talking to yourself is a sign of madness.

[Mosheh Thezion]

I like it... i don't believe in an expansion.. but i like it.
especially the 3/4 1/2 1/4 stuff.. remind you of anything?
and the discussions of dimensions.. loved it.

my only questions are.. how again does it unify and solve for all the mysteries of cosmology?
and what new avenues for research and technology does it offer to me as a mad scientist?
And does any of that suggest a means of testing for? effecting? or manipulating space or time in anyway?

-MT

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Cfgauss

You said,
“Talking to yourself is a sign of madness! “


Thank you for helping me keep my sanity.

I am not sure why you made your post.

If your comment is made because my posting is in three sections, giving the impression that others are responding to a posting while instead it is just one, then I should state that the only reason for that is because the size of a single posting is limited to 10,000 characters Had to break up the post into 3 parts.

If your comment is made because no one responded to the posting in 2 days, giving the impression that I was just talking to myself, the “sign” of a crazy person, then you are attempting to be perceptive.

I think the main reason for the lack of response it that it is a long posting, and despite my efforts to make the posting easy to scan by topic, it was a bit much to read in a forum usually composed of “snippets”.

Since you are new to my work, could you please check the link above? You will find that there are some people interested and actually supportive of my ideas.

Snowflake.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Mosheh Thezion
Thank you for looking over my work.

To your credit, you found ideas you liked even though one of the basic fundamental premises of the model does not conform to your theoretical ideology. I am impressed.

You state that . .”. i don't believe in an expansion.. “
I would like to point out that the Uniform Expansion proposed results in no locally observed expansion. Everything locally remains proportionally the same. Double the size of an object and double the size of the ruler and everything remains the same. Even the proportional distance between galaxies remains the same. Perhaps this aspect of the model you can like. (Alternative explanation for the red shift is predicted in my model).

You stated that you like the 2/3 stuff . and asked . .”.. remind you of anything? “

I presume that your work has such fractions?

The D^3 = k T^2 relationship, describing how spacetime expands, (double the value of T, and the Volume increase 4 times), is the same dimensional relationship expressed in Kepler’s Law. The proposed geometric model produces Kepler’s observed relationships and produces Newton’s “Law of Gravity”.


Since this model produces Kepler’s and Newton’s “Laws”, the proposed theory represents the greatest advance in theoretical physics in over 100 years.

You asked
. .”.. how again does it unify and solve for all the mysteries of cosmology? “
I do not think the proposed model solves “all” the mysteries of cosmology, I do feel that it is a fundamental advancement in the field of theoretical physics. Where the best justification of the model will be found is in the resolution of some of the lingering problems associated with the Big Bang, and a simple explanation that eliminates the need for Dark Matter, and Dark Energy.

You asked,
. .”.. what new avenues for research and technology does it offer to me as a mad scientist? “
Can’t answer that one.

You asked,
. .”.. does any of that suggest a means of testing for? effecting? or manipulating space or time in anyway? “

There are observations that can be done to check out various predictions of the model, but I do not have the access or expertise to statistically analyze astronomical data to do much of this work. Fortunately the field is active with astronomers doing the investigative work and as time goes on, more and more evidence supporting my model is found. And regarding manipulating space-time in any way, I am not sure. I initially though that it proves that things like worm holes, and time machines can not be made, but I have learned to never say never.

Snowflake

[Mosheh Thezion]

Thankyou.. those were clear answers..

Now. let me ask you.. if space was moving 4 dimensionally..
would that not be the same as if all of space was moving in two directions... as in along two axis's of rotation.. each at atleast 90 degrees to the other.
in this way.. assuming space could move in 4 D, each spot in space would be experiencing a rate of spatial motion, around them, which to us as observers would apear to be expansive...
i.e.. balloon expansion.. 4D motion.. is the same as the result we get if we could spin a space along two axis's.. two ways.

this then can lead to and explain for the 4d motion, the red shift, the time shift with velocity, and Time generally.. and all of it can be done without the need for space to actually be expanding.. just that its trying to.
or moving as if to do so.. but i propose it cannot and is simply left to spin.

-MT
also.. how did you change the color of your text... this new board is not as easy...

[snowflakeuniverse]

Motion along a 4th unobserved dimension. An explanation for Inertia and E = mcc.

Hi MT

You asked
.”.. if space was moving 4 dimensionally would that not be the same as if all of space was moving in two directions... as in along two axis's of rotation.. each at atleast 90 degrees to the other. “

It is part of my model that our three dimensional space is in motion along an “unobserved” dimension, hence a kind of 4 dimensional space. It would be different from motion along “two axis's of rotation”, if I am visualizing your statement properly.

If we imagine a Flatland universe moving along an unobserved dimension, the “residents” of flatland would have no possible way to directly visualize the motion along the “unobserved” dimension. But just because they cannot directly observe the motion does not meant it would be impossible for residents of Flatland to have information or clues that such a motion is occurring.

The motion along the “unobserved dimension” would impart “universal” or scalar properties. Everyone in Flatland would experience the same effects of moving along the unobserved dimension, assuming the motion is “perpendicular” to flatland. (Your example of motion along “two axis’s of rotation” results in a vector property not a scalar property, again, if I am visualizing your statement properly.)

This motion along the unobserved dimension would mean that an object at “rest” in flatland is actually in motion. Hence it would have “inherent momentum”. If someone wanted to move an object in Flatland, the momentum of the object would be changing, any object that is experience a change in momentum, experiences a “force”, or in this case, it would take a “force” to move the object. This resistance to motion would be described by the residents of Flatland as “inertia”.

The same effect is happening in our three dimensional space. The motion along the unobserved dimension is responsible for the property of inertia.

Similarly motion along an “unobserved dimension” would result in “intrinsic energy”. This is the same “intrinsic energy” Einstein described of a mass “at rest”. The formula for Kinetic Energy is K.E. = 1/2 m v ^2. If the motion along the unobserved dimension is the square root of two times the speed of light, Vunobserved = c sqrt2 then K.E =1/2 m v ^2. =1/2 m ( c sqrt2) ^2 = mcc = E. (The assumption of the speed along the unobserved dimension as square root of two times speed of light is called the “unifying conjecture”.

Got to be one of the simplest derivations of E = mcc ever.

Snowflake.

[Mosheh Thezion]

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4338/4ddddy9wz.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4ddddy9wz.jpg)
this is what i mean... if that help visulaise it..


now, if i read you post correctly, somehow matter, is at all times connected to the space it is in.. then?? connected firmly?

is that right?

that is opposite to my proposal, where space is perfectly thin.. so thin. it passes right threw everything.. as everything is nothing more than enerigized stressed space.

I cannot help but notice that alot of what you say could be, with slight ajustments made to sound like an argument for a dimensional rise.. but im sure you dont see it that way.
-MT

[snowflakeuniverse]

Matter would be "connected" to motion in the 4th dimension "directly" as it produces the effect called "inertia" and Einstein's "intrinsic energy" of a rest mass.

Snowflake

I looked at your drawing, and as best as I can tell it would produce a vector component. (By vector I mean there would be an velocity bias along some axis, If you pushed a ball in one direction. the velocity would be greater than as if you pushed in in another, as a general charactoristic of spacetime, outside of other basic forces of nature. I would suggest to put some numbers and sample problems to the posting to give credance to the drawings.

[Mosheh Thezion]

Of course the explination i give for the 4th is questionable, as indeed adding a vector of force to all three first dimensions, suggest 4D must have atleast 3 axis of motion...
but i havent ever bothered to discuss it, since its hard to get that far..
And if we propose 4 axis of rotation, then things get real confussing.

answer the question:

is matter then firmly connected to space? and its 4D motion?

and if so.. could we not then use matter in some way to forcibly effect space?

-MT

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi MT
I will respond to your question on the thread discussing your work.

Snowflake.