I looked at your paper some time ago, and can't remember discovering any reasons for you being forced to put it on viXra.

In a larger view it is a question of how one should explain the changing universe. The observed cosmological redshift can in principle be described in several ways. The favored one is that the universe is expanding with atomic and subatomic physics remaining constant. This is something which can be modeled mathematically by f.i. the Friedman equations.

Could it be the other way around? That the universe remains constant while (sub)atomic physics is changing? That is difficult to reconcile with GR; the Friedman equations will not willingly change their predictions completely. So, to me it seems that one would be forced to have changes in both places. Which is somewhat against Occam's principle, but why should Nature care about Occam and his razor? Anyway, an evolving (sub)atomic physics probably requires that almost all elementary particle masses scale in exactly the same way.

I think this requires some dynamical variable inside (or more likely outside) the Standard Model to vary with time. One could imagine the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field changing with time, which would scale all lepton and quark (current) masses, and weak intermediate boson masses, in the same way. But not the basic QCD scale (completely), hence the electron-proton mass ratio would be changing. I also think the fine structure constant would change, through mass dependent renormalization corrections. That in turn leads to nontrivial shifts in f.i. atomic spectra. I.e., not only a general scaling of all levels.

In summary, any evolution of the (sub)atomic scale must obey many observational constraints. In addition, a reasonable dynamical reason for such evolution (similar to the Friedman equations) must be given. Altogether it looks difficult if the purpose is to explain phenomena from the lifetime of the sun; in this context 4.5 Gyrs is a very shot time.

One more possibility is that the gravitational constant is changing. A scenario, which to my knowledge, has been explored quite a lot. I don't know the reasons why the idea seems to have been abandoned.

A rather mundane thing is that the planets in reality are orbiting away from the sun -- within the existing dynamical theory. On the other side I have a good friend with alternative ideas about the expanding universe.

Despite these somewhat negative comments, I think this is a field which deserves further attention. Like everything in nature which still is unsatisfactory explained. (Keeping in mind that 'unsatisfactory explained' means very different things to different people) 

It is said that the general expansion of the universe does not apply to galaxies; they are like raisins in an expanding dough. The reason is how galactic dynamics function --- I assume several groups have done the calculations.

But, if we disregard this inconvenient fact, and just assume that everything in the universe is expanding in the same way. Then all distances was roughly 2/3 of their present ones when the universe was 2/3 of its present age (approximately when the Sun was born). That would have been just about the amount required to expand the radius of the Earth to the radius of Mars.

However, with the same assumption the Sun-Earth distance should currently increase about 10 m/year, almost two orders of magnitude more than observed. That fact is more difficult to disregard, because in any inventible theory of interplanetary expansion, one cannot just turn the expansion off today --- to fit the inconvenience that current orbits are not expanding (much).

Kåre Olaussen, The paper you mention is not the same paper, I think; in this one, I analyze the evidences on Earth past, and also on Mars past, and I show that they are in full accordance with expanding orbits and in no way they can be explained by invariant orbits, even if one does not considers that solar activity was lower in the past. And, surprisingly, when one considers the real past climate of Earth, the one that all evidences clearly show and we don't dare to consider, a lot of mysteries simply disappear. When one accepts what evidences are crying, one gets a full new understanding of the history of Earth and of life creation and evolution (this seems what amateurs always promise of their "discoveries", I know...)

Concerning the expansion of space or a self-similar decay of matter, it is as we say, nature don't have to obey our assumptions... Do you think that matter properties depend on size? Because either there is an absolute size or there is not and matter properties are the same whatever the scale. And, in this case, they can change scale. Why? I have an explanation very simple but to not be considered speculative I restrain to facts; but remember that in invariant space field is expanding and this cannot be at no cost; in fact, one can think that feeding field has the same cost as feeding radiation; we simply do not sense the consequences of feeding field because this is a continuos process.

Concerning standard model, the use of GR is a methodological mistake because GR or SR were not established in expanding space and no one analyzed its valid in it; Einstein mentioned this. This does not mean that GR is not valid in this case, just that it has to be verified and no one did it  - if someone does it, will conclude the same I did in relation to Newton's law - that its validity implies the decreasing of the intensity of matter and field, the expansion of space being a consequence of units intrinsic to matter; so, GR is valid... but implies that space expansion is an illusion as the old rotation of skies.

But, now, I am only concerned with the question of orbits. The ephemeris analysis cannot answer the question by  now because it depends on too many parameters and needs many more years of data; the paper that concludes that orbits expand 15 cm/y is, as far as I can understand it, based on questionable assumptions, to do not say other things. I wonder if it was produced just to draw the attention to the ephemeris analysis. In this scenario, I think that my above paper on Earth's past climate is the most important contribution available for the problem of orbits

Aleš Kralj thanks for your contribution. 

Have you seen the paper that concludes that Earth's orbits is increasing 15 cm/y? As far as I can understand it, it is based on questionable assumptions. The fact is that many more years of data is required to be able to conclude something from ephemeris analysis, due to the low available accuracy and the enormous amount of parameters. I wonder if that paper was not produced just to renew the interest in ephemeris analysis, because data is not yet enough for conclusions. So, there is no great point in being concerned in explaining a result poorly grounded, don't you think?. 

Therefore, can't we know knowing about orbits by now? Yes we can! Because there are overwhelming evidences on Earth past which are ignored by physicists and that define quite well the past. And this was not a past that can have several interpretations.

So, if you still have some interest in the subject, I think you will like to take a look to the abstract of my paper on Earth's past climate  http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0170

Kåre Olaussen, you think that orbits are not expanding much, but that is not known; what ephemeris analysis concludes is that the available data is compatible with invariant orbits but no one analyzed whether it is compatible also with expanding orbits because there is no model that allows such calculation.

Following recent discoveries about water flows on Mars, the scientist or engineer from NASA that presented publicly the results concluded very clearly that Mars had in the past a clime very similar to present Earth's clime. On the other hand, the evidences on Earth's past are clear, indisputable, unquestionable: Earth's past was hot, very hot, the oceans temperature 3 giga years ago was still close to the boiling point. Can we ignore this? Are we allowed to disregard these clear evidences on the ground of our believes? 

My papers intendes to make scientists in the area of physics to give proper attention to something that is indisputable for scientists in other fields and that has surpassed the several attempts that were made to find alternative interpretations.

Aleš Kralj , there is simply no way of explaining Mars or Earth past temperatures invoking atmospheric effects.

The Snowball Earth is the result of an attempt to build a model for Earth's past compatible with standard physics and the existence of life. The best that was possible to achieve then was to consider that Earth has been frozen most of the time, pole to pole, average temperature under -60 ºC, and that had some moments where a global warming de-iced Earth and allowed life to evolve. This is the Snowball Earth. And it is impossible, clearly, without question. Its failure is the greatest evidence that invariant orbits are impossible. 

Of course that, in the absence of any possible model compatible with standard physics, this has to be presented as the standard model; but for general public!

If there are overwhelming evidences supporting past high temperatures, why there is no model according to those evidences? So, I dared to present a model according to evidences. Now, there are two models: the Snowball Earth, according to standard physics, and the ECM, according with evidences. 

Scientists in activity cannot present a model not in accordance with standard physics, no matter what are the evidences, but I can. So I did, in an infamous site but that, truly, is still part of the scientific system and as a role in it. 

Aleš Kralj

You are right but you know, that is irrelevant; because Earth's past was so hot that in no way it can be explained by solar activity. And the same with Mars past.

Furthermore, there are a lot of mysteries concerning Earth past. For instance, how were the dolomites produced? This is a two centuries old mystery. And the great oxygenation event? The biological explanation stands only because no one calculated it. These and other "mysteries" have very simple explanations when one considers the temperatures that biologic and isotope data show. 

But, in fact, people are not interested in knowing, just in believing that they know, so why should anyone pay attention to these inconvenient facts that questions their believed knowledge? New things ok, but only if they do not question our beliefs...  ;-)

Aleš Kralj

Sorry, I have not seen some of your comments.

All you say must be considered and also a lot more of other things; and when one does it, verifies that their contributions are irrelevant. 

Regarding the relationship between the velocity of metabolism and temperature, that is well known, confirmed by many measurements; anyhow, I just verify that considering it there is a match between evolution and the temperature. 

As I say many times in the paper, each one of the things I present can be a coincidence, some can have other explanations; but I present so many of those "coincidences" that the possibility that they are no coincidences must be considered.

Very important is that I obtain a scenario for Earth past that is fully consistent with all that is known, from geology to biology. No other scenario achieves it - for instance, no other scenario explains dolomites. And this paper does not presents all, but if I said more, it will be a book, not  a paper. I limited myself to the essential.

I apologize for the remark on beliefs. That was not addressed to you, I am always trying to understand mankind and why we react in one way or the other - me included. 

Aleš Kralj

Your objection, although extremely speculative, could stand if it were the only evidence concerning past climate; but is not, neither is a relevant one. In my paper I present lots of them. For instance, the explanation for dolomites; or the one for the oxygen catastrophe. Of course that you can always build a more or less speculative reasoning to deny each one of them, However, I can as well produce very clear reasoning showing that current explanation for the oxygen catastrophe is a non-sense (for dolomites I do not need because there is none).

So, we have two scenarios: one, the warm one, with which we can present consistent explanations for all data; and the other,  the cold one, which conflicts with most of the data, can only be made compatible with some of it through very speculative reasoning, and supports no explanation at all for some of it. In fact, for me, the Snowball Earth is the most absurd model ever made by mankind. It is presented because it is the only possibility within current physics but no one with a minimum knowledge of Earth's past can support it. Its obvious impossibility is the greatest evidence that something is missing in current physics.

Therefore, all you have to do is to compare the two scenarios; then you can chose the one that better fits evidence or the one that better fits standard physics. You choice is the second one. In my case, the problem does not exist because I have produced a theory, made form cosmic data, that agrees with the scenario that better fits data, so, for me, both reasons hold.

I think that there is no point in you trying to argument that the warm scenario is not the one that best fits data, because the evidence is overwhelming (if you see my paper, we will see that there are many and strong handles to grip...); but it is legitime that you refuse it because it is not possible in the framework of current physics  - one has to be a philosopher, or an artist, for questioning accepted ideas, be it in science, religion, arts, society or whatever; and that is risky and most of the time a mistake.

Thanks for your stimulating argumentation :-)

Well, that is a surprise! But you see, as invariant orbits, solar model and past warm climate do not mach, something is wrong. I think you think that it is the solar model. Apparently, it is the weakest link; and it has great shortcomings for sure.

However, do you know what has to be changed in standard physics in order to obtain expanding orbits with invariance of Gm? Just a minor, non-measurable, term function of H0 in the conservation of angular momentum. Just that. A much simpler modification that changing solar model.

This is not against observations because there is no measurement with the required accuracy. Furthermore, in a universe that is evolving, how can laws of conservation over time be independent of time? 

And, above all, I obtained it by deduction from cosmic data. It is not a hypothesis.

By the way, your objections are valuable, I appreciate that; I am interested in understanding what can cause rejection of my work, what arguments can be used, what may be the weak points; and I am also interested in find people that believe in their own reasoning, therefore able to support an idea when they conclude that it is better than alternatives. There are not many persons of this kind, you know ;-)

Aleš Kralj

Thanks. It shows well the complexity of the calculations and why it is not yet possible to know from ephemeris analysis how the average orbital radius is varying. The model has more then 260 parameters. Furthermore, calculations need a theory and the only one available imply orbits near  invariance, so the values of parameters are adjusted to meet this theory. If this theory does not fit, to conclude that, many many years of measurements are required

The best, the only, source we have by now to estimate the behavior of orbits is past climate.

There is always an "if" in every evidence. We have to look for the solution that fits all the available evidences. At this moment, standard physics is supported in a set of evidences, and predicts invariant orbits and a past frozen Earth (by the way, questioning the solar model is questioning standard physics). On the other hand, the set of evidences on past Earth climate fully supports a hot past. Therefore, a conflict. And there is another: standard physics do not support the redshift, that is why cosmological models have to consider parameters and do not apply locally, where standard physics apply. So, at the moment, we have this triple conflict between standard physics, past climates and cosmic data. They are all based in solid evidence. What we have to do is not to question evidence but to look for a solution that fits all evidence.

That is what I have done. And I have found a solution that fits them all: standard physics, cosmic data and hot past. By a deductive process, no speculations.

just imagine the amazing things about the universe we could discover from this theory that takes us out from present dead alleys...

"So, with really accurate geological data on solar irradiation and a good model of the stellar radiative dynamics..."

You can have a really acccurate geological record and yet that does not imply that you know how solar activity has varied; because that record depends on a number of things, like atmospheric influence, cosmic rays, dust in planetary plane, etc.. From Earth evidences you can only conclude what happened in Earth, and even so with a lot of "if".

The statement that an atmosphere of 50-100 bar is enough to explain the hot past of Earth is rather speculative, I imagine, given the present ignorance about basic properties of an atmosphere like the influence of clouds; furthermore, there is also a warm past in Mars to explain. And for calculating past atmosphere one has also to account for the degassing of the mantle and rocks.

I am not committed to one subject in particular, I go on researching where I can  and when things get together as the pieces of a puzzle, I conclude they are correct. But, of course, that can still be an illusion; but it has some solid ground - it is not grounded in speculations, beliefs and assumptions but in the best fit of the whole set of evidences. This is just my way, but all the ways are a priori good, the important is that each one follows his intuition.