Sensation! Antigravity in Universe, Dark Energy - easy explanation!

[ChristianyaNavechno]

It is a big problem facing physics – how to theoretically explain the fact that Universe expands with acceleration. In our article we try to explain this effect with the simple fact: the more distant the star is, the earlier light which came from this star began its travel. And at the earlier moments of time the expansion of the Universe was faster. The numerical calculations give quite good approximation of the universe radius acceleration rate – see Part 4.

 

We also try to build a quantum gravity model of the Universe, amazingly we see there, that if the Big Bang was in the beginning of the Universe, and the matter was in point initially, then we have the contradiction, we could not see the acceleration of the Universe inflation – see Part 5, case 1; if matter was not in one point in the beginning (the probability amplitude of Universe radius is distributed to many points), then we can see the acceleration of the universe inflation.

 

This the argument against the Big Bang, towards more slight creation of the Universe, may be Jesus our Mighty God was creating the Universe not with a Big Bang.

 

+++ IHM

Christian Is Quantum Gravity a Linear Theory 3-5.pdf

Edited November 29, 2013 by ChristianyaNavechno

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. Please be aware that this forum has an additional set of rules, which you may like to look over before posting further in this thread.

 

Also, just for the record, this isn't a newspaper or media outlet, so you don't need to try and amp up your thread title with words like, 'Sensational!'

[imatfaal]

It is a big problem facing physics – how to theoretically explain the fact that Universe expands with acceleration. In our article we try to explain this effect with the simple fact: the more distant the star is, the earlier light which came from this star began its travel. And at the earlier moments of time the expansion of the Universe was faster. The numerical calculations give quite good approximation of the universe radius acceleration rate – see Part 4.

 

We also try to build a quantum gravity model of the Universe, amazingly we see there, that if the Big Bang was in the beginning of the Universe, and the matter was in point initially, then we have the contradiction, we could not see the acceleration of the Universe inflation – see Part 5, case 1; if matter was not in one point in the beginning (the probability amplitude of Universe radius is distributed to many points), then we can see the acceleration of the universe inflation.

 

This the argument against the Big Bang, towards more slight creation of the Universe, may be Jesus our Mighty God was creating the Universe not with a Big Bang.

 

+++ IHM

 

With reference to this section

 

"In our article we try to explain this effect with the simple fact: the more distant the star is, the earlier light which came from this star began its travel. And at the earlier moments of time the expansion of the Universe was faster. The numerical calculations give quite good approximation of the universe radius acceleration rate – see Part 4."

 

The consensus is that the expansionary action of dark energy was not apparent in the early universe - here is a quote from the Nobel Academy on the occasion of the awarding of the prize to Serlmutter, Schmidt and Rees. It seems to flatly contradict your assertion that the expansion was faster in the early stages.

 

Although not as evident at the time of the discovery, later studies of SNe beyond z = 1 [29], from the time when the Universe was much denser and Ω_M dominated, indicate that at that early epoch, gravity did slow down the expansion as predicted by cosmological models. Repulsion only set in when the Universe was about half its present age.

 

 

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/advanced-physicsprize2011.pdf

 

The calculations of distance (ie luminosity) and redshift work if you assume the standard model of the expansion of the universe for the first several billion years - it is only once the universe is spread out enough that dark energy starts to make itself known. A faster expanding start and less accelerated expansion now will not be able to fit the parameters as observed; well not without complicated and unjustified extras.

 

A.G. Riess et al.,

“Type Ia supernova discoveries at z >1 from the Hubble Space Telecope: Evidence for past deceleration and constraints on dark energy evolution”,

Astrophys. J.,607, 665-687, (2004)

[ChristianyaNavechno]

 

With reference to this section

 

"In our article we try to explain this effect with the simple fact: the more distant the star is, the earlier light which came from this star began its travel. And at the earlier moments of time the expansion of the Universe was faster. The numerical calculations give quite good approximation of the universe radius acceleration rate – see Part 4."

 

The consensus is that the expansionary action of dark energy was not apparent in the early universe - here is a quote from the Nobel Academy on the occasion of the awarding of the prize to Serlmutter, Schmidt and Rees. It seems to flatly contradict your assertion that the expansion was faster in the early stages.

 

 

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/advanced-physicsprize2011.pdf

 

The calculations of distance (ie luminosity) and redshift work if you assume the standard model of the expansion of the universe for the first several billion years - it is only once the universe is spread out enough that dark energy starts to make itself known. A faster expanding start and less accelerated expansion now will not be able to fit the parameters as observed; well not without complicated and unjustified extras.

 

A.G. Riess et al.,

“Type Ia supernova discoveries at z >1 from the Hubble Space Telecope: Evidence for past deceleration and constraints on dark energy evolution”,

Astrophys. J.,607, 665-687, (2004)

 

When I say "at the earlier moments of time", I mean infinitisimaly small moments of time when the accelaration was little bit faster as the Friedman model says even if we make the cosmological constant = 0.

 

What was at the very early moments - that is partly the subject of Quantum Gravity - see Part 5))

 

+++ IHM

Edited November 29, 2013 by ChristianyaNavechno

[sheever]

The expansion is only in the observation. It's non local dynamic wave fluctuations and mass is the interference in a sense. We got past magnetic memory of the wave function in electromagnetic print

[imatfaal]

 

When I say "at the earlier moments of time", I mean infinitisimaly small moments of time when the accelaration was little bit faster as the Friedman model says even if we make the cosmological constant = 0.

 

What was at the very early moments - that is partly the subject of Quantum Gravity - see Part 5))

 

+++ IHM

 

My understanding is that no steady (ie gravity only) effect can explain the discrepancies we see in the age/luminosity/redshift of distant standard candles - ie it cannot be a single effect as there is no initial speed (measured even at a very early point) that can explain the entire range. The very most distant candles agree with current expansions in the early universe - but the closer cannot be fitted into any expansion without a change in the rate; ie extra speed in the very early stages cannot tell the whole story

 

The expansion is only in the observation. It's non local dynamic wave fluctuations and mass is the interference in a sense. We got past magnetic memory of the wave function in electromagnetic print

Lets keep to the single topic