An alternative hypothesis to explain the observation of 'the expanding universe' following Hubble's Law

[Maartenn100]

An alternative hypothesis to explain the observation of 'the expanding universe' following Hubble's Law

 

First of all, I want to say that this is a hypothesis of mine.

It's a result of long thinking, but that's not an argument at all of course.

Please be not too hostile, when you destroy it :wink:(with arguments). Thank you.

 

 

Some true premisses:

 

Observations of time and space are always relative (referenceframe dependent)

 

Space and time are like two sides of a coin: when we observe a distortion of space, we must observe a distortion of time and vice versa. (spacetime is one united entity)

 

For example: when we observe a spaceshrink of a hypothesised accelerating spaceship, closer and closer to the speed of light (relative to us), we know that we should measure a timedilation (relative to our clock).

 

And: when this very fast spaceship slows down again, the shrinked ship will stretch while time will contract again, relative to our idea of timeflow.

 

 

 

Gravity and relative measurements of space (and time) in the gravitational field

 

Gravitation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two massive bodies. (Newton). So the more distance (space) between two heavy objects, the less gravity.

 

Gravitational timedilation tells us that gravity has an influence on clocks.

 

So, the timeflow of the clocks in the empty regions of space between massive attracting bodies goes faster, relative to our clock, when these bodies are moving away from eachother. Because the (influence of the) gravity between them becomes weaker.

 

And this 'deduced' difference in timeflow is aligned with the observation of more space-expansion.

 

Because:

 

An observation of spaceshrink (lengthcontraction) is measuring (relative) timedilation, so (relative) timecontraction means an observation of space-expansion.

(see Special Theory of Relativity)

 

 

My general conclusions:

 

When we observe a region of space between bodies in the sky, there will be an invisible timeflow outthere between these bodies, ticking faster then our clocks on Earth, Therefore, we observe a space-expansion of our idea of normal space between these bodies. And because of this observed expansion, the gravity between these bodies becomes weaker, so the influence of gravity on the time in the region of space between them becomes weaker. This will let us observe more expansion of space. We know that there must be more timecontraction because of this weaker gravitational attraction, and because of this increased timecontraction, relative to our rulers, we observe more space-expansion. And because of this observation of space-expansion we observe more timecontraction ad infinitum.

 

 

An observer will always use the timeflow of his own clock (his own referenceframe) and the measurements of his own ruler, as the standards for observing dilation, contraction, curvature or expansion of space and time elsewhere. That’s not only for observers with relative different speeds, but also for observers in relative different fields of gravity.

 

So, when we observe a 'relative heavier' field of gravity (then ours), we can assume a timedilation (by gravity), therefore we also observe a (relative) curvature of (our idea of normal) space outthere.

 

And when we observe a 'relative weaker' field of gravity (then ours) we can assume a timecontraction (by gravity), relative to our idea of 'normal timeflow, therefore we also observe a (relative) expansion of (our idea of normal) space outthere.

 

a youtubevideo to explain it better

 

Thanks for potential feedback

.

Maarten Vergucht

[ajb]

Well, you won't convince anyone to abandon the standard model of cosmology without a mathematical model that fits the data as well as the standard model of cosmology does. The question must be does your "model" fit the data?

[Maartenn100]

In my opinion: my hypothesis that the observer uses the local time and space as a standard to define distortions of it elsewhere is not a mathematical issue, but a matter of testing and experimenting.

 

A falsification would be:

Travel to a place in our solarsystem or further away where 'space is curved, according to our observations of space over there here on Earth'.

And try to see wether you will measure a curved space, once you are there.

My theory says no.

 

That's an experimental falsifiable prediction of a hypothesis.

 

That's not a matter of math, but a matter of experiments and tests.

 

Gravitational timedilation, lengthcontraction, special theory of relativity etc. are well defined scientific concepts, and they are mathematically described. So, that's not the issue, in my opinion.

.

i only use these, mathematically, well defined concepts and use valid logic deducion and induction to explain them differently..

 

The math is already been done, the concepts are well described and been proven. Only the different meaning of it, described in words with these well-defined concepts, is different.

And it predicts different things:

 

Examples of testable predictions: when you move through space, you will see the curvature, or expansion of the space elsewhere change too. When you change position in the gravitational fields, your observations of space- and timedistortions elsewhere, will move too.

.

That's a scientific hypothesis: it's falsifiable, testable prediction..

 

Otherwise I have the question for you: where do you need math for (in this hypothesis)?

 

The expansion is Hubble's Law.

Timedilation and lengthcontraction is special theory of relativity

Referenceframes is relativity

Gravitatational timedilation is a well proven fact, wich is already been mathematically described.

 

So, I should not know where you need math for, wich isn't already well-formulated..

,

Only the theory wich explains the scientific concepts,differently gives different predictions.

And these predictions are no matter of 'math', but a matter of testing and experiments.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Maartenn100

[ajb]

In my opinion: my hypothesis that the observer uses the local time and space as a standard to define distortions of it elsewhere is not a mathematical issue, but a matter of testing and experimenting.

In relativity one used the word observer and coordinate system rather synonymously. So I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

A falsification would be:

Travel to a place in our solarsystem or further away where 'space is curved, according to our observations of space over there here on Earth'.

And try to see wether you will measure a curved space, once you are there.

One could measure curvature by looking at null geodesics, that is light rays. One could in principal look for light bending to measure curvature. I am not sure if this is very practical for our solar system...

 

My theory says no.

Okay.

 

That's an experimental falsifiable prediction of a hypothesis.

 

That's not a matter of math, but a matter of experiments and tests.

There is still the issue of building a model to if the other observations fit your idea. Without some numbers from your theory it will be impossible check how well it fits with nature.

 

Remember that we have evidence that the Universe is globally more or less flat, just not locally.

 

 

Gravitational timedilation, lengthcontraction, special theory of relativity etc. are well defined scientific concepts, and they are mathematically described. So, that's not the issue, in my opinion.

 

i only use these, mathematically, well defined concepts and use valid logic deducion and induction to explain them differently..

 

 

The math is already been done, the concepts are well described and been proven. Only the different meaning of it, described in words with these well-defined concepts, is different.

Sure, but you will need mathematics to use the concepts properly.

 

Examples of testable predictions: when you move through space, you will see the curvature, or expansion of the space elsewhere change too. When you change position in the gravitational fields, your observations of space- and timedistortions elsewhere, will move too.

How do you see the curvature?

 

That's a scientific hypothesis: it's falsifiable, testable prediction..

Really you need to show us how you expect thing to differ and then maybe it would be possible to compare this carefully with what we do know.

 

Otherwise I have the question for you: where do you need math for (in this hypothesis)?

...

And these predictions are no matter of 'math', but a matter of testing and experiments.

To use these concepts properly you need to use them mathematically.

[Maartenn100]

In relativity one used the word observer and coordinate system rather synonymously. So I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

With an observer I mean: a measuring device, a telescope, a camera, a clock, a human being, an animal (less accurate) etc...

 

One could measure curvature by looking at null geodesics, that is light rays. One could in principal look for light bending to measure curvature. I am not sure if this is very practical for our solar system...

 

But to be able to talk about 'curvature' you need a standard: an idea of an uncurved length.

And, for example, we here on Earth: wich standard do we use to define 'curvature'?

A straight path like we experience it here, in this field of gravity, the straight line in our field of gravity is our standard for calling something 'a uncurved path' further away from us. Curved by more gravity then in our field.

 

My assumption is: everywhere we are, our standard for a straight path will be different. Depending on the field of gravity where we are.

So our measurements of curvature outthere will be different.

 

 

There is still the issue of building a model to if the other observations fit your idea. Without some numbers from your theory it will be impossible check how well it fits with nature.

 

 

Yes, I understand that. But I must admit that my mathematical skills aren't very good. So, maybe, some good mathematicians can try to make a model about how the 'gravitational timecontraction' causes our observation of 'gravitational space-expansion' over there.

 

i only can explain it in words: our observation of timecontraction is at the same time an observation of space-expansion and our observation of a space-shrink is at the same time an 'observation' of a timedilation. These observations of time and space are unseparable.

 

But I do not know the exact mathematical formula how exactly they are related.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember that we have evidence that the Universe is globally more or less flat, just not locally.

 

Flat, according to who's ruler?

 

 

Sure, but you will need mathematics to use the concepts properly.

 

i can't do that, I think, but that doesn't mean that my reasoning is invalid.

It's logic reasoning.

 

 

How do you see the curvature?

 

 

With lasers in the sky and triangles? When the triangle, made with the lasers isn't 180 degrees, there must be a curvature.

And of course with making the resemblance between different atomic clocks.

 

 

Really you need to show us how you expect thing to differ and then maybe it would be possible to compare this carefully with what we do know.

 

 

But think logically and try to show me where the reasoning went wrong:

 

Every observer has his own clock (own particular idea of a normal ticking clock)

Every observer has his own ruler (own particular idea of flat space)

 

That's not what I say, that's realtivity theory. These are conclusions from relativity theory.

 

 

To use these concepts properly you need to use them mathematically.

 

 

 

Ok, let us talk about the content;

 

How do you want me to use math to explain that every observer in the real world (not some chosen referenceframe on paper) has his particle idea of 'uncurved space and a normal ticking clock.

 

You cannot explain 'meaning' with numbers.

 

What you want is a specification of my hypothesis: wich numbers exactly.

I'm afraid I can't give you that exactly.

 

I only can predict, based on my hypothesis that your observations of curvature, dilation, contraction etc. will change, when you change your position in the gravitational fields, based on the logic ideas of relativity.

 

I can't, however, not give you the exact numbers.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Maartenn100

[xyzt]

 

 

I only can predict, based on my hypothesis that your observations of curvature, dilation, contraction etc. will change, when you change your position in the gravitational fields, based on the logic ideas of relativity.

 

I can't, however, not give you the exact numbers.

In other words, you have no falsifiable predictions. This means you have no viable theory. Come back when you have a mathematical formalism, being an antirelativist is not reason enough to consider your prose as science.

Edited November 24, 2013 by xyzt

[Maartenn100]

Ajb,

 

Can you answer my following questions:

 

1) do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a straight line in our field of gravity to define curved spaces elsewhere, with it? (curved (or stretched) by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)

 

 

2) Do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a normal timeflow in our field of gravity to define dilation of it or contraction of it elsewhere? (dilated or contracted by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)

 

 

3) Do you agree with my notion that we always will use our idea of a straight line, wherever we are in the fields of gravity, to define 'curved paths' elsewhere?

 

(curved or stretched (expanded) by relative weaker or relative stronger fields of gravity)

Edited November 24, 2013 by Maartenn100

[ajb]

1) do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a straight line in our field of gravity to define curved spaces elsewhere, with it? (curved (or stretched) by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)

Locally in a small enough region of space-time we see space-time as being flat. We can then define "straight lines" locally in this sense. Global deviation from what we expect from our local picture can be seen as curvature. Of course we should formulate this more carefully.

 

2) Do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a normal timeflow in our field of gravity to define dilation of it or contraction of it elsewhere? (dilated or contracted by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)

 

By normal timeflow do you mean the local time as measured by a free falling observer?

 

3) Do you agree with my notion that we always will use our idea of a straight line, wherever we are in the fields of gravity, to define 'curved paths' elsewhere?

Again, loosley the deviation from what we expect in Minkowski space-time is seen as curvature.

[decraig]

Nice start. Now do it with mathematics or no one will care.

 

Beware, mathematics can be a harsh mistress, and tell you that what you want, you cannot have.

Edited December 2, 2013 by decraig

[sheever]

You need a different concept to measure and it's not time but a network structure trough locality and so on you can use order in the system function. This solve relativity problem and observation limitations. I ll post an abstract little later