Dear Sunil!

My thoughts are the same in regards to the theory of the so called "big bang". Mark you: It is only a theory!

It is impossible that a particle or electromagnetic radiation cross the universe for the eternity without any influence by other material matter or other rediation (photons). Hubbles idea to declare the red shift by movement was appropriately at that time but very simple and we have to search for real causes.

The observed red shift is nothing than an average lost of energy resp. damping of radiation in an almost complete but not absolute vacuum. If you look at pictures of galaxies in a distant of 11-12*10E9 ly than this galaxies have the same shape as the galaxies close by us. This would be impossible if the galaxies would have started to exist after a "big bang" had occurred.

An interesting result is deducible from the Doppler effect. It declares the spiralic shape of the arms of galaxies resp. the star orbits.

My Regards! Hans

Thesis The Deceleration of moved Energy emitting Objects by the Dop...

the interaction between photon and gravitational field caused what is known as gravitational redshift. in such interaction the photon lost part of its energy

"But light travelling in vacuum of Space and losing energy at massive Galactic Scales will Red shift and cease to Freeze, and any point in the Universe will have a center from where the view of all lights of the universe feezing from its point of view, just t before it freezes to dead stop, which is at the center of the point of view."

Unfortunately, the aging of light has not been confirmed in physics. But GR allows one to describe another alternative approach. Instead of changing the frequency of the light, the tempo of time is continuously changing and time redshifts occur. Which is perceived as Hubble's law.

A general theory of relativity is formulated without Einstein’s equation. Einstein’s tensor ties the space metric to the stress-energy tensor of a gravitational field. A homogeneous isotropic field metric is under consideration. In particular, the metric for a homogeneous isotropic universe possesses the anticipated density of our own universe. The speed of time progression at a distance from the observer slows according to an acceleration law asymptotically equal to Hubble’s Law. A continuous field is homogeneous within the limits of small domains. This makes it possible to write a metric for a general continuous field and the single parameter given by the wave equation. The Schwarzschild problem has a continuous solution for r > 0. This solution approaches the Schwarzschild solution beyond the Schwarzschild radius and a second solution is obtained from the Schwarzschild problem - a stationary, expulsive, self-consistent field.

Preprint Dark energy as zero energy of gravity field

Time is a tick in nature and SR Time is based on Light being used to signal Space-Time Co-Ordinates in Reference Frames and reconcile. But Nature does not need to do that, and its Reference Frame is always connected and grand.

Time Dilation is not explained in SR or GR in terms of Physical Processes. Time is tick of Nature and without understanding the Physical Processes, and using it as a Dimension for convenience of understanding its as Space-Time Geometry, only misleads us. People take it too dear to Time as Dimension. It is not a Vector but a Scalar Paramater which translates and scales, through velocity or acceleration,the dimensions in Space in various transport mechanism.

Be that as it may, Time is forever connected with coordinates. In the SR, this is the Minkowski metric. Further, time in GR is associated with a more complex metric with space and the pace of a standard clock depends not only on the speed of the reference system, but also on the gravitational potential.

In my work, I showed that time in a stationary homogeneous system is described by a simple metric that not only obeys the Hubble law. but also determines the density of the universe.

Like you, the microwave background radiation can be explained by an extremely large redshift.

But Hublle and Sitter conclusion of expansion of the Universe causing Red Shift is based on conclusion that the Redshift observed is from the Expanding Universe. We should treat Laws and Metric with a grain of salt and understand their limitations.

Modern cosmology is built on the assumption that the cause of the redshift is the Doppler effect. Until now, there are no other valid reasons for the redshift. I considered the simplest homogeneous metric. He used the principles of GR and got a homogeneous and infinite Universe. At any point of this universe, there is the same picture of the universe. And the redshift at large distances grows faster than the Hubble law.

The only free parameter of this theory is the Hubble constant. no further assumptions have been made.

For an alternative explanation, please refer to Article CMB Radiation

Dear Jacinto Jesús Rodríguez Pérez,

But then the offset will be purple. My idea is that the redshift is caused by the structure of the space in which the clocks go, the slower they are from the observer.

respectfully, Valery Morozov

The space-time metric determines the property of time depending on the distance. We observe the same redshift at any point in the stationary universe.

The universe is the same at any point at any time. The density of the gravitational field is the same everywhere. On this background, there are stars, galaxies, etc.

Respectfully , Valery Morozov

i suggest the following links ;

https://www.space.com/chameleon-theory-alternative-gravity-model.html

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-theory-universe-thought.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/07/cosmologys-only-big-problems-are-manufactured-misunderstandings/#18b3f5935913

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/18/this-is-how-we-know-the-cosmic-microwave-background-comes-from-the-big-bang/#1d662ac871c3

Have you seen this article?

Dear Colleagues!

I would point in connection with gravitational red shift that we do not measure a significant red shift of the solar radiation in the Sun's gravitational field. It would be on Earth's orbit about 4*10E6 times higher than the ostensible red shift in the experiment of Pound/Rebka 1960. It would be easy to observe such a great deviation by spectroscopy much time before Einstein made his theories. Unfortunately Einstein has never made any experiments to underpin his ideas.

Gravitational red shift is meaningless in regards to Hubble's red shift. We have to accept that electromagnetic radiation is damped on it's way throgh the universe like every other particle resp. every other object.

"I would point in connection with gravitational red shift that we do not measure a significant red shift of the solar radiation in the Sun's gravitational field. It would be on Earth's orbit about 4*10E6 times higher than the ostensible red shift in the experiment of Pound/Rebka 1960."

This shift was observed in the days of Einstein. But the observations were not reliable due to the blurring of the lines of the spectrum.

"Gravitational red shift is meaningless in regards to Hubble's red shift. We have to accept that electromagnetic radiation is damped on it's way throgh the universe like every other particle resp. every other object "

No such light change was detected. I have calculations showing that the redshift is caused by a change in the course of time over long distances.

Preprint Dark energy as zero energy of gravity field

Nihal Ercan,

CMB need not be the relic of Big Bang and assumes Earth (near co-ordinates) to be the center of the Big Bang, but we are offset by 4.5 Billion Years. CMB will be found almost the same from any point of the Universe with its limited sphere of visible objects from distance surrounding and that can be further seen.

Sitter and Hubble explanation need not be correct. It is just that the further we a visible object is in Galactic Scales, it would red shift. Gravity and Doppler may exacerbate them. Universe need not be expanding like a bubble. Points between them could be for other reasons.

Sunil Srivastava,

any observational proof for the case of the Universe need not to be expanding? Hubble is still right as far as the observational evidences are concerned, is not it? not only expanding and also accelerating universe ....

please see,

MICHEL CHEVALLIER and DAVID POLARSKI

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271801000822 Cited by:1106

and

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay21/readings/carroll.pdf

and

https://www.eso.org/~bleibund/papers/EPN/epn.html

Valery Borisovich Morozov: "I have calculations showing that the redshift is caused by a change in the course of time over long distances."

You confuse calculations which are based on theoretical considerations with the real causes of observations like red shift and others. Physics do not recognised the reality, it calculates a theoretical assumed reality. See the "quarks": They are perfectly calculated, but never observed.

I agree with Sunil: Contemporary physics has shifted the earth in the centre of the universe again and reboren the act of creation by inexpensively theories like 'big bang'.

It is high time for taking physics to the ground of the facts.

Thesis The Justification of a realistic Picture of Particles and At...

Hans-G. Hildebrandt,

The change in the course of time is actually observable quantities. This is so in the gravitational fields. The metric of a homogeneous isotropic field allows us to conclude that the cosmological redshift is not a consequence of the Doppler effect (galaxy scattering). This is just a slowing down of time at remote points in space.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Dark-energy-plus-dark-matter?_sg=ATRFFKV9D5T-uUzNuycpkZI4XNAsjmPg0PWdT8oUcPSWu_JqfXCzX2sMIZM9LwlJRdmo6e9Gr5BJi_4cKIE7pNNsDUYpm6Ioxntn

Respectfully , Valery Morozov

Valery Borisovich Morozov: It should be allowed to doubt about the theories in physics in particular after the failure of the LHC at CERN. Your hint to the mysterious "dark matter" don't sting because it's basing on the same reasons like "big bang". Both theories fulfilling each other.

To observe something and to declare the observations are different things. But only observations (in the broadest sense) are the source resp. the base of recognition. Theories representing merely a certain stage of knowledge without guarantee of rightness.

Dear Hans, you write: " Your hint to the mysterious "dark matter" don't sting because it's basing on the same reasons like "big bang". "

My work is based on GR. The result is obtained on the basis of the metric of a homogeneous isotropic space. This is a stationary universe. The redshift in this universe was not obtained due to the scattering of galaxies, but due to the different speed of the clock. The farther the standard clock, the slower they go. Dark energy and dark matter is a byproduct. In such a universe there is not and never was a big bang.

Preprint Dark energy as zero energy of gravity field

E.Nihal Ercan,

What all you have stated, I have gone through it over years. There is a lot of Region like Belief System here.

My point is, Nothing in Nature Lasts For Ever, and Light even in Vacuum of Space will not keep moving for ever. It will lose energy and speed over scales which we have not yet verified.

We have assumed that we know all possible reasons for Light Red Shifting, including Doppler, Gravitational and Expanding Universe. The last is the basis of Hubble and De-Sitter conclusion for Redshift.

But here where the Religion comes in and Scientists are still behaving like that by breaking the tenant of Science: It needs to verify Light has constant velocity for ever and does not lose energy in Vacuum of Space over the size of the Universe. Till then it can't rule out Tired Light, even if does not hit matter, to be a possibility of Red Shift.

Best,

Sunil

There is a third possibility. Watch as the distance from the observer go slower. This is what follows from the extended GRT. Everything becomes clear after considering the metric of a homogeneous space.

GR FE is wrong in assuming Homogeneous Space with Stress Tensor.

What do you mean, "Watch as the distance from the observer go slower. "?

"What do you mean, "Watch as the distance from the observer go slower. "?"

Not. The average distance does not decrease. Time is late. The frequency of the pendulums of any nature decreases depending on the distance. It is simply a property of homogeneous space.

The only disadvantage of GR is the Einstein equation is not exact.

interaction of light with matter is the most important fact of physics, as you all know. being an observer what i believe is the e.m. waves i observe and i am afraid i cannot predict if the light will be tired or not. as far as i can see now it does not seem to be tired traveling from millions of light years.

The tired light hypothesis has not yet been confirmed.

Also the hypothesis of an expanding universe is basically not confirmed. We rate merely some observations as indications of an expansion.

Electromagnetic radiation becomes not "tired". It lost more an more energy on the travel trough the not absolute empty space of the universe.

Maybe I'm right. The space is arranged in such a way that time is continuously slowing down. Then there will be a redshift.

Preprint Dark energy as zero energy of gravity field

Dear Valery!

Let's make a thought experiment: We remove all kinds of matter fom the universe. Have we than a gigantic empty space and everywhere the same and constant time?

In the sense of mathematics yes, but in reality the space and the time disappear without matter. Space and time are resulting from the existence of matter. Einstein has tried to display the dependency of space and time from matter. But some of his underlying theoretical assumptions are more than questionable.

I think we are at the beginning to understand the existence of matter in its very different manifestations and effects of interactions.

Physics has to take the history of chemistry as an example: Only incorruptible experiments and their evaluation free of theories brings cognition.

My Regards! Hans

Dear Hans, You say:

"In the sense of mathematics yes, but in reality the space and the time disappear without matter. "

No, in GR, space is material, it has energy, momentum, and tension densities.

"But some of his underlying theoretical assumptions are more than questionable."

I see no reason for doubt. Moreover, all theories of the theory have been confirmed.

Respectfully , Valery

"Einstein has tried to display the dependency of space and time from matter. "

and this was confirmed by exact experiments. And from the conservation laws follows the materiality of space-time.

Valery Borisovich Morozov,

"Unfortunately, the aging of light has not been confirmed in physics. But GR allows one to describe another alternative approach. Instead of changing the frequency of the light, the tempo of time is continuously changing and time redshifts occur. Which is perceived as Hubble's law."

Neither the non aging of Light is confirmed at the scales I am talking about but we take Expanding Universe as a Gospel and the cause of Red-Shift. Nothing in the Universe comes with guarantees of perpetuity!

The Universe is not Homogeneous and Isotropic in Visible Mass Distribution, so the Stress Energy Tensor in Einstein GR FE is wrong. It is just a model with many assumptions.

Time has been made God by SR and GR and a vector through Lorentz and Poincare Geometry. It is just a tool to understand Space vs Time interaction. Time Dilation is related to Gravitational Fields for sure. In SR, it is related to Lorentz Symmetries and when two different Reference Frames use to communicate Space-Time Events. But in Nature, the Vacuum of Space is one Large Absolute Reference Frame, and not needing to reconcile S-T events.

So "slowing" or "advancing" of time to explain Redshifts, beside through Gravity, is an artifact of mathematics used and not of a Reality.

Science still suffers form dogmas of taking models too seriously. Like using SU(3) to model Quarks/GCD and ability to predict masses through Eigen Values. It does not have self correcting/parity checking with another method like I used in He-2-4 Model. So I can say my model is at least more truthful than the pushed dogmas in SU(3).

Valery Borisovich Morozov

"Not. The average distance does not decrease. Time is late. The frequency of the pendulums of any nature decreases depending on the distance. It is simply a property of homogeneous space">

If there is a homogeneous and isotropic vacuum of space at every space point, then why time needs to be late and function of space distance? There is nothing to be observed or nothing to make things observed.

Moment you say Time is late as function of distance, you are bringing some gradient of field. And this gradient shifts in favor of all observers at any space point. which leads to Space wrapping on itself in convoluted ways, and every observer could saying things differently without reconciliation - as a chance - but there is nothing to observe!

Time is a tick of a physical processes in Nature and do not take it so seriously for Vacuum of Space.

Are you saying Vacuum of Space ticks differently for a nearby observer vs distant observer? It would then mean photons are slowing down as function of time, and the gaps between two arriving photons stretches as the distance grows. This is same what I have said.

Best,

Sunil

"At any point of this universe, there is the same picture of the universe. And the Redshift at large distances grows faster than the Hubble law. "

What do you mean? Is't Hubble Law tied with accelerating and expanding Universe?

I have said the CMB picture would be the same for every Space Point.

And current CMB assumption mandates Earth to be at the center of the Universe which contradicts since they also say it is 4.5 B away from the Big Bang Center.

According to Max Planck, the ratio between photon energy and its frequency is constant (Planck constant). Thus, any change in photon energy paralleled by a change in vibration frequency, and any change in vibration frequency paralleled by a change in photon energy to keep the ratio constant. This means that changing the time of vibration leads to energy change. Since time depends on the observer - his motion and the intensity of the gravitational field in the observation area - the energy is also dependent on the observer. This will lead to the fact that the mass is also dependent on the observer. This will lead to the momentum being dependent on the observer. This would entail that the length of the de Broglie particle wave would depend on the observer. The question here is whether the changes in the amounts we measure are real changes that occur in the thing we measure or only in our measurements. In other words, is the energy of the photon, which suffers from red scaling, actually decrease or decreasing for the observer only? In both cases what about the violation of energy conservation?

"... space is material, it has energy, momentum, and tension densities."

Empty space, an absolute vacuum resp. the Nothing has no properties! Such ideas reminds of alchemical theories to declare the properties of the materials: They would result from the basic properties hot and cold, wet and dry by mixing of the basic elements fire, water, air and earth.

The so-called vacuum fluctuation is nothing than interactions between the materials of or within the vacuum camber. The absence of air or other disturbing materials made unespected processes possible.

Space and also time are resulting from matter.

A very abstract definition would read: Space is the distance of the processes, time is the distance if different stages of an process. The speed of a process is dependend on energy and therefore time is also dependend on energy as we observe.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt,

This is about the physical space of general relativity. In addition, a physical vacuum exists independently of the physical space. It is endowed with other unique properties: it shifts the levels of atomic electrons, increases the moment of the electron, etc.

All properties of physical space and physical vacuum are confirmed in the experiment.

Regards