Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic illusion?

[captcass]

I have posted a new paper on viXra that derives the Hubble shift as a relativistic Illusionary effect. This would disprove the accelerating expanding universe theory and eliminate the need for "dark energy". The paper also derives the mass/energy of the dark matter of M31, Andromeda, eliminating the need for "dark matter". As we cannot post links here, if you would like to read this paper and begin a discussion here on its merits, please search for the following paper:
"Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics."

[ajb]

I guess this should be in speculations...

 

Anyway, generally what is a 'relativistic illusion' as opposed to a relativistic effect? How can we tell the difference?

 

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

Edit: I had a quick look at the paper - not much in the way of mathematics as is needed for a theory. Just loads of pretty pictures and some basic calculations done with numbers to some stupid number of decimal places. To be honest, I was not expecting much more.

Edited July 12, 2016 by ajb

[Strange]

Edit: I had a quick look at the paper - not much in the way of mathematics as is needed for a theory. Just loads of pretty pictures and some basic calculations done with numbers to some stupid number of decimal places. To be honest, I was not expecting much more.

 

 

I had to laugh when I saw a calculation (relating to the Andromeda galaxy, I think) done to a precision 30 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Strange

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

moved to speculations.

 

Please ensure that your next post is a summary / abstract so that members can discuss without having to go off site (per the rules)

 

 

 

[captcass]

This theory is based on new premises that you failed to read before jumping to conclusions. The math is simple because the theory is simple and elegant and doesn't require complex math. The number of decimal places is large because the Gravitational Equivalency Constant refines out to a large number of decimal places and the Hubble shift is computed using large distances and tiny percentages, where every decimal place counts.

 

If you do not start at the beginning and understand the premises, the Andromeda derivation will appear to be gibberish. The Hubble shift derivation is based upon some of those premises, but anyone fully versed in Relativity will probably understand it without having read those premises.

 

The Fundamental Particles section is mostly derivative and are postulates on my part, but the they are the logical extension of the theory and the mass derivations work. I carried forward the large number of decimal places into this section, just as a computer would do. As such a large number of decimal places relate to and are required in the GEC, dark matter and Hubble shift derivations, they might also be relevant at the quantum level. if not, please excuse me for being precise.

A "relativistic illusion" is the same as a "relativistic effect".

 

"Reality is merely and illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein.

 

Get with it folks, in your rush to judgement without a serious reading of the premises, you just trashed the theory of everything.

 

I'm sorry I made an off-site reference, I thought only links were forbidden to avoid spammers, and I am happy to post an abstract here, but this is a new approach, based upon a new relativistic premise, that needs to be considered in its entirety and anyone wishing to comment needs to read the paper through from the beginning (except maybe for the Hubble shift derivation).

 

I expected more professionalism when I posted here, not a cursory glance and summary judgement based on ignorance regarding the premises I am discussing.

 

Your members will have no idea what they are talking about based solely on the abstract.. The full paper has to be read to be understood or at least provide a basis for conversation, which I am more that willing to engage in..

 

I have spent years working on these problems and conundrums and finally had an inspiration last August that led to this theory and these derivations.

 

I am no dolt, but a Cum Laude graduate of a Federal Academy and have an IQ of 141. I've forgotten more than most people will ever know.

 

The derivations work and are the mathematical proof of this theory, even though the math is simple. If you can disprove, or find fault with, the derivations, please let me know.

 

Cass

[ajb]

Get with it folks, in your rush to judgement without a serious reading of the premises, you just trashed the theory of everything.

 

I expected more professionalism when I posted here, not a cursory glance and summary judgement based on ignorance regarding the premises I am discussing.

A quick look at it showed me that it is not up to the standard one expects of physics papers... sorry.

 

And note that this is not a professional forum - for that you are better off writing a shorter paper and submitting it for publication.

 

 

I am no dolt, but a Cum Laude graduate of a Federal Academy and have an IQ of 141.

Interesting, as nobody in science cares about IQ...

 

Anyway, it is best - assuming you want some discussion - to post some of the basic ideas here.

Edited July 15, 2016 by ajb

[captcass]

Right, that's why no one ever talks about Einstein's high IQ........

Again, a "quick look" tells the reader nothing. I know how unusual this concept and paper is, but the derivations work. Would you care to comment on the Hubble shift derivation, for instance? That is just simple relativity and does not really require the gravity derivations and premises to be understood.

Cass

[ajb]

Would you care to comment on the Hubble shift derivation, for instance?

Would care to say something about it here first?

[captcass]

I don't know what I could say.... How does one encapsulate a derivation? It is simply based on the length of a meter changing with changes in the rate of time, which is necessary to maintain C, and it agrees with Einstein's two postulates in Special Relativity.

A photon traveling down a time dilation gradient experiences longer and longer meters between reference frames and this attenuates the photon as the length of a meter attenuates. This is always in relation to the observer's own inertial frame of reference and its rate of time, a purely relativistic effect.

[swansont]

I don't know what I could say.... How does one encapsulate a derivation? It is simply based on the length of a meter changing with changes in the rate of time, which is necessary to maintain C, and it agrees with Einstein's two postulates in Special Relativity.

A photon traveling down a time dilation gradient experiences longer and longer meters between reference frames and this attenuates the photon as the length of a meter attenuates. This is always in relation to the observer's own inertial frame of reference and its rate of time, a purely relativistic effect.

 

 

 

What do you mean by attenuate? We already know the frequency of the photon changes when one's position changes in a gravitational well. How does your view differ?

[captcass]

The Hubble shift is an attenuation of light. Attenuation means an increase in length, a stretching out. As a meter increases in length, the photon must also attenuate, stretch out, decreasing the frequency and increasing the wavelength, creating the red shift..

A photon traveling down gradient experiences a percentage increase between each set of reference frames based upon the difference in rates of time, dRt, between those frames and the effect is cumulative. As far as I know no one else has applied this concept to the Hubble shift, otherwise we wouldn't have a theory of an accelerating expansion of the universe and people wouldn't be looking for "dark energy".

[ajb]

It is simply based on the length of a meter changing with changes in the rate of time...

This sounds odd. A meter is a meter.

 

...which is necessary to maintain C, and it agrees with Einstein's two postulates in Special Relativity.

I don't follow... maybe it is in your 'paper'.

 

A photon traveling down a time dilation gradient experiences longer and longer meters between reference frames and this attenuates the photon as the length of a meter attenuates.

Time dilation gradient?

 

Also one has to be careful with the 'photon's point of view' - but anyway...

 

This is always in relation to the observer's own inertial frame of reference and its rate of time, a purely relativistic effect.

Okay, you can always have local inertial frames - but none of these are the photon rest frame - but what is the observers rate of time? You mean the rate at which an inertial observer sees his clock ticking?

[captcass]

It is all always relative to the observer's own inertial frame of reference. When time slows, space must increase to maintain C. This is usually accounted for by the addition of meters, but that is incorrect. The relative length of a meter changes. From one's own inertial frame, a meter in a reference frame with a faster rate of time must shorten to maintain C. In a slower reference frame it must appear longer to maintain C.

Suppose you have two reference frames separated by 1 meter. If the dRt between those two frames changes, the length of that meter must change to maintain C.

A meter is always a meter in one's own reference frame, but appears shorter or longer in frames with slower or faster rates of time.

Sorry, gotta go to work so I won't be replying to any more posts until this evening.

Thanks for the questions.

[ajb]

It is all always relative to the observer's own inertial frame of reference.

Does not really make sense. In an inertial frame (maybe just a local one) the observer there does not notice anything 'strange' happen to himself. Time just ticks as it ever did for him.

 

When time slows, space must increase to maintain C.

Time slows? You mean when comparing clocks.... this does not have any effect on the local speed of light.

 

 

From one's own inertial frame, a meter in a reference frame with a faster rate of time must shorten to maintain C. In a slower reference frame it must appear longer to maintain C.

Sorry, but none of this makes any sense.

[swansont]

The Hubble shift is an attenuation of light. Attenuation means an increase in length, a stretching out. As a meter increases in length, the photon must also attenuate, stretch out, decreasing the frequency and increasing the wavelength, creating the red shift..

A photon traveling down gradient experiences a percentage increase between each set of reference frames based upon the difference in rates of time, dRt, between those frames and the effect is cumulative. As far as I know no one else has applied this concept to the Hubble shift, otherwise we wouldn't have a theory of an accelerating expansion of the universe and people wouldn't be looking for "dark energy".

 

 

Attenuation usually refers to an amplitude.

 

As far as light stretching out goes, that's what the CMBR represents. We also have the cosmological redshift applied to other photons we observe. Are you suggesting that you think this is not taken into account for Hubble's law observations?

[Mordred]

90 pages. I would have expected considerably more mathematical detail.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Slow day, so here I am at work....

Thanks for the feedback resident expert. Everything you say is true. It doesn't contain any of those things, which are fine and good in their own realm and for their own usages to describe events.

 

We have been quite naturally looking at events in space and we have just taken for granted.that events in time, distortions, are the result of matter. We are defining events primarily in terms of the spatial aspect. And all that is well and good. I am not trying to change Einstein's field equations. But they don't accurately describe gravity on the cosmic, or even galactic scale, do they? Why does gravity move in only one direction? My shift in the update simply explains that.

 

When you stand upon the Earth, are you in freefall following one of Einsteins geodesics? No. But you are being pulled downward in the dilation gradient. You can feel the pull and have weight. The shift in the lateral update also simply explains that.

 

I am looking at relativity in the time aspect.

 

Believe me, it really twisted my head around trying to look at events in time once the lateral update occurred to me. But once I realized two adjacent frames couldn't evolve forward at different rates of time without creating stress I had to work it through. Before that I, too, would have only given a paper like this a quick glance.

 

When I worked out the derivations it surprised me how well they resolved themselves. I wasn't at all sure they would when I began them.

 

I realize the primary concept here is initially hard to grasp. Who can think of a force in time? And yet time does force space to change. Accelerated time shortens the length of a meter. If time is evolving forward in adjacent reference frames at a different rates, and if space is at least relativisticly substantial, then stress is placed on space. For the same reason, adjacent events in space/time cannot evolve forward in temporal time, which is measured in the forward evolution of individual events in their own inertial frames, at different rates without creating stress.

 

I believe the reason the basic formula for z becomes inaccurate beyond the Hubble horizon is because it doesn't take into effect the compounded percentage increase in the length of a meter as I do in my simple derivation.

 

I understand what you are saying about what we observe and what it seems to mean. I have been fruitlessly following those paths for years and always ran into dead ends. But no one has yet proven that what we think it means is true. There are large unanswered questions in all our advanced fields of study. "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" mean "we do not know", and both are absurd propositions. The idea that a perceptually infinite universe can be "shrunK' down to a tiny space is also absurd as by definition there is no space outside the universe to perceive it from.

 

I am not saying there wasn't a massive creation event, a big bang of a different sort, but the inflationary universe makes no sense as the singularity is a perceptual impossibility. Everything is relative and depends on perception.

 

I am not getting into the blackbody temperature of the CMB and all of that. This theory, if substantiated, will cause a lot of current researchers grief. I am speaking of only primary relativistic effects in time, The complexities of what happens after that in terms of cosmic thermodynamics is best left to others.

 

Again, the only way to understand this is to put some other concepts temporarily aside, though conceptual relationships will probably occur, while only thinking of relativity in time. The lateral update allows us to do this.

[Mordred]

those thermodynamics your ignoring have a major role in defining cosmological redshift. Its an integral aspect.

 

For example "What is the emitter frequency ?" temperature affects this.

 

What is the curvature constant? this affects worldlines

Edited July 15, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

The Hubble shift is an attenuation of light. Attenuation means an increase in length, a stretching out.

 

 

The more usual meaning of attenuate is a reduction in amplitude.

[Mordred]

One of the problems ppl have with expansion is that they assume matter stays in the same form it does today. Though they also aren't familiar with BB nucleosynthesis. The CMB is only possible via nucleosynthesis.

 

This nucleosynthesis requires expansion to occur. Raise the temperature high enough atoms can no longer stay stable. Continue raising the temperature various particles reach thermal equilibrium. Continue doing so until all particles are in thermal equilibrium.

 

How many photons can you stuff into a finite Planck unit volume?

 

The BB is quite easily visualized. Of course it helps to understand whats really being described by expansion. Which apparently you don't.

 

What is so unusual about the average mass density decreasing ? That decrease requires expansion.

 

Although pressure performs the work. Pressure doesn't cause expansion as you require a pressure gradient. That and increased pressure increases gravity.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

I understand what you are all saying. What I am saying is that things are often not what they seem in a relativistic universe. None-the-less, a BB as proposed is totally illogical as the originating singularity is an absurdity. The one thing we know for sure is that the illusion appears to be logical.

 

I am only talking about the formation of quanta. Once particles are formed all of our science makes perfect sense, including thermodynamics. except for the origins of particles. The CMB could well be the result of the nucleosynthesis going on within stars and other bodies. Again, it is a nice theory, but it is still only a theory and to date it is a dead end when trying to tie it directly to a BB. First of all, it is not uniform, as first thought.

 

LMGTFY, attenuation in length is usually accompanied by a reduction in amplitude..

[Mordred]

I believe you have the wrong conception of a singularity in this case. There is a significant difference between a BH singularity and that described by the BB singularity.

 

In the latter case it means our physics can no longer accurately describe the conditions. This occurs until 10^-43 seconds after the BB. Our models describe after this point in time.

 

The observable universe is our region of shared causality. This is the region that contracts to a finite dense volume. The rest of our universe outside our region of shared causality isn't being modelled.

 

The universe can be finite or infinite. We simply don't know. If its infinite now its infinite in the past.

 

Forget the pop media visual images of some explosion from some god particle. Thats not what the real science describes

[captcass]

These things sound reasonable, but they really are not. The universe is at least perceptually infinite. To say this only occurs within the observable universe again makes no sense. First of all, how far is that? We are putting up new telescopes that will let us observe to far further distances. How much mass is being considered in the current theories? Why is it localized to only the observable universe? All of this misconception began when people misinterpreted the Hubble shift and tried to find a theory to explain it. That theory has given us dark energy and an impossible accelerating expansion of the universe. In no way is that logical and, again, the universe is logical.

 

Modern physicists are contortionists trying to make things work, even though there is no direct evidence of it, like the "Darks". The only way the theories work is to accept unknowns as fact. They are forcing things to fit because they are stuck in misconceptions. The result is dead ends.

[Mordred]

well quite frankly your proposed model does nothing to correct what you percieve to be problems.

 

Simply ignoring thermodynamic evidence isn't going to help convince anyone your correct and every expert for the past 90 years or so is wrong.

 

Lets put it this way. Your paper suggests the universe is essentially static. That expansion is just a relativity illusion.

 

I just provided a counter argument that shows expansion doesn't just include red shift data but also thermodynamic evidence.

 

At which point pretty much everyone that tries to argue expansion via redshift on forums ignores the thermodynamic evidence.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

As per QM, particles never actually exist at any point in time. We have a perpetual state of superposition that appears to evolve forward in a fairly predictable fashion based on probabilities. But particles are actually not here or there. Thus a BB would be generating not particles, but the probability of particles.

 

This means a singularity as proposed by any BB theory would also only exist as a probability at any point in time.

 

Also, the BB theories do not result in a beginning, though they predict a cold dark end, that is also not really an ending. What precedes the singularity? What is the causation behind the inflation? What happens after the universe goes cold?

 

Sorry, but none of the theories really make any sense at all.