My hypothesis to explain the difference between expansion mearements between James Webb & Hubble telescope AND ESA Planck satellite

[Maartenn100]

The James Webb Telescope confirms the measurements of the Hubble Telescope regarding the speed of the so-called expansion of the universe, thereby ruling out presumed errors of the Hubble Telescope. This is problematic because the ESA Planck satellite, through another, also very accurate, measurement method, came to different conclusions.

(see here for more information)

Personally, therefore, like an increasing number of scientists, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the Big Bang theory and the idea of an objective expansion of the universe.

As I have previously indicated on this forum, I believe that if gravitation in the theory of general relativity is equivalent to acceleration in the theory of special relativity, then observed space expansion or observed space contraction in special relativity also has its equivalent in observations of space (from a time frame with a specific clock) in gravitational fields. Different observers will therefore disagree on the degree of space expansion. The universe itself is not expanding; it is our relativistic observation of space that differs, for different observers who take their clock, their own time, as the standard for observations out in space.

It is a property of space observation that the observed space can shrink or expand, depending on the different clocks in the gravitational field that we, as observers, have as a standard. Hence the difference in measurements between ESA's Planck satellite on one hand, and the Hubble and James Webb Telescope on the other.

[swansont]

I don’t see any analysis on your part that explains the discrepancy. Only some vague assertions.

Nothing in your link says anything about discarding the big bang, or the notion of expansion.

[Maartenn100]

Well, we always see through the lens of a clock when we observe space. 

And whenever space is observed as curved or expanded, there is a difference over there with our clock. 

Due to (gravitational) time-dilation or time contraction. 

We cannot see not through the lens of our clock or ruler when we observe space. (and time) 

Because, to us, our clock ticks 'normal', where ever we are, our ruler and our clock are locally uncurved and unexpanded. (to us).

We take our clock and our ruler as flat, as a reference (frame) for observed space somewhere else.

But, wherever we are, we see everything further away from us expanding in all directions.

Because to every observer, his local clock and ruler are taken as the Standard/reference for time and space measurements elsewhere. 

 

 

Edited March 21 by Maartenn100

[Maartenn100]

Space and time observations are inherently relativistic observations, relative to our clock and ruler that we use as a standard. (Einstein) Therefore, as observers, we are always in the center of an expanding universe, expanding in all directions in space. This is because, both in terms of time and our spatial measurements, we are the standard for what we observe as 'curvature' and 'expansion' (frame of reference).

Edited March 21 by Maartenn100

[Genady]

4 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

as observers, we are always in the center of an expanding universe, expanding in all directions in space

This is factually incorrect. Observationally, the cosmic microwave background radiation is redshifted in one direction and blueshifted in the opposite direction. It is attributed to our peculiar motion relative to the cosmological comoving reference frame. Only after this peculiar motion is removed, the universe appears to expand isotropically.

[swansont]

Still don't see any analysis.

[Maartenn100]

In my opinion, there was not first the Big Bang and then an expansion of the universe.

Now, the following viewpoint allows for the unification of spacetime or 'the block universe' of Einstein with the measurement problem in quantum physics.

I believe there was first a 4D block universe where everything is simultaneously 'accessible,' a metaphysical 4D spacetime. Why metaphysical? Because as living beings, we are only capable of perceiving a 3D universe through time. Einstein already said: "time is an illusion of our consciousness." We experience the unfolding of events through time, sequentially. But that is not how the larger reality itself is. All events from the past, present, and possibly future are accessible at the same time when we have access to the block universe. To 'observe' this reality, you need to be in a different state of consciousness. Having a unitive experience, as the mystics say, lets you consider this Ultimate Reality.

And here, a role is designated for our consciousness. Through our consciousness, we have access to 'time' in a 3D world where we experience events sequentially, and closing our eyes, dreaming, and ultimately 'dying' then means gradually gaining access to the 4D reality, which mystics and psychonauts sometimes have access to. The Minkowski spacetime or the block universe. Where all information from the past, present, and future is accessible.

The spacetime, or the Minkowski metric, is a deduced reality where everything exists simultaneously, in past, present, and possibly future. A 4D reality that we can access when we are in a different state of consciousness."

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

In my opinion,

...

 

I believe

!

Moderator Note

Less opinion and belief, and more evidence, please. So far, you're just saying "This makes more sense to me than the Standard Model". 

And please also define what you mean by "different state of consciousness", preferably using mainstream science.

 

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

In my opinion

!

Moderator Note

I assume from this that no analysis will be forthcoming.