john hunter

Thanks Michel, In the same journal, this also appears, which has some good arguments against the Big Bang model. http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html John H.

An article on this has now been published in the peer reviewed 'Journal of Cosmology' http://journalofcosmology.com/HunterCosmology.pdf John H.

Ajb, Whether it's a new model or a new interpretation of the usual model, the good thing about it is that it predicts an apparent omega(matter) of 0.25 and gives a good match to the supernovae data without dark energy...(as in original post). So it'll be submitted to a scientific journal. Fingers crossed! John H.

Dear Ajb, The metric suggested was the one you wrote on post 18, whether this is the same as the conformal time version, is not so clear...but it's good to know it probably satisfies the cosmological principle. The interpretation of the new metric is quite relevant.... The a(t) would effect all physical quantities and constants with length dimensions n, so that Q(t) = Q*a(t)^n, this would leave a metric which is apparently static, and the interpretation is that gravity doesn't change the scale factor (or rate of change of scale factor), but that the H is constant and the changing scale factor causes gravity (without slowing) to conserve energy. John Hunter.

Dear Ajb, "So, maybe it is the case that your modified metric does satisfy the cosmological principle, but you are not in comoving coordinates. If so a coordinate transformation would render it in the form above." This is getting a bit mathematical for me...but surely a co-ordinate transformation would remove the a(t)^2 term from the dx*dx terms too...as well as from the cdt term....so the g is apparently constant in time. From a more instinctive approach, there is no reason why any region should be different from any other with the modified metric...and since the universe is apparently static, in scale size (all distances including the size of atoms, people etc..varying with the scale factor in this model) it should satisfy the perfect cosmological principle too. John H.

Michelo, the value of H is meant to be half the traditional value....that's the point...the cause of the dark energy mix-up! Ajb, still wondering why you said the ammended R-W metric violates the cosmological principle.. J.H.

Dear ajb, Yes the metric at the top of your last post might be a possibility, why do you say it wouldn't satisfy the cosmological principle? Wouldn't it satisfy the perfect cosmological principle as well? There would be no redshift as you say, from the change of scale factor in the usual way. If the speed of light changes, and in fact the interpretation could be that all lengths and physical constants which contain length dimensions change too....then the universe would appear static. The redshift arises as, for a photon of light E=hf....no time passes for the photon, so from conservation of energy, as it enters regions where h has increased, the frequency decreases. The change for each physical quantity would be Q(t)=Qexp(nHt) where n is the number of length dimensions in the quantity. This gives a symmetric/conformal change. Plancks constant varies as h(t)=hexp(2Ht), so f(t) = fexp(-2Ht) which gives the new redshift relation (1) John H.

Michel, The universe is at critical density in this model. Gravity and the value of G are caused by the changing scale-factor G = 3H^2/8*pi*rho, we could get H from this but it is uncertain due to uncertainties in G and rho. H will be about 36km/s/Mpc or about 1x10^-18s-1, if the theory is on the right lines, it is a fundamental constant of nature. John H. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAkenaten, The match is pretty good up to z=1, in fact it's a better fit than dark energy for intermediate redshifts, but goes a bit high at higher redshifts. However the uncertainties in the higher redshift points is greater, and there are fewer points....so it's a good match. Also, importantly, dark energy has an extra variable parameter which helps it get a good fit...the value for omega(matter), their curve can be varied by choosing omega(matter) to be 0.4,0.3, 0.2 etc...the curve from the new relation (1) has no extra variable parameter. John H.

Dear ajb, Thanks, Prof Moffat has been contacted for his opinion..... Michel123456, It might be that the change of scale factor causes gravity as you mentioned, in fact if all quantities change according to the number of length dimensions in them, the total energy due to a mass (m) goes from mc^2 - GMm/R................to (mc^2 - GMm/R)exp2Ht Where M and R are the mass and radius (c/H) of the rest of the universe. If energy is conserved mc^2 - GMm/R = 0, this gives the value of G as rc^2/M, a nice easy way to solve the flatness problem. This means that the energy gained by a mass during the change is balanced by the loss in gravitational potential energy, i.e gravity is caused by the change of scale factor. (there need be no slowing to conserve energy, H is constant). John H.

Dear ajb, It would be best just to suggest the new redshift - scalefactor relation 1+z = [a(0)/a(t)]^2 ........(1)....as this is the most certain part of the theory....it gives a great match to the data without dark energy. For why it's true we might need Tom Bakers help! The best that I can do is to suggest that the Robertson-Walker relation (A1) should be changed so that the c^2 becomes c^2a(t)^2 i.e the speed of light depends on the scale factor too. This would follow through to (A6) so the R.H.S. has an extra a(t). Then if we assume the scale factor changes the size of all objects, atoms etc too, then the 'apparent/measureable' dX can be divided again by a(t) leaving (A7) and so on unchanged... This would mean that the scale factor changes the size of objects, distance between all objects, all physical constants which contain length dimensions accoording to (for quantity Q).... Q(t)=QexpnHt, where n is the number of length dimensions in quantity Q This leaves the universe apparently static, but with one difference... if no time passes for a photon of light of energy E=hf, the energy is unchanged during travel, but as h(t)=hexp(2Ht) (for the observer), the frequency changes to conserve energy as 1+z = exp(2Ht) which is proportional to a(t)^2. So there is a way to get to (2)...... John H.

Ajb, A4 is the new relation that is proposed, same as formula 2. John H.

Dear ajb, the derivation of the luminosity distance (2) is in appendix A of the six page paper...link on first page. It uses the Robertson-Walker metric as you suggest. There are reasons but too speculative to convince anyone about why (1) should be true. But the evidence speaks for itself.....it looks like (1) must be true,....it's the simplest and probably only way to understand the dark energy phenomenon. The next problem for physics might be to puzzle out why (1) is true.... John H.

The redshift of light might not be related to scale factor like 1+ z = a(1)/a(2) as traditionally thought but as 1+z = [a(1)/a(2)]^2 ........................(1) This leads to a luminosity distance of c/H*(1+z)(sqrt(1+z) -1)..........(2) , with H half the traditional value, and gives a very good match to supernovae data without dark energy (for small z, d=c/2H*z so matches observations). The WMAP value for omeg(matter) of 0.25 comes about because omega = rho/rho(crit) and rho(crit) = 3H^2/8*pi*G and the value used for H is twice the real one. ---------------------------------------------------- The reason for (1) is not known for the purposes of this post, but it seems to be the answer to the dark energy problem. The details are in http://vixra.org/abs/1003.0222 ,including derivation of (2).

Hello, why not check out http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0005v1.pdf This very simple theory gives a good match to data (apparent omega(m)=0.25) without dark energy. Recent COSMOS/WMAP http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.0053v1.pdf especially Figure 12,14 and 15 shows omega(m) approx 0.266 John Hunter.

see pseudo science/speculations