No, this is not according to the Standard Model of Cosmology. We, and the 1 meter stick, are not expanding. The size is determined by atomic physics, independent of gravity. Even graviationally bound systems, like solar systems and galaxies are not expected to expand. Only the space between galaxies.

https://everythingwhat.com/how-is-the-universe-like-rising-raisin-bread-dough

Kåre Olaussen

Kåre, I read what you recommended, but it explained me nothing. Neither from what you said did I understand. Inside a galaxy there is space - most of the galaxy is empty space (+ cosmic radiation). Which privileges has the inter-galactic space over the intra-galactic space, and also over intra-solar-system space?

This, I presume, is a result that follows from detailed calculations in the Standard Model. I have not worked seriously in this field myself. But there is perhaps a simple way to look at it:

Consider first two independent "balls" placed on a sheet which stretches in all directions; they will move apart from each other. Next tie the balls together to form a bound system; now their distance stays the same although the sheets continues to stretch everywhere.

So, it it not only a question of the behaviour of space, inter-galactic or intra-galactic; it is also a question of how matter in that space behaves.

This is beautifully explained in an online course by ANUx on www.edx.org if you care to understand more fully . They are short , easy and really informative courses .

That buisness of long range expansion, but not short range always sounded very funny to me.

Perhaps at short range it is too small to measure??

But you simply do not know what drives the expansion, until you know you should not have an opinion.

Expansion itself is in doubt, I can think of several ways to invalidate this aparent expansion.

Kåre Olaussen

Dear Kåre, the chord that ties the Earth to the Sun is the gravitation force (G ME MS)/RES2, where the subscript E (S) refers to the Earth (Sun). The distance RES has to enhance as enhances all the fabric of the universe.

However, there is a problem: the centrifugal force, MEv2/RES, where v is the tangential velocity of the Earth, is inverse proportional only with RES, not with RES2. So, if RES increases the Earth would tend to escape from the Sun, or the tengential velocity would decrease, i.e. the year should become longer.

Sofia D. Wechsler : "the chord that ties the Earth to the Sun is the gravitation force (G ME MS)/RES2. "

Indeed, pointing inwards. And the expansion acts as a repulsive force. If one makes the (70% accurate, according to the Standard Model) assumption that all expansion is caused by dark energy/cosmological constant, this force is - in local Schwarzschild coordinates with center on the Sun, in the weak field non-relativistic approximation - time independent, equal to −ME (Λ/3) RES (when Λ is measured in some suitable units).

So, for [G Ms − (Λ/3) RES3] > 0, there can exist stable, time independent orbits. For larger values of RES the "expansion force" will win, leading to an exponential increase of RES with time (reflecting the cosmological expansion). For the stable orbits there will, however, be some change in the relation between circular orbital velocity v and radius RES (away from Keplers third law), increasing with RES. Inserting appropriate values, I think this is much too small to be detectible in the solar system. And, for galactic systems, the effect seems to be in the opposite direction than the observed one, which is (probably) the main reason behind the hypothesis of cold dark matter.

In the Standard Model of Cosmology, the expansion is not 100% caused by the cosmological constant. This will lead to a modification of the expansion force, certainly making it (very slowly) time dependent. This must, in principle, change the orbital periods of planets with time. But since the expansion currently occurs on a timescale of 1010 years, this change is much too slow to be detectible on human timescales (in addition to being too small). I am sure our motion relative to f.i. the Andromeda galaxy, or our rotation around the galactic center, leads to much faster and larger effects on our planetary system -- but still undetectable.

There is a lot of scientific literature on this subject, a very recent article is https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.01216.pdf, where at least its first six references are about the same topic. A more extensive list can be found here: https://inspirehep.net/literature?sort=mostrecent&size=25&page=1&q=refersto%3Arecid%3A488668

Since I have not worked actively in the field, I cannot make any judgements about this literature, most of which I have never seen.

By immediately stop "shooting the messengers" of rational explanations we could prove that the universe is NOT expanding... the idea of an {accelerated} expanding universe is not even childish !! Why would the universe suffer from flatulence ?? Ridicules !!

Besides that... there is no such thing as "the fabric of our universe"... get real !!

I don´t think the word 'ridiculus' by itself constitutes a rational explanation ;-)

From a purely classical point of view, notions like ´the fabric of space' or 'the fabric of the universe' or 'the ether' may be unnecessary poetry, but in quantum physics I consider such expressions synonymous to 'the quantum vacuum', which is believed to have observable physical properties.

Your words ...which is believed to have... are just as "rational" as my ridicules ! A "classical point of view" is nothing but more or less forced consensus (belief)... because every other point of view would be heresy, which means belittling, loss of reputation and in some cases even loss of job... wouldn't it ?? However... believing the universe is expanding is unnecessary poetry and strong evidence of an arbitrary use of the scientific method and thus ridicules.

Sydney Ernest Grimm

• ".... Стандартная космологическая модель противоречит основам физики. Но до тех пор, пока никто не может убедительно доказать, что общая теория относительности Эйнштейна является всего лишь моделью - а красное смещение света далеких галактик имеет другое происхождение - можно фантазировать, что само пространство может искривляться и расширяться (или сжатие до размеров особенности). Можно даже вообразить, что само пространство приняло решение различать вакуумное пространство вокруг ядер и между атомами с одной стороны и вакуумное пространство в космологическом масштабе с другой стороны....."

смотри мою статью.

Это справедливо показывает, что красное смещение в спектре излучения галактик, квазаров и т.д. не зависит от расстояния до них, не зависит от удаления объектов от нас. Красное смещение зависит только (99%) от силы тяжести и размера объекта. Следовательно, объекты могут находиться на другом расстоянии от нас, а не на расстоянии, определяемом красным смещением. Соответственно, картина Вселенной отличается от той, которую нарисовали ученые. В то же время нет расширения Вселенной, которое также определяется красным смещением.

Kåre Olaussen

I have no chance to understand rigorous literature - as you recommend, and thanks for that - on the expansion of the fabric of the universe. It's not my domain of competence. But if somebody explains me some more intuitively or more qualitatively, I can understand.

To tell you frankly, there are too many things that seem to me pulled out of the sleeve. Dark matter, dark energy, are not enough, the Big Bang in which the universe expanded in a fraction of a second, therefore unthinkably big masses moved with superluminal velocities, are not enough. it is also needed to assume that the very fabric of the universe is expanding.

You see, we claim that mass cannot move with superluminal velocity. Then, I am unable to understand how can we admit that at the Big Bang, terribly big masses, yes moved faster than light. Do you maybe know when the light velocity became indeed a limit of the velocities? And why, which special events caused that?

Again, I am not competent in general relativity.

Berndt Barkholz

There must be a fabric of the universe, exactly as there must be a material vacuum.

How two masses M1 and M2 feell the presence of one another? Where is stored the energy of the gravito-static field?

Sofia D. Wechsler "I have no chance to understand rigorous literature - as you recommend"

I didn't expect you to; I only wanted to show you that there exists a lot of such literature, which support the statements I made in my first post: That the solar system (or meter sticks) does not expand in the same way as the universe itself. I also tried to explain how the basic mechanism can been understood in terms of a competition between an attractive gravitational force and a repulsive expansion force, where the gravitational force wins for small distances. I.e., in terms of Newtonian physics.

Apart from the observed redshifts, the observed 3-degree cosmic background radiation - in combination with the Standard Model explanation (primordial nucleosynthesis) for the observed abundances of light nuclei like deuterium, helium and litium - is probably the best argument for an expanding universe, as described by the Standard Model.

Sofia D. Wechsler

Dear Sofia!

I propose an article that shows the cause and model of gravity based on ether. It is shown on the example of interaction of two masses М1 and М2. The formula of the law of world gravitation is proposed.

Sorry that the article is in Russian, there is no free time to translate into English. If you need to translate, please report.

The article proposes a pattern confirmed by calculated facts, in which a physical ethereal model of the mechanism of world gravity is given a mathematical description, calculations are presented, the results of which do not contradict Newton's law of world gravity, a complete picture of celestial mechanics and the reason for the forces of gravity on Earth or which other celestial body are shown. Calculation experiments confirming well-known practical experiments are shown.

Степан Тигунцев

Try this link... it makes good translations

https://www.deepl.com/en/translator

Regards

Спасибо. Попробую.

Степан Тигунцев

Dear Stepan, you are doing a mistake. I do speak Russian, but not at the level of reading articles. Worse than that, I am not skilled in Gravity, I am competent in quantum mechanics. Of course, special relativity is well known to me. So, to indicate me professional articles in gravity won't help, I need explanations, rather qualitative and intuitive.

Thank you for your excellent question, Sofia.

Sofia D. Wechsler

Dear Sofia.

The principle of ether gravity has a simple explanation.

Each space object has a spherical shape and draws in ether streams from all sides of space. It is known to accelerate the flow of ether - this is the acceleration of free fall (USP), which is different for each space object. The airflow rate at any distance from the space object can be determined by the known USS value at that distance. When two space objects (Earth - Moon, Sun - Earth, etc.) are at some distance from each other, they are attracted to each other due to the interaction of multidirectional streams of ether drawn by these objects. See the article for a conclusion and explanation of the gravity formula. As an analogy, one can consider the attraction of the hoses of two vacuum cleaners if the hoses are suspended and directed to each other and the vacuum cleaners are turned on.

Since Zwicky 1929, expansion is dead.

Dear Otto E. Rossler expansion has always been dead, astronomers just couldn't sense the rotten smell that penetrates astophysics ... :o)

Sofia D. Wechsler "There must be a fabric of the universe, exactly as there must be a material vacuum."

Dear Sofia with this inflexible attitude you will never gain insight... if you replace the "must" with a "could" in that sentence, you are better of... with a "must" you won't look other places for the truth. Try my article "Rewriting Gravity" it's long, but strong !

Otto E. Rossler

Thank you for your kind words, and many wishes of health.

Sofia

:-)

I think expansion is not dead but misinterpreted.The expansion should have a lower limit that is significantly smaller than the limit given by Einstein / Straus. Obviously, our measurement tool is not expanding like the Earth and universe do. I can find the reasons in http://viXra.org/abs/2012.0076. Best regards Volkmar Müller

According to my knowledge, I think the expansion is true.

From the observation of spectral lines from stars.we can get to know that the stars and galaxies are moving away from us. I'll

give an example to explain my point .If consider a balloon and mark some points on it, if we observe other points on the balloon with respect to a point.the other points tend to move away when we inflate the balloon more and more. So I think we can extend this example to the galaxies as points on balloon and the balloon's surface as the fabric of spacetime.

If my explanation seems to be irrelevant,please excuse me as I am a beginner in the domain

Zwicky 1929 has disproved expansion.

The new fundamental science of Cryodynamics (sister of deterministic Thermodynamics) has proven him correct.

Dear Otto Rossler, I do not know the argumentation of F.Zwicky. I am of the opinion that astronomical objects expand while maintaining their numerical dimensions. I do not see a contradiction.

Thank you, Volkmar.

But the truth is that there is not the slightest evidence for expansion, since the discovery of Cryodynamics which explains the Hubble law without any added assumption.

Volkmar Müller , Otto E. Rossler

The claim that the universe expands after the Big Bang is justified by the dependence of the redshift of objects on the rate of removal of these objects and on the distance to these objects.

In fact, redshift has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe, especially with accelerated expansion. The amount of redshift of an object depends only on the ratio of the size of the object to its mass. The smaller the ratio, the greater the redshift value.

It follows that there was no Big Bang, that the universe is eternal and infinite.

In more detail in the attached article.

Dear Stenai:

Thank you for your reply.

Zwicky 1929 had the last answer, imho.

Man is a particle of the Universe, possessing a certain range of consciousness corresponding to the era to which he belongs. People have always tried to explain the causes of various phenomena in the surrounding space, as well as the Cause of the emergence of the world itself, which is called the Universe in our time. At the present stage of the development of consciousness, a picture of the World emerged from the Primary Singularity (a special state of matter). According to the concept generally accepted in cosmology, the Universe arose as a result of the Big Bang and is still expanding. This point of view was confirmed in the first half of the last century.This is  the theory of a non-stationary universe, proposed by the Soviet mathematician Friedman and observational data obtained by Hubble: he found that distant galaxies scatter at speeds proportional to the distance from the observer, where the proportionality coefficient is the Hubble constant. Einstein argued from the start that the Universe must be stationary. Friedman, who entered into a dispute with him, on the basis of field equations (Einstein's equations) constructed a whole class of homogeneous isotropic models, among which expanding, contracting and stationary models were theoretically possible. For simplicity, Friedman assumed that the space of the Universe is homogeneous (equality of all points) and isotropic (equality of all directions). Since the results of Hubble's observations of galaxies indicated their dispersal at a speed proportional to the distance from the observer, scientists concluded that this expansion was the result of the initial explosion of the singularity (Big Bang). Can this concept be considered the final version of the theory of the origin of the universe? You can think so, but such a point of view (in fact, the only one at the moment!) Is a stumbling block on the path of development of cosmology. The fact is that in all Friedman's models (expanding, contracting, stationary) time flows uniformly, as in the Special Theory of Relativity, which does not consider the presence of gravity. And the gravitational field affects the rate of flow of the observed time. This is shown by calculations in the framework of a stationary gravitational field created by a distant mass (Schwarzschild space-time), which is used to calculate the motion of the planets of the Solar system. In particular, these calculations made it possible to detect the displacement of the perihelion of Mercury as the planet closest to the Sun, caused by its movement around the Sun. The fact is that the elementary interval of the observed time of this metric is dτ = (1  rg/r)dt, where rg = 2GM/c2  the Hilbert radius, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the gravitating body, r is the distance from the source of the gravitational field, с is the speed of light, dt  the elementary interval of ideal (uniformly current) time. It is quite possible that the observed displacement of the perihelion of Mercury is the result of the influence of the Sun's gravitational field on the time rate of objects in its gravitational field: the pace of the observed time slows down. Note, Hilbert radius of the Sun is 3 km. Conclusion: by limiting themselves only to deforming models of almost 100 years ago and ignoring all experiments, the results of which are contrary to conventional wisdom, scientists completely deprive themselves of studying the nature of gravity as the fundamental force acting in the Universe. At the same time, the General Relativity has existed for about the same amount of time, using the mathematical apparatus of which (Riemannian geometry), one can analyze the results of experiments of scientists who do not fit into the system of long-established "truths". In the 1970s, Hafele and Keating brilliantly measured the course of ultra-precise chronometers transported on an airplane circling the planet along the equatorial line both in the direction of its rotation and in the opposite direction. These results were ignored by the scientific community due to the fact that the discovered effect is inexplicable in the framework of modern concepts. Hafele and Keating showed that the difference between the readings of the chronometer being transported and the one remaining on the surface is 208 ns. In this case, the rate of time of the standard transported in the direction of rotation of the planet is higher than that of the one moving in the opposite direction. The reason for ignoring the obtained results is that relativistic physics does not take into account the influence of the gravitational field and rotation of the observer's frame of reference on the rate of the observed time. However, there is a theory of physical observables created by cosmologist A. Zelmanov back in 1944. From it, in particular, it follows that the interval of the observed time τ in the case of rotation of the gravitating body has the form: dτ = (1  U/c2  viui/c2)dt, where U is gravitational potential, vi is the linear velocity of rotation of the reference system, ui is the 3-velocity of motion in the reference system; i = 1,2,3. Thus, this theory makes it possible to calculate the effects caused by gravitational fields and fields of rotation that create inhomogeneity (unequal points) and rotation (unequal directions) in the observable Universe. Such a model is much closer to reality than the class of Friedmann's models, which describe only the deformation of the 3-space. Calculation of the expression for the observed flight time τ according to Zelmanov's theory gives the value 208 ns, where (+) refers to the movement in the direction opposite to the daily rotation of the planet, and ()  to the opposite direction. Thus, Hafele and Keating said that the rotation of a gravitating body affects the rate of time observed. The observed recession of distant galaxies can be explained by the Doppler effect, using the stationary de Sitter model as the base. The stationary model of the Universe, originally conceived by Einstein, was supposed to rely on the static de Sitter space. This model had a gravitational field, but there was no deformation or rotation. But there was a cosmological constant λ associated with the nature of the gravitational field of the Universe: λ>0  the repulsive field, λ

Dear Otto, I unfortunately cannot follow. Cryodynamics has something to do with temperature ...According to my assumption, the measurements of X. Wu say: The measurement system expanded when measuring the earth's radius within 1 year at the rate of expansion equal to the size of the Hubble constant. The distance from the center of the earth to the surface is (almost) constant. The deviation (drift) from UT second to SI second is of the same size ( ~ 3 x 10-18s-1) as the so-called expansion rate of the universe. I don't think the big bang is real but the universal rate of "expansion" has a justification.

Dear Stepan, Our views seem to be largely in agreement. However, your reason for the cosmological redshift is apparently due to gravity, my assumption is the drift of two different systems of measurement. Thank you for the link to your work - very interesting.

Larissa Borissova

Hefele and Keating determined that the time difference was 214 nanoseconds (from wikipedia). However, the measurement error of the atomic clocks themselves was 300 nanoseconds (!). Therefore, it makes no sense to take the difference seriously. Therefore, the result obtained by them is completely arbitrary, and it is impossible to support them with the theory of relativity in any way.

Larissa Borissova

Dear Larissa,

To your statement... "Since the results of observations of galaxies by Hubble showed that they fly at a speed proportional to the distance from the observer, scientists came to the conclusion that this expansion was the result of the initial explosion of the singularity (Big Bang)..." I report that scientists came to this conclusion because of the one-sidedness of their thoughts. One-sided is that it was used to explain redshift only by the Doppler effect. However, the redshift also has a gravitational character and depends on the gravity and size of space objects. At the same time, the real redshift depends on a decrease in the speed of light (photons) by gravity of the object that emitted the light.

As soon as scientists recognize this fact, everything in fundamental physics will take its place.

Details in the attached article. The paper also describes experiments for measuring the speed of light from the Sun (less than the constant C by 624 m/s), the speed of light from any object having a redshift in its spectrum (the speed of light can be any and depends on the magnitude of the measured z).

Dear Stepan, I think that redshift is due to the repulsion which is linked with gravitational energy of non-Newtonian kind --- the force of repulsion. The kind of gravitational force is determined by the relation its radius a and Hilbert radius r_g = 2GM/r^2. If r_g

The cosmological constant has negative pressure equal and opposite to its energy density and it causes the universe to expand.

Larissa Borissova

Dear Larissa,

As your statement... "that the redshift occurs due to repulsion, which is associated with the gravitational energy of the non-Newtonian type - the force of repulsion..." will explain: the redshift of the Earth (Pound-Rebka experiments, paragraph 4 in my article),

redshift of the Sun (para. 5),

Arp observations (para. 7.3), in which objects with different z are in close proximity, although modern science claims that this cannot be.

Dear Volkmar: Complicated consistent theories like yours are nice.

But if none is necessary, this is even better, I feel.

Dear Otto Thank you, I have to agree with you. But I think a theory that has been searching for "dark" causes for many years and not finding them is much more complicated.

No objections, dear Volkmar.

Dear Sofia D. Wechsler

With our current tools (observatories) we only can apply indirect proofs. Do the observed large-scale structures apply to an expanding universe? It seems to be clear that those large-scale structures are not compatible to the expansion theory, at least not in a time scale compliant with the current big bang scenario.

Personally, I am convinced that we have a nearly static universe characterized by two attributes.

The first attribute is finiteness. The universe has a closed topology with an equivalence of displacement and rotation. This means that every displacement is equivalent to a rotation of the view on the universe. The radius of the rotation is always the same and the position and orientation of the axes is a unique function of the displacement vector.

The second attribute is energy recycling. All elementary electromagnetic and kinetic processes of particles, including photons, lead to extremely weak gravitational waves. It takes millions of years until macroscopic impacts of this energy loss become visible. But the incoherent gravitational waves pile up to a background of positive gravitational energy density. If the energy density of the background has reached a critical level, a reaction with the gravitational field around black holes begins. The gravitational field around and inside black holes has like every gravitational field a negative energy density. An energy difference above the threshold triggers an equalisation mechanism, which leads to an energy transfer from the background into all black holes in the universe. Finally, all black holes explode and emit neutrons. The neutrons decay to hydrogen and provide star fuel for a new cycle.

By monitoring the density of galaxies as a function of their distance to any place, in particular the Earth and finding that this density increases with the distance, which, also, measures the time from any particular place, in particular the Earth. This was the result of the work of Ryle and Hewish-though the real understanding did require considerable work. And the conclusive element was, actually, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background, though understanding its signficance, also, required time.

Cf. https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-expanding-universe for a presentation of the issues at the level of the general public.

Constant expansion incidentally implies that the cosmological constant vanishes and is described by the metric associated to the names of Friedmann, Robertdon-Walker and Lemaître-it was Lemaître, who, apparently, provided the full picture.

Distances are defined by the metric so one just uses that metric to compute distances. Of course caution must be exercised to work with quantities that are invariant. However it is now a standard exercise in general relativity to show that the flat metric is not equivalent to the Freidmann-Robertson-Walker-Lemaître metric: They can't be related by a diffeomorphism. Only metrics that can be mapped to one another by a diffeomorphism are equivalent.

And while it is possible to use the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker-Lemaître metric to describe many features in cosmology, as was discovered in 1998, the expansion is accelerating-in a way that can be described by attributing a non-zero, positive, value to the cosmological constant, that is now understood to be as much a part of the description of cosmology as Newton's constant is. What was a puzzle for many years was what could be the mechanism for making the cosmological constant vanish. Now this is resolved, since it's known that it doesn't. What is not possible to describe, within the framework of classical gravity, is the relative magnitude between Newton's constant and the cosmological constant.

Stam Nicolis

Stam, my friend, how are you? It's a long time that I didn't "hear" of you.

Yes, it is known to me that the cosmic microwave background has no particular direction. I understand that this fact may be an argument in favor of the expansion of the space-time.

God Allmighty, it's a Death Sentence to the Universe!

But, tell me, the light velocity is bound to remain constant during this expansion?

With kind regards, and above all, wishes of health,

Sofia

The expansion of the Universe doesn't imply its death. The velocity of light doesn't have any particular status in curved spacetime, since, in curved spacetime, relative velocity isn't uniquely defined. That's why it isn't useful to focus on the velocity of light in cosmology. The observable quantities that are useful are described, for instance, in the papers of the Planck collaboration. For a general public these lectures https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/popular-information/ and https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/advanced-physicsprize2011-1.pdf

I confirmed Zwicky 1929: No cosmic expansion.

I deeply adfmire this man.

Distances get longer and most astronomers agree on this expansion.

@ Mr. Issigonis and Mr. Nicolis

The CONSENSUS of a handful of people.... does not mean that they agree on a truth...., but only that they agree on a particular subject.... but this kind of vague criteria is used to determine a Nobel Prize recipient.... quite a pompous society in my opinion...

Dear Prof. Otto E. Rossler ,

we can check the expansion of the Universe the same way the police determine the speeding of car drivers on the highways. Namely, using an instrument based on measuring the Doppler effect. He gives correct readings, which has been checked many times. Otherwise, it turns out that the police fines violators in vain? Best regards, V. Lozitsky.

Vsevolod G. Lozitsky

...but just that is the problem... " the police fines violators in vain" and this has to stop !! How did you check that the readings give the right distance and that the readings are caused by a velocity... you couldn't check it, so you chose to believe it's true... but is that science ? No, it's merely CONSENSUS

Dear Dr. Berndt Barkholz,

ok, let's not touch the drivers. Take an airplane that is being irradiated by radar. The radio signal reflected by the aircraft will have a frequency shift, the greater the higher the aircraft's speed. From this frequency shift, it is possible to determine the speed of the aircraft remotely, without sitting in its cockpit. Likewise with galaxies. Galaxies scatter because their spectra have a redshift of spectral lines. This redshift is most likely due to the Doppler effect, i.e. the same effect as in the case of a flying plane. Yours faithfully, V. Lozitsky.

Dear Vsevolod G. Lozitsky

Doppler shift is only one possibility how light would reduce its energy. But on astronomical distances there is another possibility. We know that every light quant according to its energy E also has a mass m=E/c². Therefore, a gravitational field is accompanying every photon. A gravitational field moving with the speed of light is equivalent to a gravitational wave. But gravitational waves have dispersion. The dispersion is very weak but during millions of years the energy loss caused by this dispersion becomes visible.

We currently are not able to evaluate the gravitational wave dispersion quantitatively. But as long as this incapability persists, we should be more careful in interpreting the long time behaviour of photons.

Dear Dr. Wolfgang Konle , thanks for your significant comment. Yes, there should be dispersion, but it is the greater, the higher the density of the medium in which the waves propagate. For clarity, we can compare the dispersion of light in diamond and in ordinary glass, which have completely different refractive indices. The intergalactic medium is very rarefied, but one can think that the effect depends on the number of interactions of quanta with atoms in intergalactic space. According to my estimates, the number of such interactions from quanta emitted by the most distant galaxies is about the same as when light propagates in a column of air only 30 meters long. Do we observe a significant dispersion effect in a layer of air 30 meters thick? No, definitely not. I have repeatedly observed the spectra of the Sun at different heights of the Sun above the horizon, when the air mass differed by an order of magnitude. I did not observe any effects associated with this. Best regards, Vsevolod.

Dear Vsevolod G. Lozitsky

Energy loss and dispersion are different effects. Dispersion of light reduces the intensity (the number of photons) but leaves the frequency (the energy contents of individual photons). Energy loss affects the frequency. The dispersion I am talking about is dispersion of gravitational waves, which affects the gravitational field of photons. The photon must compensate this gravitational dispersion energy loss with its own energy. The number of photons is not reduced by this effect.

To be clear, the gravitational field around a photon does not accompany the photon like a cap. It becomes smeared over a larger volume. The energy density of the smeared part must be provided by the photon’s electromagnetic energy.

Dear Dr. Wolfgang Konle ,

but the energy loss you are talking about should also be observed in the air near the Earth's surface, where there is a huge number of microparticles in one cubic centimeter (the Loschmidt number is about 3x1019 cm-3). But we do not observe such a loss of energy not only on the path of rays of 30 meters, but also over many kilometers. Why? Best wishes, Vsevolod.

Dear https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vsevolod-Lozitsky

To your statement that the redshift in the spectrum of galaxies is solely due to the Doppler effect... "Take an aircraft that is irradiated with radar. The radio signal reflected by the aircraft will have a frequency shift, the greater the aircraft speed. From such a frequency shift, it is possible to remotely determine the speed of the aircraft without landing in its cockpit. Same with galaxies. Galaxies are scattering because their spectra have a redshift of spectral lines. This redshift is most likely caused by the Doppler effect, that is, the same effect as in the case of a flying aircraft... "I answer, the redshift may depend on a decrease in the speed of photons emitted by the galaxy. In more detail in the attached article. If you need a text in Russian, then give or give an email address to which I can send you an article.

“How could we prove that the fabric of our universe is expanding? And is this expansion true?”

- the thread question is rather evidently strange, because of the main notion/term in the question “fabric of our universe” isn’t defined, and so any possible corresponding discussion aimed at an answering on the question is evidently is senseless.

In the official physics, though, in this case more concrete term is used “the fabric of spacetime”, which by some too poetic way relates to the spacetime itself; whereas the spacetime, as that is postulated in the GR, isn’t some only “empty container”, where “universe” – more correctly “Matter”, is placed, but it completely materially impacts on material objects at interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass”.

Again, the term above is only “poetic” term, mostly for populace, and in most of professional official physics publications in this case the term “space expansion” is used.

That is another thing, that the GR postulate above is completely ad hoc one, and so in this theory there is no any explanations – what is this interaction?, which, besides, by no any means reveals itself in all rest physics; and by what mystic forces the “curved spacetime”, when this “curvature” isn’t observable by any material instruments, forces, say, well material Earth to rotate around Sun?.

Really this GR interaction, which really looks as something mystic one, is indeed fundamentally wrong. Matter’s spacetime – as any other spacetimes - is indeed fundamentally nothing else than some “empty container”, where Matter is placed, and the emptiness fundamentally cannot be impacted by/ impact on any material object.

The GR postulate appeared as an illusory interpretation of some experimental data by the author, who didn’t understand – what are the [absolutely] fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”. Both these phenomena/notions, and the fundamental also phenomenon/notion “Matter”, though, are completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational not only for the authors of the SR/GR, but in whole mainstream philosophy and sciences.

The scientific definitions of the fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, done only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, and concretized in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2:

– Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),

- and in this spacetime really the cancelled in the SR/GR “ether” – the [5]4D dense lattice of [5]4D fundamental logical elements [FLE] is placed, and practically everything in Matter is determined by the logical construction and properties of FLEs [more see the 2-nd link above].

All/every material objects are some disturbances in the lattice, including Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, where the gravitational charges “gravitational masses” create gravitational fields, and interacts through the fields; and, since Gravity Force in a number of traits is similar to the E/EM Force, by “ordinary gravitons” – as “ordinary photons”, i.e. photons in official physics, interact with E-charges.

So the rational version of the thread question is something as “How could we prove that the FLE-lattice in the spacetime is expanding? And is this expansion true?”

This question is indeed rather complex, whereas the post is already long, so here a couple notes else to some posts in the thread:

“…Therefore, a gravitational field is accompanying every photon. A gravitational field moving with the speed of light is equivalent to a gravitational wave. ……”

- that isn’t correct, free photons move with constant speed and energy, i.e. “without acceleration”, and so don’t radiate gravitational waves; as, say, moving with constant speeds free electrons don’t radiate EM waves.

“……Dear Dr. Wolfgang Konle but the energy loss you are talking about should also be observed in the air near the Earth's surface, where there is a huge number of microparticles in one cubic centimeter … But we do not observe such a loss of energy not only on the path of rays of 30 meters, but also over many kilometers…”

- the energy loss Dr. Wolfgang Konle write about [see last quote above] isn’t losses at photons interactions with matter, that are losses because of the radiation of gravitational waves. Which don’t exist – see above; and even would exist, that by no means could explain the rather probably correctly observable Matter expansion, where distant cosmological objects have redshifts with Z well more 1, i.e. corresponding these losses values are too larger than are “observable” on distances in millions of light years – i.e. which really are observable as be equal to zero;

- what, without the ether expansion hypothesis, i.e. if is caused purely by “ordinary” Doppler effect, would mean, that distant galaxies, etc., really move with speeds near the speed of light, and so have enormous energy; that Earth for some mystic reasons is just in the center of corresponding “Big Bang”, etc.

Cheers

We can prove that it can be described in a mathematically consistent way; and we can show that it is true, by measuring the consequences that can only occur if it occurs.

The mathematical part is the topic of any course in general relativity; and the experimental part has, also, become part of more advanced courses.

While it is a part of sociology what discovery is awarded a Nobel Prize, the relevance of the technical information about the award of 2011 lies in the technical content of https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2019/05/popular-physicsprize2011.pdf and https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/advanced-physicsprize2011-1.pdf

not in the fact that these documents are associated with the Nobel Prize itself.

They provide a useful summary for people that aren't experts in the techniques employed, but do have some understanding of what logic is.

Of course if people do want to learn how background effects were taken into account and how they were taken as background and not signal, they can and must read the technical papers.

So without any knowledge of general relativity the discussion is meaningless, since the expansion of the Universe only makes sense in that framework and only a well-defined mathematical framework allows any meaningful experiment to be set up at all.

However, already an appreciation of what general relativity describes, at the level of a history of science course is useful.

There's no use in pretending to live in the beginning of the 20th century. Already the novels of George Gamow about Mr Tompkins provide the necessary background:https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-755

By ``general relativity'' indeed one can include any theory that incorporates the dynamics of the metric tensor and the cosmological constant. So any additional fields that can't be redefined in a ``sensible'' way to contribute only to the energy-momentum tensor of matter are part of the framework. And when one does this, by now, standard exercise, one discovers that the Minkowski solution doesn't describe any expansion, the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker-Lemaître solution describes uniform expansion and the de Sitter solution describes accelerating expansion. These calculations that were quite involved in the 1920s and 1930s are textbook exercises now.

And then based on all the discoveries in astronomy, one focuses on the objects that would behave in a particular way, were there any expansion at all and how would they behave were this expansion not constant. And that was what happened. And it turns out that the de Sitter solution is necessary and sufficient to describe the observations. The matter in the Universe, whose behavior is used to monitor these effects can be described as a fluid through an equation of state. The cosmological constant is so ``small'', that only extragalactic distances vary at a measurable rate; the length of a rod of 1m doesn't vary in any meaningful way over the lifetime of the rod.

Once more: Sociology is one thing, technical aspects another.

“…The cosmological constant is so ``small'', that only extragalactic distances vary at a measurable rate; the length of a rod of 1m doesn't vary in any meaningful way over the lifetime of the rod. ….”

- yeah, that is so. However atoms in, say, some photons spectrometers, have lives practically equal to the Matter’s life, and so – as that follows from the “space expansion” – their - and so the spectrometers - lengths varied [i.e. expanded] as the extragalactic distances varied; and atoms and lengths of rods…

The last SS post in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now#view=602e9c5eb5fbe726ef04eb7f is relevant in this case to this thread discussion.

Cheers

To everybody,

If the fabric of the universe expands, something should happen to the time too. Isn't that so?

Or, alternatively, the light velocity should increase. If the light velocity in the far galaxies is greater, thwn during a period T=1/(\nu), the distance \lambda travelled by the light is greater - RED SHIFT.

Sure. But individual coordinates don't have any intrinsic meaning in either special or general relativity. And, once more, the velocity of light isn't constant in curved spacetime. Its variation isn't a measurable quantity, either. And the reason is known, since it's related to the components of the metric in a way that can be affected by general coordinate transformations. It depends on the path used-in spacetime, not space.

I simply don't understand why wrong statements are repeated so many times, when the correct statements are known and accessible to anyone.

What does matter is computing distances using the appropriate metric, which, for a uniformly expanding universe is the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker-Lemaître metric and for a universe whose expansion is accelerating it suffices to include the cosmological constant; and the consequences are explained in detail in the link: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/advanced-physicsprize2011-1.pdf It's just 19 pages long, it would be a good idea to read it.

And by putting in the numbers one finds that the metric deviates from Minkowski at extragalactic distances, that's why it's perfectly fine to use the Minkowski metric for experiments in atomic physics... In fact the effects of the cosmological constant, i.e. of the acceleration of the expansion can be detected after about 13 billion years; before that contribution was too small...

What is fascinating is that the propagation of electromagnetic waves from the Earth to satellites is described by the Schwarzschild metric, with mass parameter the mass of the Earth, that does curve spacetime suffiiciently for GPS signals to be sensitive to the deviations from the Minkowski metric, that can be described by the Schwarzschild metric.

Stam Nicolis

Stam, whom do you scold? Me? What did I do wrong?

If I do not understand, I ask. I don't have the time, at my age, to learn and become competent in general relativity. It's not my domain. For this situation the RG is. People share things that they know, with other people whose domain of competence is different.

In Einstein's field equation the light velocity is a parameter, which appears in the expression of the gravitational constant. It is not a function. You say the following:

". . . the velocity of light isn't constant in curved spacetime. Its variation isn't a measurable quantity, either. . . . it's related to the components of the metric . . . "

These statements seem to me a cicularity, like a cat rotating for catching its own tail. The velocity of light is related to the components of the metric, and the components of the metric depend on the light velocity - see the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

Again, I am not competent in these matters, however, in the equations of the space-time, there have to be some inflexible, universal constants. Which parameter is an invariable constant in Einstein's equations?

By the way: Asher Peres and Danny Terno proved that the light velocity wasn't always the same. Do you want me to find their article and send you? Would you be interested? I will not understand their equations, but you would understand.

With kind regards

The rare case of a scientist haviing outwitted the community for 92 years has occurred.

With Zwicky.

Dear Sofia,

in Euclidean space, in presence of gravitation, the speed of light is not c at all.

Preprint SHAPIRO TIME-DELAY, Curved 4D space-time or Variable speed of light

while the 4D space-time, which is an artifact, a useful tool of calculation, is designed around the constancy of speed of light so Nicolis is quite wrong in what he says.

Although the LLI holds, hence locally what you measure is always c.

The funny thing is that up to the local group, nothing seems to expand. But then they tell you

that for distant Galaxies it is expanding.

LLI?

Stefano Quattrini

My Stefano, dear friend,

To my humble understanding, when people speak of the expanding fabric of the Universe, they don't mean near masses, but even far of them, in the inter-galactic space.

Dear Sofia,

I know, but it is necessary to show first that it is possible to have a variable speed of light experimentally in our solar system, then it is reasonable to assume that the speed of light can be variable also elsewhere.

Stefano https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stefano-Quattrini

I propose a description of an experiment that will determine the speed of photons coming to Earth from any source that has a redshift (paragraph from my article).

One of the possible methods can be an experiment involving the observation of an eclipse of an object with a redshift (the higher the shift, the more noticeable the effect) obscured by any planet of the Solar system, with the object observed as if crawling onto the planet's disk, i.e., the object will be seen against the background of the planet's disk edge. We use the time of this observation and the known distance to the planet to determine the speed of light coming from the object. This speed must coincide with the speed of light, determined by the expression C'=C/(1+Z).

The very first experiments to measure the speed of light from such objects as a quasar or a galaxy moving away based on the proposed method will show its significant difference from the rated speed of light.

[In the GR]

“…But individual coordinates don't have any intrinsic meaning in either special or general relativity. And, once more, the velocity of light isn't constant in curved spacetime…”

- that is really incorrect, and that is possible to state only provided that

“…Its variation isn't a measurable quantity, either….”

Really the speed of light variation [in local regions, where the “space expansion”, i.e. the FLE lattice expansion, effect is negligible], indeed isn’t measurable, but only because of this variation simply fundamentally doesn’t exist. As well as the “spacetime curvature” isn’t a measurable quantity also, and for the same reason – because of it fundamentally doesn’t exist.

“…And by putting in the numbers one finds that the metric deviates from Minkowski at extragalactic distances, that's why it's perfectly fine to use the Minkowski metric for experiments in atomic physics...”

- that indeed looks as correct, since till now it seems as rational that the FLE lattice expansion indeed happens. However that

“….In fact the effects of the cosmological constant, i.e. of the acceleration of the expansion can be detected after about 13 billion years; before that contribution was too small...…..”

- is rather strange proposition. As that is hold in the standard cosmological model – as that follows from astronomical observations – the expansion proceeded and proceeds in all the post-Beginning, i.e. post-inflation, i.e. observable, about 13 billion years, history of Matter; and with rather small, but measured along the history, variation of the Hubble constant, i.e. with some measured accelerations.

“…What is fascinating is that the propagation of electromagnetic waves from the Earth to satellites is described by the Schwarzschild metric, with mass parameter the mass of the Earth, that does curve spacetime suffiiciently for GPS signals to be sensitive to the deviations from the Minkowski metric, that can be described by the Schwarzschild metric.….”

- the Earth Gravity field is so weak, that any GR metrics can be used equally reliably in the GR, including the Schwarzschild metric.

That is another thing, that the assertion that GPS signals are “to be sensitive to the deviations from the Minkowski metric”[ what is essentially because of the GR postulate that photons at propagating between points with different gravity potentials – in fundamental contrast to any “massive” matter – don’t change their energy/frequency], practically for sure really is incorrect.

Every “ordinary” particles in Matter have both – inertial and gravitational masses, and so really for sure the ordinary photons change their frequencies in such cases.

Correspondingly, as that is shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial [of course only fundamental Nature force] Gravity model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4332.9925, photons change the energy/frequency. At that internal processes in having rest mass objects, including, say, Fe-57 nuclei in Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments, GPS clocks, etc., indeed are slowed in Gravity fields also,

- that is trivial consequence from the whole the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2,

- all/every material objects are some close-loop algorithms, which constantly cyclically run with frequencies ω=mc2/ћ, and so, since masses of gravitationally coupled bodies are lesser than masses of free ones on the gravitational mass defects, the coupled masses algorithms tick slower on these defects.c2/ ћ.

Including that happens with photons, and so in interactions of photons with rest mass objects, both effects take parts; and at that the measured “gravitational time dilation”, at least for weak fields, is indeed in accordance with the GR, in spite of that really the GR predicts the “time dilation” value, which really is two times lesser than the real slowing of the internal processes.

That can be quite easily experimentally measured – see the suggested in 2015 experiment, where only one – purely Gravity “time dilation” can be measured in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4502.800, where practically for sure that above would be confirmed.

This experiment is, of course the real test of the GR also; and so if the GR prediction would be in consistence with the experimental outcome, that would be more substantiated, comparing, say with the PRS experiment, confirmation of the GR as well, of course.

However the experiment, which can be made in a week, and with expense of no more $200 000, isn’t made in last more 5 years . Or, since, again, that is completely routine instrumentally experiment, it is rather probable that it was made, and the GR wasn’t confirmed; but the outcome was in accordance with the SS&VT model above. However both these facts are completely tabooed, and corresponding information is blocked, in official physics and in existent physical community.

“……The funny thing is that up to the local group, nothing seems to expand. But then they tell you that for distant Galaxies it is expanding.…”

- that isn’t completely correct. In the standard model in all galaxies, and all time in Matter’s history, nothing seems to expand. The expansions happens in inter-galaxies space. That looks as rather strange, of course, however in that there is nothing that would be inconsistent with physics, because of that simply fundamentally is outside physics at all;

- as Matter’s Creation and Beginning, the first “space expansion” in the inflation epoch, etc., is fundamentally outside official physics as well. However in that there is nothing transcendent/irrational – see 2-nd link above, the section “Cosmology”.

Cheers

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergey-Shevchenko

Sergey, agrees with you in many ways, however, unlike you, I believe that the experiment with the clock (some on the satellite, others on the surface of the Earth) will show that the readings of the clock in a month, in a year, etc., will be absolutely the same. Therefore, we can only wait for the results of the experiment. Or it may be somehow to initiate such an experiment, for example, to find sponsors.

Hello All, the scale of the Earth's radius is expanding at a rate of 3 x 10-18 s-1, the Earth's inner core is expanding at the same rate, according to Runcorn, the lunar orbit expands at the same rate, the Pioneer X and XI probes are delaying their journey at the same rate, galaxies are expanding at approximately the same rate, the universe is also expanding at that rate. Small (low-mass) bodies, continents etc. obviously do not expand. Is this all supposed to be coincidence ? Some justifications in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333118059_Common_cause_of_earth_expansion_and_cosmic_expansion

What for God's sake can be "time expansion"? Would a second be longer? How can that be noticed?

Also, as said in

Asher Peres: VARIABILITY OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS

light velocity was different than at present in the times when the distant galaxies were formed. This fact was deduced from the change in the constant α of the fine structure. It seems that the light velocity was greater than at present. So, in estimating the velocities of the far galaxies, and also the expansion of the space-time fabric, this fact has to be taken into account.

Степан Тигунцев

You make an assumption without being aware of. That during its travel from the distant object to us, i.e. from the far past to the present, the photon velocity remained constant. What if it is not so? Traveling from the far object to us, the photon passes through different epochs of the Universe. After reaching the edge of the planet disk, the photon from the far object needs a time of the order of minutes, or tens or minutes to reach the Earth. So, this part of the travel in in our time. The light velocity during this part of the travel may have the present value, i.e. the constant c. Here, on the Earth, we never got any experimental evidence of light velocities greater than the constant c.

And though as Peres explained, the displacement of the constant of the fine structure, seems to indicate that in the far past the light velocity was greater than now.

= Very intelligent arguments against the Big Bang.

To everybody,

If the conclusion of Peres that in the far past the light velocity was different from in our times - and it seems that it was higer than now - then this is a very significant fact, which has to be taken in consideration in our interpretation of the red shift of the far galaxies, and in our cosmological theories., including the accelerated expansion of the space-time fabric.

Dear Sofia. Sofia D. Wechsler

You must have misunderstood me.

I assume that the speed of light (photons) changes (decreases) as the photons move against the gravity of the cosmic object.

Photons anywhere in the universe are emitted at a speed of C = 299792458 m/s. When moving from an object, the photon is inhibited by the gravity of the object, at first it is very strong, then weaker, since the gravity force of the object decreases. When the photon is removed some distance from the object, the gravity of the object ceases to affect the speed of movement of the photon. Accordingly, what speed the photon turned out by this time, at this speed the photon will continue to fly further.

The photon comes to the ground observer's receiver at a speed of C" , then the redshift will be determined by the formula z = (C-C" )/C".

However, z is measured by frequency deviation (shift) in the spectrum of chemical elements of the object. The frequency of the photon f "= fo * C "/C is recorded at the receiver. It follows from this formula that the change in frequency is due to a change in the speed of the photon (C "). It also follows that the natural frequency of the photon does not change.

Dear Sofia

I keep answering your question.

Light (photons) from the quasar moves to the planet at a speed of C "(for example, 100,000 km/s for z = 2). At some point in time, a beam of light for an observer on Earth is blocked by the disk of the planet. The planet also sends the observer light

(photons) that is moving at a speed of 300,000 km/s. For example, a photon flies from Saturn for 70 minutes, and a photon of a beam from a quasar flies for 210 minutes. After 70 minutes, the photons of the planet from the place where the quasar should be located along the beam will be reached by the observer, and then we will observe the quasar against the background of the Saturn disk for another 140 minutes (for analogy, I suggest looking at the overlap of water in the garden hose). Knowing the distance to Saturn and the time of the quasar image on the background of the Saturn disk, we determine the speed of the quasar photons as the distance divided by time (140 minutes). This rate will be the same as C "= C/( 1 + Z).

The existence of life requires exactly stable molecular conditions during billons of years. An important parameter is the velocity of light, depending on vacuum permeability and permittivity. Even extremely small modifications of this constants would displace molecular energy levels and change chemical properties. This would have lethal consequences for all metabolic processes everywhere in the universe.

We can say that it is the dualism of relativity and time constancy of the universe, which allows the existence of life. Relativity makes biochemistry independent from gravity and absolute movement. Time constancy makes biochemistry untouched by “development phases” of the universe.

Bravo Dr. Fronkensteen... that's what I call empirical "knowledge" !

Степан Тигунцев

No, Stepan,

I meant that in the far past, the light velocity was greater even in the free space between galaxies. This is what results from Peres' analysis of the change in the constant of the fine-structure. Please read again the question, there is a citation from Peres' article.

With kind regards,

Sofia

Wolfgang Konle

Dear Wolfgang,

Do you believe that in that far past when was emitted the light we get now from those galaxies, there already existed life in them? Our solar system is 7 billions years old, and the life appeared only in the last billion. But about those galaxies I have no data. Do you?

With best regards

The one-way arrow of time represents the expansion of space-time because it moves only in one direction

Yes, we misunderstand somerthing:

We forgot to take Zwicky 1929 seriously. That is all.

Dear Sofia D. Wechsler

We all cannot answer your question about the existence of life in other galaxies. But from our existence, we can say that the universe has provided the constant conditions during a sufficient long time to support life development. We only can assume that this was enough for life development at other locations as well.

Dear Prof. Otto E. Rossler ,

I am amazed at your devotion to Zwicky 1929. Doubtless, sometimes scientists and philosophers have drawn conclusions far ahead of their time. For example, about 2500 years ago, Plato said that time originated simultaneously with the sky. According to the modern theory of the Big Bang, this is exactly the case, i.e. before the Big Bang there was nothing, not even time. But science does not stand still and in every epoch we are interested in the level of argumentation, i.e. how reasonable these or those conclusions are, given the new scientific data. Can Zwicky's 1929 arguments be considered exhaustive? I'm not sure. With great respect to you, V. Lozitsky.

Berndt Barkholz

With your scary treatise “The secrets of Newtons gravity … an Observation” you have revealed Frankensteen qualities. Treating solid state bodies as a linear extension of building bricks of atomic size you completely ignore solid state physics. Queer considerations of an orbital speed around those building bricks completes your incredibly special misunderstanding of physics. Meticulously applying those wrong concepts to various aspects of physics completes your weird appearance.

Are you having fun Wolfgang ? What is scary is that people like you are still afraid of a simple solution... why make something simple when you can make it complicated, right, looks much more impressing using tensor calculus ?! Have you ever heard about limits and about the Scientific Method ?

...and you and your kind claim to understand Newton's gravity ?! "You ain't seen nothing yet."

Dear Vsevolod:

I feel Zwicky was right.

If so, this amounts to a historical miracle.

Take care,

Otto

Berndt, do you understand the concept of all force fields including gravity?

The force on an object in a force field is given by the derivative of the total field energy content in respect to the object position.

This concept holds for all kinds of force fields. You surely admit, that it is not too complicated and does not refer to non-understandable hocus pocus.

By the way, you began with the Frankensteen bullshit.

Otto, Zwicky was on a good track. But the effect, gravitational interaction with mass, he made responsible for the Hubble red shift of photons, is by far too weak.

Another possible direct effect is based upon the gravitational field which is accompanying every photon. A gravitational field moving with the speed of light is like a gravitational wave and therefore is subject of dispersion. Dispersion means energy loss. The energy loss must be compensated by the photon’s intrinsic energy.

Currently the theoretical and numerical skills of the physicists are not sufficient to calculate this gravitational dispersion and the according energy loss. But it also seems that there is no interest in those calculations.

“…Also, as said in

Asher Peres: VARIABILITY OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS

light velocity was different than at present in the times when the distant galaxies were formed. …….”

Abstract of the paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0209114.pdf linked above

“…If the fine structure constant is not really constant, is this due to a variation of e, ℏ, or c? It is argued that the only reasonable conclusion is a variable speed of light….”

Really there is no any real physical reasons in variations of fundamental in physics now constants –– elementary electric charge, e /[possibly 1/3e as well], the speed of light, c, and the Planck constant ћ, which determine practically everything in the objects/events/interactions/processes in Matter. Including, say, the tribal galaxy exists seems more 10 billion of years, i.e. practically as Matter exists; the Sun system exists well more 6-7 billion of years, and Earth exists near 5 billions of years, what is also essential time in Matter’s history. However in anything in the galaxy, Sun, Earth nothing can indicate on some variations of the constants; say, breeds, say, basalts more 2 billion years old, by no means differ from that are a few years old; etc.

Whereas the author of the paper linked above makes some inferences only basing on references

“….[1] J. K. Webbet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 884 (1999);87,091301 (2001).[2] M. J. Duff, e-print hep-th/0208092; J. W. Moffat, e-printhep-th/0208109; J. D. Bekenstein, e-print gr-qc/0208081;and references therein…”.

- i.e. basing on the “discovery” by J. K. Webbet al. of some variations of the fine structure constant, and considerations of this discovery. The variation, as that was shown at more accurate experiments, really doesn’t exist, and the discovery was simply an experimental artifact.

Nonetheless, in spite the above, the problem of the evidently non-observable in this galaxy variations in some distant – in the space, and so in time as well – objects was/is rather popular, but, for example [ in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.02118.pdf ; Jul 2019],

“….Finally, a program using the world’s three largest optical telescopes (VLT, Keck and Subaru) was developed specifically to test the stability of fundamental couplings. No evidence for variation in α or the proton to electron mass ratio,μ=mp/me, was found [53, 54, 55]…”

In this fact – in certain sense, though – there is nothing surprising. The fundamental constants above are indeed fundamental, though with a correction, as that is shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2:

The fundamental elementary physical action, ћ, is indeed utmost fundamental constant, since relates to the fact that Matter is based on a simple binary reversive logics, and everything in Matter happens as sequences of binary operations in informational patterns/systems “material objects”, that are some cyclic algorithms that run on “hardware” of binary reversive [5]4D fundamental logical elements [FLE], and the [5]4D dense FLE lattice fills the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),

; whereas the utmost elementary change in “physical action” in physical theories really relates to the real fundamental elementary change of information in the sequences above on one bit.

The speed of light, c, really is a derived constant, c=lP/tP, where lP is the “size” of 4 FLE “facets”, tP is the FLE changing state – “FLE flip” time interval.

The electric charge, e, really is also derived constant, e= (α/4πε0ћc)1/2, where the fine structure constant, α, is indeed fundamental constants, ћ and c see above, ε0 is inessential artificial coefficient that is introduced to construct the system of measurements etalons; and has no real physical sense.

Ay that the electric charge of a particle is – see the paper linked above and referenced there papers with the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’ initial models of Gravity and Electricity – is a sequence of marked by a Force mark FLEs in the particle’s close-loop algorithm. At that every particle has only one Gravity marked FLE, whereas all [1e] charged particles have relative parts of electrically marked FLE.

I.e. if – what looks as quite adequate to the reality – whole length of particle with rest mass m is equal to the particle’s Compton length, λ=ћ/mc, so the algorithm is written on N= λ/lP FLEs, then its “electrically marked” part contains N√ α FLEs, a bit more 10% of whole sequence. Correspondingly, whereas all charged particles with different masses have different Gravity, but identical Electric, charges.

More see the links above; the series of 3 SS comments to some paper, where the QFT renormalization problem is considered, in https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/6020c9df79bb61000104d171 is useful as well.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Can you indicate experiments/articles that proved that the change in \alpha was an experimental error?

Thanks for all the bibliography you indicated, however, I don't see a real possibility to read and analyze all of it. So, first of all please indicate reports, as I said above.

You see, I have additional reasons to think that the light velocity wasn't the same during the ages of the Universe: immediately after the Big-Bang the Universe expanded enormously. What expanded there? What was the content of the Universe? I suppose photons. And with which velocities they traveled if the expansion of the Universe was quicker than the light velocity?

Of course, in the inflation period did not exist galaxies. It is believed that after the inflation, there existed quarks and gluons and other particles from the Standard Model, so that protons and neutrons could be created and maybe hydrogen atoms. What tells you that the light velocity already dropped to the today value?

With best regards

Wolfgang Konle

I have no intentions to discuss with you Wolfgang... you don't even understand Newton, but want to tell me about fields... don't you get it ? The field approach to gravity is dead like a rotten herring... it is only useful in a few applications that are without any interest for basic gravity.

Basic gravity must use the atom as mass unit, so that mass radius is defined by number and radius of the atoms and mass as a number of atoms... there is nothing "scary" about simple logic... this is of course only possible at the boundary... That YOU don't understand this simple logical demand has already dawned on me... and frankly, I don't care whether you understand something or not.

Wolfgang Konle> " Dear Sofia D. Wechsler We all cannot answer your question about the existence of life in other galaxies. But from our existence, we can say that the universe has provided the constant conditions during a sufficient long time to support life development. We only can assume that this was enough for life development at other locations as well."

Very well said! A more passionate dialectical assertion of Frederick Engels:

“… however many millions of suns and earths may arise and pass away, however long it may last before the conditions for organic life develop, however innumerable the organic beings that have to arise and pass away before animals with a brain capable of thought are developed from their midst, and for a short span of time find conditions suitable for life, only to be exterminated later without mercy, we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it.” F Engels, “Dialectics of Nature”.

Sofia D. Wechsler

“…Can you indicate experiments/articles that proved that the change in \alpha was an experimental error? Thanks for all the bibliography you indicated, however, I don't see a real possibility to read and analyze all of it. So, first of all please indicate reports, as I said above.……”

-? – it is easy to read what is indicated in the SS post above, it is enough to click on the link, again - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.02118.pdf ; Jul 2019. As to

“….You see, I have additional reasons to think that the light velocity wasn't the same during the ages of the Universe: immediately after the Big-Bang the Universe expanded enormously. What expanded there? ….

- yeah, from what is observed now in first time interval – seems in a few thousands of Plank times, not “Universe”, of course, but the [5]4D fundamental logical binary reversive elements [FLE] [5]4D FLE dense lattice has been expanded exponentially in the at that “automatically appeared”

[that follows from the indeed scientific definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904]

- Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct). It seems that was from one first FLE, by, looks as rather probably, “division on 2” – as that, say, bacteria colony exponentially expanses, if there is enough food.

“….What was the content of the Universe? I suppose photons. And with which velocities they traveled if the expansion of the Universe was quicker than the light velocity?……”

However at this step of Matter’s Creation no “Big Bangs” happened, and there were no any particles at all, including photons.

On the next step some “Big Bang” happened, i.e. in an again seems extremely instant process, when in the FLE lattice practically unbelievable energy was pumped uniformly through whole lattice – not in some mystic “singular point”,

- what caused the corresponding the lattice’s disturbances – primary particles, which were completely symmetric algorithms; rather possibly that were [and seems are till now as the dark matter particles] Plank mass particles. These particles had/have only one fundamental Nature force charge – the Gravity Force charge “gravitational mass”; and, since Gravity is also completely symmetric Force, correspondingly yet on this step Matter didn’t contain antimatter.

All ordinary particles – and, because of the angular momentum conservation – no antiparticles, including photons, appeared on 3-rd step – at interactions of the primary particles, again uniformly through the lattice; that was rather small, and again uniformly spread, next “Big Bang”.

More see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s cosmological model in framework of the informational physical model, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2, the section “Cosmology”.

Returning more concretely to the “speed of light” problem: again, the speed of light isn’t a fundamental constant “from its own nature”, as that Newton could say. It is determined by the indeed utmost fundamental FLE parameters – the FLE at least 4 “facets’” sizes [Planck length], and FLE “flip” time [Planck time], c=lP/tP.

Correspondingly all/every particles, which are constantly running close-loop algorithms, always constantly move in the FLE lattice – and so in the 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), only with 4D velocities, which all have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light, 4D c, [bold is 4D vector]. Photons are particles that move only in the 3D space, and so the observed photons’ speed is equal to 3D c.

In the case of the FLE lattice expanding, when distances between material objects increase, so when light propagates, say, between two objects, which are “pushed” in opposite directions, the notion “speed”, including “speed of light”, becomes be rather vague,

- and, say, if the expansion is large enough, the light, which is radiated from one object to another one will never hit into the other one at all; and so the measured speed of light is in this case equal to zero – in spite of in every time moment in every point, where a photon moves, its speed is lP/tP=c.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Dear Sergey,

I have to ask you to take into account that cosmology is not my domain of competence. So, there are things on which I would be glad if you could explain as if to a general public. Can you try? And Ploease don't use SS, without first of all giving the complete name. As to " 4D fundamental logical binary reversive elements ", it's the first time that I encounter this phrase.

Now, I read in the article you recommended, that recalculations and new experiments indicate that α didn't change.

"Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, . . . "

How much mass contains a flat space? How much mass contains the matter of a flat space?

" . . . at this step of Matter’s Creation no “Big Bangs” happened, and there were no any particles at all, including photons."

Which step is the step before the Big-Bang? Of which theory do you speak?

I had to stop here, since that FLE does not make sense to me, it's just a phrase.

With kind regards