SMT-VSL (split from GR and cosmology (split from …A Shrinking matter theory that might actually work.))

[Romao Mota]

On 6/16/2022 at 11:29 PM, MigL said:

It is not a matter of correcting errors with the theory, but that the theory itself is rubbish.

 

I will not fall for your insulting provocation. This is for children and frustrated people. Rubbish is your unfounded protest.

 

On 6/16/2022 at 11:29 PM, MigL said:

-You cannot consider the frame of the whole universe, as opposed to a local frame, to suggest that everything is shrinking, as opposed to the universe expanding, because no such frame exists or is possible.
 

Why can’t we assume the universe as the reference frame? NASA uses the UNIVERSAL CMB RADIATION as reference frame in its space ship, to determine its REAL speed. You are attached to outdated concepts.  See: https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10854.html

On 6/16/2022 at 11:29 PM, MigL said:

-The universe does not expand

I agree!!!

 

On 6/16/2022 at 11:29 PM, MigL said:

Expansion is only evident at scales where gravitational attraction is trivial 

You contradicted your own previous statement.

You cannot use wrong premises of the old outdated BBT to confront the theory opposite to it. At what distance is gravity trivial? Give me a number in Gly or mpc. If you give that number, (which I doubt you do), we could say that a body at half that distance would would still be gravitationally counted, both by us and for a body at that supposed distance of gravitational triviality. That is why there is not such distance, the universe is fully connected. BBT is a dogma.

On 6/16/2022 at 11:29 PM, MigL said:

Is the shrinking related to gravity ???

No, the increment in the mass energy of the atom due its shrinkage is neglected when compared with the total energy of atoms.

Nice but failed attempt to bring the subject of gravity into this thread. Gravity is a controversial topic that should be, (and already is), addressed in a specific thread.  For now, I can say that gravity is the property of energy to concentrate.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Romao Mota
typo

[MigL]

4 hours ago, Romao Mota said:

On 6/16/2022 at 10:29 PM, MigL said:

-The universe does not expand

I agree!!!

 

On 6/16/2022 at 10:29 PM, MigL said:

Expansion is only evident at scales where gravitational attraction is trivial 

You contradicted your own previous statement.

The full sentence was 

"The universe does not expand, nor can its contents shrink, linearly."

IOW observations show that it expands, or contracts ( as you claim ), differently at different scales, ie not linearly.
The fact that you have reading comprehension issues does not mean I'm contradicting myself.

4 hours ago, Romao Mota said:

At what distance is gravity trivial? Give me a number in Gly or mpc.

Approximately 100 MegaParsecs ( +/- 50 ), and depending on the distribution of its component galaxies.

4 hours ago, Romao Mota said:

Why can’t we assume the universe as the reference frame? NASA uses the UNIVERSAL CMB RADIATION as reference frame in its space ship, to determine its REAL speed.

That is, at best, a pseudoframe. GR does not allow for a universal, or 'special', frame.

 

4 hours ago, Romao Mota said:

Nice but failed attempt to bring the subject of gravity into this thread.

I attempted nothing, merely trying to identify/clarify the mechanism by which you think this universal contraction could happen.
You have, so far, offered up no such mechanism, so there is nothing to consider.

Just rubbish.

[Romao Mota]

 

19 hours ago, MigL said:

On 6/22/2022 at 1:26 PM, Romao Mota said:

At what distance is gravity trivial? Give me a number in Gly or mpc.

Approximately 100 MegaParsecs ( +/- 50 ), and depending on the distribution of its component galaxies.

Great!! Report this to the Shapley Supercluster. It is at 200 mpc. Baseless data.

Data with high tolerance and still with undetermined fudge leak factor is unusable. Link, please.

 

19 hours ago, MigL said:

On 6/22/2022 at 1:26 PM, Romao Mota said:

Why can’t we assume the universe as the reference frame? NASA uses the UNIVERSAL CMB RADIATION as reference frame in its space ship, to determine its REAL speed. You are attached to outdated concepts.  See: https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10854.html

 

That is, at best, a pseudoframe. GR does not allow for a universal, or 'special', frame.

 

Wrong premises of outdated ancient theories, followed by grumpy old.

 

 

19 hours ago, MigL said:

I attempted nothing, merely trying to identify/clarify the mechanism by which you think this universal contraction could happen.
You have, so far, offered up no such mechanism, so there is nothing to consider.

The mechanism was described in the June 16 post. The table, (not copied here), is the complement of it.

On 6/16/2022 at 3:41 PM, Romao Mota said:

In principle, we have two paths to follow, vary the Planck constant, or vary the speed of light. The variation of Planck’s constant has the same effect on time and on the shrinkage speed of matter, presenting equivalence between distance and time, due the constancy of the speed of light, but it has limitations in the variance of important constants, such as the Coulomb constant, " ke", and the Vacuum permittivity, “ε₍₀₎”, which are fundamental to the functioning of the universe on large scale and at atomic level. That's why I, personally, preferred the variation of the speed of light, due its sensitivity to the variation of the medium. The energy of free space plays the rule of the shrinking behavior, and this behavior plays the rule of how free space evolve. This is similar to the “chicken and egg” situation. The expanding universe is the illusion caused by this looping behavior, which is strictly the evolution of the universe itself.

Below, we have a table with the main constants used in physics and its variations in function of the redshift and in function of time

 

 

19 hours ago, MigL said:

Just rubbish.

Childish insult of old gaga when arguments run out.

[MigL]

3 hours ago, Romao Mota said:

Childish insult of old gaga when arguments run out.

You asked for our input when you posted your idea.
Some of us gave it to you, and you bitch and complain about it.

Did you want o give us a lecture, or engage in discussion ?
( and I don't know what 'gaga' means; does it mean intelligent, handsome or witty person )

[swansont]

On 6/22/2022 at 12:26 PM, Romao Mota said:

Why can’t we assume the universe as the reference frame? NASA uses the UNIVERSAL CMB RADIATION as reference frame in its space ship, to determine its REAL speed. You are attached to outdated concepts

The CMB is one frame of reference, used for convenience. It is not the frame of reference of the universe, and “real speed” is nonsensical. 

[Romao Mota]

After a long absence, I am back.

In 1933, when the propaganda of the BBT was in its peak, Arthur Eddington, published the classic book “The expanding universe”.  In the IV chapter, in a fit of lucidity he wrote:^[1]

 

“All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common material standards; our material standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the “expanding universe” might also be called the theory of the “shrinking atom”.

It is our instinctive outlook that we are always the same; it is our environment  that changes.  As with Anatole France’s dog Ricquet-“Les hommes , Les animaux, les pierres grandissents, en s'approchant et deviennent énormes quand ils sont sur moi. Moi non. Je demeure toujours aussí grand partout où je suis.”

“Is not the expanding universe another example of distortion due to our egocentric outlook? Surely, the universe should be the standard and we should measure our own vicissitudes by it. We see a relative change, and cry out that the universe is dissolving; as well might the growing child, who sees familiar home becoming smaller, be dismayed at the vanishing property of houses and furniture.”

 

Free translation of the French text:

The men, the animals, the stones grow, approaching and become enormous when they are on me. Me no. I always remain so great wherever I am.

 

The clarity and sincerity of his words is impressive, but as he himself admitted, he did not deem it true, and his book was reprinted again in 1933, 1944, 1946, 1952, and in 1987. The lobby in the scientific community at that time was such that no one could get a job in the scientific area if they did not defend the idea of the BBT.  Einstein himself last ten years to accept this idea, but in 1931^[2], he finally was convinced due the unquestionable observations of the redshift distance relationship, that Hubble himself called “apparent” velocities. The following year he joined Hubble on a new research "$job$".

 

"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953)."^[3]

 

 In 1931 he wrote a letter to the Dutch cosmologist Willem de Sitter expressing his opinion on the theoretical interpretation of the redshift-distance relation:^[4][5]

"Mr. Humason and I are both deeply sensible of your gracious appreciation of the papers on velocities and distances of nebulae. We use the term 'apparent' velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority."^[5]

 

References:

1) https://books.google.com.br/books?id=KHyV4-2EyrUC&pg=PA90&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false

2) Einstein’s aborted attempt at a dynamic steady-state universe.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4099.pdf

3) https://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html

4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314128/

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

----------------------------

The new discoveries provided by the new JWST telescope are an opportunity for us to reflect and perhaps take a step back and get the right path, instead of inventing a new crutch to keep the theory of the accelerated expansion of the universe standing.

The problems encountered in the big bang theory in the last century are enough to make us look for another way out of the insoluble dilemmas detected so far.

Humanity needs to free itself from the indoctrination provided by a century of BBT propaganda, which intentionally or unintentionally produced a false consensus that prevents the analysis of new theories for fear of being excluded from the scientific community. The absence of doubts regarding this new theory is impressive, it seems that almost everyone understands its consistency, but prefers to blindly follow the “consensual majority”, avoiding controversy.

Bellow we have two tables, the first is a comparison of the efficiency of the Big Bang Theory versus the Shrinking Matter Theory with Variation of the Speed of Light (SMTwVSL), the second presents the main equations used in physics and its variations in function of the observed redshift and in function of time, in the new theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Romao Mota]

This time we posted the graph that shows the evolution of time as a function of redshift, in a cyclic universe, in the “Schrinking Matter Theory with Variable Speed of Light (SMTwVSL)”.

[Romao Mota]

The “Graphic 01” is a compilation of several aspects that emerged after the discovery of the relationship between redshift and distance. It presents a comparative evolution of distance (Gly) and time (Gyr), in function of redshift “Z” from 0 to 14.

For the ΛCDM_SN1A distance ladder in squared blue points.

For the theoretical ΛCDM linear function in blue line.

For the Time SMTwVSL hypothesis A in violet.

For the Distance SMTwVSL hypothesis A in red.

For the Time SMTwVSL hypothesis B in yellow.

For the Distance SMTwVSL hypothesis B in green.

For Time and Distance in the Hubble law in black.

The Graphic 01_1 is a zoom at low redshift to visualize the insignificant differences in the local frame.

 

 

 

[Romao Mota]

The graphic 04 presented below represents the synthesis of “Shrinking Matter Theory with Variable Speed of Light”, (SMTwVSL), breaking the BBT paradigm in a way never before approached.

The behavior of the cyclical evolution of the universe is fully explained in a simple graphic, however  supported by all the mathematics involved.

 

My thanks for the 5k views.

[Bufofrog]

27 minutes ago, Romao Mota said:

The graphic 04 presented below represents the synthesis of “Shrinking Matter Theory with Variable Speed of Light”,

Two pseudoscience ideas merged into a super pseudoscience idea.  Cool....

[Romao Mota]

8 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Two pseudoscience ideas merged into a super pseudoscience idea.  Cool....

Poor rebuttal without showing any inconsistencies. Dark phenomena are pseudosciences.
But, thank you for expressing your opinion / feeling.
 

[zapatos]

10 hours ago, Romao Mota said:

My thanks for the 5k views.

'You are welcome' from the 4800 web crawler visits.

[KJW]

On 5/9/2022 at 2:11 PM, Romao Mota said:

The SMT-VSL and the expanding universe theory are equivalent. If we make our world as the reference frame, the universe should expand. If we make the universe as the reference frame, matter should shrink. Laws of physics work to both theories.

Yes, the SMT-VSL and the expanding universe theory are equivalent. This means that there are no observational or experimental differences between these two points of view. If you are seeking to observe differences, then you are really saying that the SMT-VSL and the expanding universe theory are not equivalent because any observable difference is a non-equivalence.

If you are abandoning equivalence, then why would matter shrink in preference to an expanding universe? The size of atoms is governed by laws of physics, whereas the size of the universe is not, so one would not expect there to be a constraint on the size of the universe similar to the constraint on the size of atoms.

Also, if you are abandoning equivalence, then where specifically is the non-equivalence? That is, what specific observation or experiment distinguishes these two theories? This actually requires you to look beyond the apparent equivalences to something not deducible by a mere change in the point of view.

 

 

Edited March 15 by KJW

[Romao Mota]

Quote

11 hours ago, KJW said:

Yes, the SMT-VSL and the expanding universe theory are equivalent. This means that there are no observational or experimental differences between these two points of view. If you are seeking to observe differences, then you are really saying that the SMT-VSL and the expanding universe theory are not equivalent because any observable difference is a non-equivalence.

The equivalence between these two points of view is a mere apparent kinematic similarity changing the reference frame, to introduce the reader in the scope of the new theory. This apparent similarity is not a new idea, as with Arthur Eddington said in 1933 in his classic book “The expanding universe”;  
“All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common material standards; our material standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the “expanding universe” might also be called the theory of the shrinking atom”. 

• Quote

  If you are abandoning equivalence, then why would matter shrink in preference to an expanding universe?

  Also, if you are abandoning equivalence, then where specifically is the non-equivalence?

  Important problems in the BBT are solved in the Shrinking Matter Theory as shown below in the comparative table.

•  

• 

 

11 hours ago, KJW said:

The size of atoms is governed by laws of physics

The laws of physics are mathematical arrangements of constants that are products of human observations.

This theory allows the variation of parameters that we consider constant, but which can vary so slowly over time, which is difficult in human lifetime that we notice any change. Light speed is very sensitive to the variation of the medium. In this theory, the shrinkage of matter is accompanied by an increase in the energy of the electrons in the ground state and in the mass energy of atoms, which steal this energy from free space, resulting in a decrease in its permittivity, which causes an increase in the speed of light which in a looping behavior causes the shrinkage of matter, increasing again its overall energy. The redshift is the observational phenomenon of this.

The variation in the speed of light would currently be only 7.25 mm/s per year and the standard meter would shrink 4.84 nanometers per century, with corroborate the difficulty of perception in our lifetime.

----------------------

Thanks for the comment.

Spoiler