﻿ Deductive Inference of Static (Non-Expanding) Universe
Discussion:
Deductive Inference of Static (Non-Expanding) Universe
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2018-12-05 13:45:09 UTC
The present fundamental physics, obviously insane, will be abandoned sooner or later. In the next version, Einstein's 1905 false axiom

"The speed of light is invariable"

will be replaced with the correct one

"The wavelength of light is invariable".

This means that, in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

any registered change in frequency corresponds to a proportional change in the speed of light. In other words, the frequency, as measured by an observer (receiver), shifts ONLY because the speed of the light relative to him shifts.

Some justification for the new axiom:

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that a beam of light will accelerate in a gravitational field as do objects with rest mass. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

The quotations show that, for light falling in a gravitational field, the frequency and the speed vary proportionally, as predicted by Newton's theory. This means that, in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength),

the wavelength is INVARIABLE.

Here is how the new axiom works:

Premise 1: The wavelength of light is invariable.

Premise 2: The formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct.

Conclusion: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through space. The universe is STATIC, not expanding.

The hypothesis that vacuum slows down light is largely discussed but only in terms of quantum gravity. The implication that the Hubble redshift might be due to decreasing speed of light is persistently ignored (crimestop).

Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-time might change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed of light." http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2017/01/what-burst-fresh-attempt-to-see-space.html

Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found. Although the effect is small, high-energy photons traveling very long distances should lose a noticeable amount of energy, the researchers say. [...] If it is true that spacetime is a superfluid and that photons of different energies travel at different speeds or dissipate over time, that means relativity does not hold in all situations." http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-12-06 09:52:00 UTC
University of California, Davis: "The original theory of General Relativity has given correct predictions in every other context, Temple said, and there is no direct evidence of dark energy. So why add a "fudge factor" (dark energy or the cosmological constant) to equations that already appear correct?" https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/doing-without-dark-energy/

Actually dark energy is a secondary fudge factor. The fundamental fudge factor is the ARBITRARILY VARIABLE WAVELENGTH OF LIGHT - an extremely powerful nonsense in fundamental physics able to make any other nonsense acceptable:

"As a result, the wavelength of photons propagating through the expanding space is stretched, creating the cosmological redshift." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Expanding universe is obviously nonsense. If there were expansion, it would be in competitive interaction with the gravitational attraction and the effects would be manifest wherever there is such an attraction. For instance, the expansion would dominate where the attraction is weak, and vice versa. No such effects have ever been observed. Cosmologists don't know how to model the local interaction between expansion and gravitational attraction (any such model would produce results incompatible with observations) and implicitly obey the following idiotic slogan:

Wherever there is gravitational attraction, forget about expansion!

The problem (for cosmologists) is that recently Sabine Hossenfelder made the implicit slogan explicit:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "If The Universe Is Expanding, Then Why Aren't We? The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/

The universe cannot be expanding in some places and static in others - it is static everywhere. Star light slows down as it travels through the space vacuum, an effect caused by a factor equivalent to vacuum friction. For not so distant stars this is expressed as Hubble redshift but beyond a certain distance the star light does not reach us at all (Olbers' paradox):

"This leads to the prediction of vacuum friction: The quantum vacuum can act in a manner reminiscent of a viscous fluid." http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVN

New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all

"So how can a vacuum carry force? One of the first things we learn in classical physics is that in a perfect vacuum - a place entirely devoid of matter - friction can't exist, because empty space can't exert a force on objects traveling through it. But, in recent years, quantum physicists have shown that vacuums are actually filled by tiny electromagnetic fluctuations that can interfere with the activity of photons - particles of light - and produce a measurable force on objects." http://www.businessinsider.com/casimir-effect-vacuum-space-nanoparticles-2017-4

Vacuum friction slows down photons coming from distant stars - so the Hubble redshift is produced - but at the end of their journey photons redshift less vigorously than at the beginning. This has wrongly been interpreted as accelerating expansion:

"In the mid 1990s two teams of scientists, one led by Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess, and the other by Saul Perlmutter, independently measured distances to Type 1a supernovae in the distant universe, finding that they appeared to be further way than they should be if the universe's rate of expansion was constant. The observations led to the hypothesis that some kind of dark energy anti-gravitational force has caused the expansion of the universe to accelerate over the past six billion years." https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/dark-energy-may-not-exist

The redshifting occurs in a STATIC, not expanding, universe, and varies EXPONENTIALLY with time. The "finding that they appeared to be further way than they should be" is an illusion due to using an approximation to the exponential function.

Assume that, as the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), a factor equivalent to vacuum friction (see relevant references below) slows it down so that the photon loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air. On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the speed of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this effect, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:

f' = f(exp(-kt))

where f is the initial and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. For short distances the following approximations can be made:

f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/λ

where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and λ is the wavelength.

The approximate equation, f' = f - kd/λ, is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law.

The original equation, f' = f(exp(-kt)), shows that at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe) photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning of the journey. This means that photons coming from very distant objects have undergone some initial "vigorous" redshifting which is unaccounted for by the Hubble law. This explains why the very distant objects "appeared to be further way than they should be if the universe's rate of expansion was constant".

Pentcho Valev