Emmanouil Markoulakis Dear Emmanouil,

while I agree there are valid to consider relations to argue so, from iSpace theoretical point of view, with the likewise very valid point to argue from an combined look on both cosmological and quantum constants exactly determined by iSpace theory with zero error bar and with this never accidental to achieve (yet much desired) zero unit pressure I can only suggest to stay on the bottom of reality and accept (for very good reasons) that constants are just that - constant!

All the „varying“ type stuff of (then no longer!) „constants“ imho just stem from current completely (100%!) flawed cosmological models, unwilling to accept the obvious (data!) against them, instead of fiddling around with the unchangeable quantum nailed basics of physical reality.

All this must stop and (esp. so mainstream) „experts„ to please come to their scientific senses.

One deep look into the exact math and comsequential integer geometric mechanics of iSpace theory are enough and all possibly brought forth counter arguments for „varying“ constants of nature just cease to exist.

Method iSpace - Quick check of α and Φ0 from Markoulakis & Antonidakis

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Conference Paper iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Important Physical Con...

Kind regards and thank you for your (reading) time,

Christian G. Wolf

It is believed that the current state of the accelerated expansion of the observable universe begun roughly 5 billion Earth years ago (roughly the same as the estimated age of the Earth).

https://tinyurl.com/49jeepz4

In this case if this is true then my research predicts that the prior fixed period (i.e. no dark energy dominant era with a fixed non-accelerated expansion) must had a slightly different less vacuum density ρvac and therefore the speed of the light in the vacuum c must had in the past a slightly larger value.

See on illustration, credits: By Design Alex Mittelmann, Coldcreation, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31985853.

Light blue colored area of the cone is the fixed non-accelerating expansion rate era ending roughly 5 billion years ago which was followed by the current era up today, of the the accelerated expansion shown with red. This leaves out a significant chunk of 7.7 Byears of the total cosmological age of the universe ~13.7 billion years excluding the dark age where light was trapped and could not propagate, extending about 1 billion years after the Big Bang. This period extends from 1 Byears after the BB up to 8.7 Byears where speed of light must had a slightly faster value than the current measured at c.

Of course all this would result to a total age of the observed universe being older than currently estimated.

Emmanouil Markoulakis even if c moved by your argumentation, dependent stuff has to (by inseparable physical relation!) as well.

Most of all these „constants“ are not at all independent - they are combined from only 4 base quanta as identified by iSpace theory and these cannot over vary by integer geometric design.

1) GoldenRatio iSpaceAmpere - the quantum of iSpaceAmpere (and Ampere)

2) 1/6961 iSpaceSecond - the quantum of time (!)

3) 6 iSpaceVolt - the quantum of iSpaceVolt

4) GoldenRatio iSpaceMeter - the quantum of distance (not the same as length)

There is no (mathematical) space - mechanism - for changing such quantum base values, as it shows there is not all any continuum either.

Everything is LEGO style discrete and hence exact.

Dear all, I generally don't participate in discussions that assume accelerated expansion and/or the standard model, furthermore no strings and no inflation except in my wallet (I don't love those either though).

Dear Gerd Pommerenke and Christian G. Wolf ,

That's exactly what I am actually disputing with the question thread here. The "consensus" is of an variable rate of expansion with the last change happened 5 Billion years ago.

However, according to my research this is impossible without a change in the speed of light c constant which is regarded by the established ΛCMB model as a timeless constant from the dawn of time and the first photons generated and released after the Big Bang. Therefore, IMO we have a contradiction and possible loophole in the established ΛCMB model also supported by the latest Webb space telescope observations of very far galaxies.

Please, my argument here should NOT be confused with the "tired light" theories which is different from my research. My research is more fundamental in concept connecting the speed of light c constant with another parameter that is considered also to be a constant (at least, since after the first light was released after the dark age roughly 1 billion years after the BB and free space became transparent to light) the ZPE Vacuum density ρVac .

Any further change in the vacuum density should immediately reflect and change the expansion rate but also the speed of light in the vacuum.

ΛCMB model says that expansion rate has changed with cosmological time in the past without this affecting the speed of light without however analytically proving this and taking this as an axiom from the SR theory.

According to my theory this is not possible, either the expansion rate is not variable with cosmological time but a constant (i.e. Hubble constant H0) and so is the speed of light c or both expansion rate and speed of light are variable parameters with cosmological time.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis

Did you really read my articles? Then you would know that a changing (decreasing by time and distance) expansion rate is possible WITH a constant c. I completely reject the ΛCMB-model because it's one of the above mentioned SM. Please do not try to explain correct observations using inadequate models in connection with inadequate suppositions. At least a question: what's the medium the lightspeed is defined with respect to? Unless the question is unanswered all speculations about the whole issue are useless.

I think the speed of light is constant at about 300000 km/s, but the dimensions of space and time are expanding. There are enough examples of this.

(UT second, earth radius etc.)

Dear Gerd Pommerenke ,

If space is a medium any change in its intrinsic characteristics like the vacuum density would change also the energy propagation speed inside it similar to the speed of sound on air or water or how the speed of light changes from air to glass or water and so on.

It just happens the ZPE vacuum density to be the lowest energy dense medium of light in the universe dictating its speed c. The speed of light c limit is stable and fixed as long the fundamental vacuum free space parameters like ε0 and μ0 controlled by the vacuum density ρvac are also constant. Which was the case over the last more or less 8.7 billion years according to the ΛCMB model.

But there is no empirical evidence nor theoretical proof by the ΛCMB model that the speed of light is a constant with cosmological time extending more than 12 billion years since the dawn of light where space became transparent to light (estimated about 1 Byears after the BB, dark age). It is all based on an axiom from SR that light being the absolute frame of reference which of course this has now being proven wrong by quantum field theory since the vacuum is not nothing and the ultimate background therefore light living inside the vacuum cannot be fundamental.

Dear Volkmar Müller ,

Thanks for your expert input. It may so, but I believe Lorentz transformations of spacetime like time dilation and length contraction in SR refer only to massive objects with sub-luminal speed moving inside spacetime and the vacuum and not to light itself and its luminal speed moving inside the vacuum, value c. Light in the vacuum is the absolute frame of reference in this universe according to SR.

Well in my opinion, the last decades QFT with the advent of the quantum vacuum says otherwise namely that the vacuum is more fundamental than light and possible the absolute frame of reference.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis,

I have no idea about QFT and did not know your work. In the last paragraph of your first post there are two different answers. H0 and c are constant or variable parameters. My opinion: Both answers are correct at the same time. However, the measurement systems refer to gravitationally (dynamically) dominated or atomically (electromagnetically?) dominated measurements. In 1972, the reference system was changed with the introduction of the SI second. The SI second is defined atomically and postulated as constant, thus expanding the UT second. It expands and with it the metre (c= const). A limited age of the universe is obtained on the SI scale. The UT second indicates an unlimited age. In the long term, the difference between the two measures of time is equal to H0. With UT time, c and H0 are constant, but not with SI.

Volkmar Müller iSpace theory has proven (shown mathematically) that the SI component definition of time contains an (indavertedly by its very definition of the SI Second unit itself) human artefact. Its surprisingly exactly quantifyable in iSpace theory and (47*14665487/10^24) Second/iSpaceSecond (exactly).

This artefact is the root cause for lots of physical illusions, which all go away once working in the physically correct 1:1 to base quanta representing iSpace-IQ (Integer Quantum geometric) units.

In iSpace-IQ units the time is defined in iSpaceSecond, and the quantum of time (!) is exactly 1/6961 iSpaceSecond. Together with the other 3 base quanta in the base units GoldenRatio iSpaceAmpere, 6 iSpaceVolt and GoldenRatio iSpaceMeter all other constants of nature (by now 50+) can be exactly derived from by pure simple first order multiplications (in other words powers of the base quanta, as should be);

Method iSpace - Quick check of α and Φ0 from Markoulakis & Antonidakis

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

and most important, yet agreed not easy to read (for physicists, that is - it is imho very easy to read for either Mathematica or Wolfram Language knowledgable software developers, though and due to coloring and structure is fully self contained and self explainable with no further references to other older iSpace theoretical papers:

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...