The Universe might not be expanding.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, MPMin said:

My proposed hypothesis describes the effect on electromagnetic radiation, therefore, my hypothesis would have the same effect on all electromagnetic radiation including the CMBR. 

Then why is the CMBR not completely smooth and uniform?

[MPMin]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Then why is the CMBR not completely smooth and uniform?

Perhaps for the same reason that the dispersion of matter throughout the universe is not completely smooth and uniform either. 

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Perhaps for the same reason that the dispersion of matter throughout the universe is not completely smooth and uniform either. 

Why is the CMBR not completely smooth and uniform, in contrast to red-shifted light from distant galaxies, given that as you said "my hypothesis would have the same effect on all electromagnetic radiation including the CMBR." 

[MPMin]

54 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Why is the CMBR not completely smooth and uniform, in contrast to red-shifted light from distant galaxies, given that as you said "my hypothesis would have the same effect on all electromagnetic radiation including the CMBR." 

Perhaps we are talking at crossed purposes, or I’m simply not understanding the connection, or the difference between the information that we receive as electromagnetic radiation from distant stars, and the electromagnetic radiation that we receive from the CMBR? We receive information about both stars and CMBR in the same form. 

Perhaps the CMBR is not evenly dispersed through out the universe because matter is not evenly dispersed through out the universe, or perhaps its the uneven distribution of matter that causes the uneven distribution of the CMBR.

The confusion from my perspective is why does my hypothesis need to explain anything about the CMBR when my hypothesis only describes that the redshift in all electromagnetic radiation might only be caused by the collective mass of the universe red-shifting all electromagnetic radiation from our perspective on earth?

[Bufofrog]

9 hours ago, MPMin said:

The confusion from my perspective is why does my hypothesis need to explain anything about the CMBR when my hypothesis only describes that the redshift in all electromagnetic radiation might only be caused by the collective mass of the universe red-shifting all electromagnetic radiation from our perspective on earth?

EM radiation from all other galaxies is not just red shifted, some galaxies are blue shifted.  That would seem to falsify your idea.

[MPMin]

17 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

EM radiation from all other galaxies is not just red shifted, some galaxies are blue shifted.  That would seem to falsify your idea.

If that falsifies my hypothesis then doesn’t that also contradict the bbt as well?

Or, if there are exceptions to the bbt, then perhaps the same exceptions could apply in all cases. 

Edited November 5, 2023 by MPMin

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

If that falsifies my hypothesis then doesn’t that also contradict the bbt as well?

 

No

 

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

If that falsifies my hypothesis then doesn’t that also contradict the bbt as well?

No.

 

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

Or, if there are exceptions to the bbt, then perhaps the same exceptions could apply in all cases.

It is not an exception.

It seems like you are not really knowledgeable about the BBT or red shift.  Before trying to replace a theory one should understand the theory. 

[Janus]

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

If that falsifies my hypothesis then doesn’t that also contradict the bbt as well?

Or, if there are exceptions to the bbt, then perhaps the same exceptions could apply in all cases. 

The galaxies that show blue shift are those that are part of our group or cluster.

Galaxies are not evenly spread out but segregated into collections bound by gravity.  First you have local groups of 50 or so galaxies, then these isolated groups form a cluster, then you get super clusters.   Collections up to clusters are held together by mutual gravity and don't separate with the universal expansion. As a result, galaxies within them can have various velocities with respect to each other

[MPMin]

5 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

No.

 

It is not an exception.

It seems like you are not really knowledgeable about the BBT or red shift.  Before trying to replace a theory one should understand the theory. 

If stars or galaxies are blue shifted because they are moving towards us in an expanding universe are not exceptions, then what are they? 

My hypothesis doesn't prevent the universe from being fluid, if the universe is not expanding then its more likely you'll see blue shifting of closer objects in a fluid galaxy. Gravitational red shifting would still apply to more distant objects. 

 

[Engineeer]

Cosmological redshift in receding galaxies can be explained away by the inverse square law of a gravitational field as it propagates outward and expands like like a ripple in a pond. The idea is that the water is filling in a gap as this happens, stretching the fabric of space.

The residual background radiation can be explained by the annihilation of all the antimatter generated with the matter at set point in time in which both accumulated in cardinal infinitudes. 

[MPMin]

3 hours ago, Engineeer said:

Cosmological redshift in receding galaxies can be explained away by the inverse square law of a gravitational field as it propagates outward and expands like like a ripple in a pond. The idea is that the water is filling in a gap as this happens, stretching the fabric of space.

The residual background radiation can be explained by the annihilation of all the antimatter generated with the matter at set point in time in which both accumulated in cardinal infinitudes. 

Perhaps I’m not understanding your analogy properly, but if you had a finite tank of water, and produced ripples in that tank, I dont think there is any extra water that fills in any gaps, because the water in the tank remains the same. I presume that the ripples would create a greater surface area, not by stretching the surface, but rather just exposing water molecules that were previously beneath the surface before the ripples began.  

Im of the understanding that the CMBR was produced when the electrons discharged their surplus energy as radiation when they stabilised around atoms as the universe was expanding. 

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by MPMin

[Engineeer]

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

Perhaps I’m not understanding your analogy properly, but if you had a finite tank of water, and produced ripples in that tank, I dont think there is any extra water that fills in any gaps, because the water in the tank remains the same. I presume that the ripples would create a greater surface area, not by stretching the surface, but rather just exposing water molecules that were previously beneath the surface before the ripples began.

Imagine a certain volume of space is instantly deleted. Now the space around it fills the void halfway and making the diameter of the void volume double in length. As it quadruples in length, the void is 3/4ths full. What this does to the light would appear to have the same effect as redshift. But the light isn't actually travelling further. The space it occupies is being warped as space fills in gaps. 

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

Im of the understanding that the CMBR was produced when the electrons discharged their surplus energy as radiation when they stabilised around atoms as the universe was expanding. 

In an expanding universe yes. That has problems, namely the furthest galaxies we look at already having SMBHs despite the fact that these black holes did not have time to form or become that large looking at galaxies that old. 

[Engineeer]

1 hour ago, Engineeer said:

 

In an expanding universe yes. That has problems, namely the furthest galaxies we look at already having SMBHs despite the fact that these black holes did not have time to form or become that large looking at galaxies that old. 

If there were infinite galaxies in the universe what is the likelihood that the ratio of those spinning clockwise to those spinning counterclockwise would be 50:50? Actually extremely small. If 1/3 of the universe was antimatter, that means it annihilated another 1/3 of the mass in the universe, which means the current universe only contains 1/3 of the overall mass it used to contain prior to 13.8 billions years ago, twice as much mass inside the same volume might make the formation of SMBHs so early on more plausible.

Edited November 7, 2023 by Engineeer

[MPMin]

3 hours ago, Engineeer said:

If there were infinite galaxies in the universe what is the likelihood that the ratio of those spinning clockwise to those spinning counterclockwise would be 50:50? Actually extremely small. If 1/3 of the universe was antimatter, that means it annihilated another 1/3 of the mass in the universe, which means the current universe only contains 1/3 of the overall mass it used to contain prior to 13.8 billions years ago, twice as much mass inside the same volume might make the formation of SMBHs so early on more plausible.

To determine which way the galaxies were spinning with reference to our galaxy, they’d all have to be on the same plane as our galaxy, im pretty sure that’s not the case.

If the galaxy was infinite and the mass was distributed more or less homogeneously, then I think my hypothesis wouldn’t work as net effect of the universe’s gravity would be zero at any given point, but that’s only on the assumption that the gravity of the collective universe is acting directly on the photons. 

And if the universe was a spherical then for all distant objects to be roughly redshifted equally in all directions from earth then that would suggest we’re at the Center of the universe, but if that were the case then I would have thought that all distant objects would be blue shifted as the photons would pulled to towards the Center of the universe.

Perhaps it’s the collective gravity of the distant universe that’s stretching empty space between the masses, as you described I think, that’s causing the redshift? 

 

[Bufofrog]

10 hours ago, Engineeer said:

Imagine a certain volume of space is instantly deleted. Now the space around it fills the void halfway and making the diameter of the void volume double in length

How could space be deleted?  What does that even mean?  Why would space fill the area of deleted space.

[Engineeer]

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

How could space be deleted?  What does that even mean?  Why would space fill the area of deleted space.

My reconciliation of the wave function, discrete as in noncontinuous 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Engineeer

[Bufofrog]

40 minutes ago, Engineeer said:

My reconciliation of the wave function, discrete as in noncontinuous 

You could of just said, "dunno".

[Engineeer]

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

You could of just said, "dunno".

I have a secret mathematics for it expected to behave like a particle. 

[ChildOfTheAncientOfDays]

On 11/3/2023 at 7:10 PM, exchemist said:

How would your idea account for the CMBR?

That the calculation and understanding of the speed of Light is wrong. The “theory” of relativity (it’s not a theory, it’s a fact of reality) is incomplete. We have incorrectly calculated the speed of Light. Or rather, the current numerical value cannot be blanket used across the board for the Universe. It can only be used in our local gravitational environment before it becomes insufficient and inaccurate the farther we get from Earth. The speed of Light is improperly measured. The speed of Light MUST be measured not only in a vacuum, but also UNDER NO GRAVITATIONAL INTERFERENCE. This way the true numerical value of the speed of Light can be measured. But, thus, this is actually impossible. It can only be theoretically realised, and cannot be physically conducted and experimented. That’d require it to be measured in a Universe that is COMPLETELY unaffected by gravity (gravitational forces are pulling every which way across the Universe, therefore obstructing the recording of the true numerical value).

On that point though, in reality, the “expansion” of the Universe can still be solved. Again, in reality, the Universe is not just expanding, but contracting. The Big Bang needs to be renamed. It’s an outdated term. It should be the “Erratic Explosion” or the “Impossible Implosion”, something like that. In truth, the Big Bang was actually simultaneously and Implosion and Explosion. Truly miraculous (in the worst sense). Quantum Theory (again, not a theory, it’s just plain truth) proves this concept.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

That the calculation and understanding of the speed of Light is wrong.

!

Moderator Note

Please keep your speculative concept out of other people's threads until you've established that you have supportive evidence for it. Especially don't use it to speculate on another person's speculation. We need mainstream science explanations here.