Is the universe indeed elastic and expanding?

I consider the idea " Some scientists say that the model may be wrong ". Your argument is that a behavior that is almost locally or even in considerable sub domains non existent but only globally observable - which is the opposite of quantum mechanics where matter at microscopic level is chaotic and unstable but only stable looking and smooth at the macro level.

Alexander Egoyan

Dear Dejenie,

This is not my argument, this is the official point of view which has been awarded by Nobel Prize. Under other people I mean Oxford professor Subir Sarkar who has published his research in the Nature Journal. Of course, the model is cosmological and deals only with classical objects like stars, planets and galaxies. For more information see please the following link:

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

Stam Nicolis

The Universe is expanding-indeed the rate at which it is expanding is increasing with time. It's not elastic, however, since spacetime is described by the equations that are appropriate for non-linear, not linear, oscillators (which describe elastic effects).

First, I would like answer directly Dejanie's question by saying that what you are considering are local celestial dynamics. The standard answer is that systems locked by Gravity will not expand. My theory will tell you otherwise.

In my theory, this is only partially correct. Celestial bodies locked by Gravity will remain stable and not diffuse away. That said, in equation 175 of my article

https://issuu.com/marcopereira11/docs/huarticle

you can see that G has a inverse R0 dependence. R0 is the 4D-radius of the Universe which matches the age associated with the epoch.

This means that during the 4 billion years of Earth's lifetime, the Gravity decreased by 42%. This means that earlier aggregation processes taking place around the Sun were expedited by the closer orbits associated with all the planets.

Current Astronomy has to introduce the Hypothesis of Jupiter Grand Tack to explain how clean of asteroids our neighborhood is. They suggest that Jupiter somehow came into closer orbit by a collision and then went back (perhaps by another collision). Never mind the effect of collisions on that scale would have in creating new asteroids.

My theory provides a clean solution to this embarrassing problem. Stronger gravity at first, tighter orbits, Jupiter cleans up, Earth does it job cleaning up asteroids also. The smoothly everything becomes more relaxed...:)

No colossal collisions needed. No Jupiter Grand Tack required... No Grand Embarrassment suffered.

###############################################

The fact that everyone here is part of a choir, doesn't mean that what they are saying is true, nor that a Prize Winning research can't be wrong. A theory should be judged by the amount of unjustified new physics it brings about.

I will present an alternative view using my theory, the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU).

Current Cosmology brought in as unjustified new physics two new things - Inflation and Dark Energy. It also brought Dark Matter.

That is very fine. The issue is: Was it necessary?

Let's start with the Cosmological Ruler - the Type 1A Supernova Survey - Union 2.1.

The Supernova Survey provides the independent information about redshift z and bolometric distance d, or d(z).

I create a theory where the 3D Spatial Universe is the hypersurface on a lightspeed expanding hypersphere. Looking into the past is like looking into a smaller circle.

That simple picture provides all you need to create a d(z). Just follow the 4D k-vector leaving the inner circle at 45 degrees (required for the working of retarded potentials within this moving frame perspective), Once you use the law of sines and do some trivial trigonometry, you get the d(z) below:

This simple d(z) containing zero parameters is the first half of the proposed solution by the HU.

The second half of the problem is the ruler itself. The distances might be incorrect. If you start with incorrect measurements of the Universe, you will not be able to make any sensible theory.

Let's see what HU tells us:

a) HU tells us that G is inversely proportional to the 4D radius of the Universe. This means that earlier epochs had stronger G. The implications of stronger G in the past, implies that the White Dwarfs precursors to the SN1A supernovae explodes when their masses reach the Chandrasekhar mass. The Chandrasekhar mass has a G^(-3/2) dependence. The Chandrasekhar radius is proportional to G^(-1/2). See equation 175 on my article:

https://issuu.com/marcopereira11/docs/huarticle

b) One should analyse what is the dependence of these Supernovae Absolute Peak Luminosity with G. This was tackled here:

https://www.quora.com/How-the-Luminosity-of-a-Supernova-varies-with-gravitational-Constant-G

c) The last sentence on the prior link explains that the Luminosity of Supernovae have a G^(-3) dependence. This means that farther away SN1a is, the weaker it becomes. This means that SN1a distances are overestimated by (R0/R(T))^(1.5)

Once corrected the distances, one can plug in our d(z) equation. The result is show below.

HU has the Universe as a hypersphere, so angular dimensions in the hypersphere are distance dimensions in the 3D Universe.

HU allows for the creation of the map of the Current Universe shown here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuEctnD334&t=2s

The data used in this map come from SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey) and contain 1.3 million galaxies or objects. The bright spots are higher density regions (a ridge around 30% of the radius of the Universe).

In the next video, you can see the cross-section of that ridge, clearly showing the effect of the acoustic waves on the Neutronium Phase of the Universe. This is the phase of the Universe where the whole Universe has the density of a neutron star (10^18 km/m^3).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfxqMsnAinE

As the Universe continued its expansion at the speed of light neutrons became free and decayed releasing 0.7 MeV/neutron. That energy feed back into the Ringing of the Universe.

Instead of having one Big Bang, HU proposes at least 36 Bangs in a crescendo, spanning 3012 years. Starting when the Universe had a 560 light-seconds radius to when it achieved a 3012 light-years radius.

The complete NAO (Neutronium Acoustic Oscillations) are presented below, where you can see the full dynamics.

In HU, all matter is built of coherences between stationary deformation states of the local metric, that is, there is nothing in the Universe but space and deformed space.

HU proposed the Big Pop and the Many-Bangs Universe Cosmogenesis Theory is explained here.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-pop-banging-universe-marco-pereira?trk=v-feed&lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base_recent_activity_details_shares%3BknpDJTDHka%2FZhdmViXfkNQ%3D%3D

So this is a theory that competes with the Current Cosmology. This theory has been censored for 12 years (during the time all those Nobel Prizes were distributed..:). It has no parameters, replicates all known observations, allows the derivation of Natural Laws from First Principles, passes all GR tests, explains why SR is a naive theory, etc.

All calculations, Universe map, cross-sections are in this github repository. There you can easily reproduce all my calculations and check its quality.

https://github.com/ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse

The plots of the 36 Bangs following the Universe Neutronium decay were present in the SDSS data since the beginning (at least 10 years ago).

Cosmologists never bother to look for them because GR doesn't expect them there. It took a new theory to provide the insight to look and see what I consider the most amazing picture I ever saw. Perfect density quantization eternalizing the beginning of times in the form of Galaxy clusters.

I don't think anyone can unsee that plot. The question is will you support me in my quest to have it published or deposited onto the Los Alamos Archives. Paul Ginsparg is a famous censor and had been censoring me since 2004.

Please feel free to ask questions.

Marco Pereira

ps- If you believe that it is not OK to censor my theory, please contact arXiv Moderation ([email protected])

https://issuu.com/marcopereira11/docs/huarticle

https://www.quora.com/How-the-Luminosity-of-a-Supernova-varies-with-gravitational-Constant-G

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-pop-banging-universe-marco-pereira?trk=v-feed&lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base_recent_activity_details_shares%3BknpDJTDHka%2FZhdmViXfkNQ%3D%3D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfxqMsnAinE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuEctnD334

https://github.com/ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse

Dear Alexander,

Thank you for your replies. That was my point, the theory works uniformly in the universe, for cosmological objects including within planets in galaxies and intergalactic objects and the metric defined should be independent of locations or sub domains of the universe. That is why I question why such a metric is seen in a visible way to elongate at far away places but remain fixed and immovable inside galaxies and up close, leaving aside the official stand of persons who won a prize. For that dear Marco probably has his own answers.

Dear Marco,

You brought several interesting ideas. First, your view of current universe HU, second, a theory is judged by the number of unjustified new physics it brings with it, but unjustified physics is may not be called physics, as physics is a mathematical study of the physical world in which there is a physical reality that is described by it and empirically validated, so it is justified. But as we observe what you said have grains in them. You indicated unjustified new physics in current cosmology : Inflation, Dark Energy and Dark Matter, which all are unnecessary in your view.

Biswajoy Brahmachari

The question of effects of accelerated expansion on planetary orbits in quite interesting. It has been addressed by J. Pacheco in 2015. I have included a link to this paper at the end.

Essentially in this paper a modified Newtonian approach is used. Three different scenarios are classified. If A is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity of an orbit, then the three different cases are,

d ln A / dt = 0

d ln A / dt > 0

d ln A / dt < 0

In the first case there is no effect on orbit: It is obtained in de Sittier cosmology. Second case is obtained for for dust or relativistic fluid case. Third case can be obtained for some quintissence models, -1 < w < -1/3.

Ref.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001-37652015000501915&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

Jonathan Doolin

I would say there are three general classifications of models:

KInematic Models, Stretching Space Models, and Empirical Models

(1) distance = velocity * time (Kinematic Models)

Models such as this one would assume that redshift of distant galaxies is primarily due to recession velocity. In a perfect big bang, where every particle proceeds directly from an origin (t=0,x=0)

Kinematic models would describe the "Hubble Flow" as follows

(dr/dt)/r = 1/t

After separation of variables and integration, this leads to the introduction of an integration constant v, such that,

r = v t

(2) distance = velocity/Hubble's constant (Stretching Space Models)

Models such as this one would assume that redshift of distant galaxies is primarily due to how the scale of space has stretched while photons are under way from distant parts of the universe.

Stretching space cosmologies describe the Hubble Flow as

(da/dt)/a = H

where H is anything other than 1/t.

For instance, if H is constant, separation of variables and integration would give, for a description of the Hubble flow:

a=k e^(H t)

(3) relative magnitude of standard candles = best-fit statistical function of redshift (Empirical Models).

These models attempt to represent what is observed, according to an equation or graph based on finding a correlation in the measured data, over a given domain/range.

Dejenie A. Lakew · 29.14 · Bryant & Stratton College

Dear Marco,

Dear Dejenie,

I should had been cleared in my statement. Physics as we use it, doesn't strictly require empirical validation (e.g. Dark Energy), so your definition of Physics is not a valid one, in our real world. For this reason, there are ways to rank one theory against other.

Theories should be judged by how well they predict or fit the Universe. A theory that predicts what happens in the Universe is better than a theory that fits what happens in the Universe.

Every time you add parameters to a theory you are using those parameters to characterize the properties of a construct. For instance, I allowed space to have natural frequencies, that means that space was given a spring constant or restoring force. That new parameter comes with a prediction of metric waves on that natural frequency. That has to be detected (if possible) experimentally.

L-CDM adds Dark Energy and Dark Matter content to the Universe. It also adds Inflation. All those constructs are NEW... with no empirical evidence whatsoever.

Nobody will question that space has elasticity. LIGO measured "Gravitational Waves". So my theory is ok.

Nobody measured Dark Energy. Inflation was eliminated in my theory by challenging the Ruler used in Cosmology (SN1a). By challenging SN1a constance across distances and reproducing the observables, I took of that stool leg where L-CDM was sitting. So, I challenged the existence of those constructs (Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Inflation, GR).

Under that measure, I would claim that HU is better than L-CDM.

I also claim that that shouldn't be my 'view'.... That should be an objective assessment.

If you have a better measure of the quality of a theory, I would love to hear.

Vikram Zaveri

In my theory I propose a unified field of consciousness (Spirit) underlying the entire universe. And there is definite connection between consciousness and the energy. The infinite spirit is perfectly motionless and when it begins to move it becomes energy. This energy develops different degree of rigidity as it undergoes phase transformation like in Bose Einstein condensate. But the most primitive form of energy like the gravitational energy could be perfectly resilient (elastic). Besides universe as a whole is indivisible in my theory. This indivisibility also imply perfect resilience. The entanglement and the wave particle duality in physics must be the consequence of this indivisibility and the perfect resilience. So the universe as a whole can never have elastic failure as in case of steel or other brittle materials.

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=21109

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Big-Bang-Assumptions-Problems/dp/1613245777/ref=sr_1_5?

s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333360764&sr=1-5

Chapter Consciousness and energy

Gilbert Rooke

Marco, I found your ideas very constructive, but just your summary leads me to not really want to wade through the details. I haven’t got the time to read it all and so I’m going to retain my professed state of ignorance and skip it. It looks more like a ‘look at me’ entry rather than a simple answer to a simple question Hence I cannot abide by your last request. Sorry!

Dejenie – I suggest that you follow Alander’s leads.

The last couple of responses give variations that may be useful, but get the basic structure right first.

Dear.

I think that the universe is not expanding. This is a misinterpretation of the General Relativity (GR) and the cosmological redshift.(CR) The universe is euclidean. GR pretends to describe the dinamic relations between gravitating bodies by means of a geometrical model (riemanian) of the spacetime. But this is a representation of the space, is not the space itself. The first confussion is this, the reality with the model. It is as to confuss the Drude model with the actual transport of charges in a conductor. There are alternative theories to GR, as the relativistc theory of gravity (RTG) of Logunov that pretend to correct this. By other hand, there are other interpretations of CR, as the "tired light" models, the best for me is the Ashmore's model. The universe is euclidean, dynamic and not stationary, as is demostrated for the last discoveries of Laniakea and the dipole repeller.

I hope to learn of this debate.

Thanks.

Dear all,

Thank you for your quite interesting answers. However your answers left questions than answers as I see it. One of the distinct features of science is to distinctly identify problems and find unambiguous solutions. To propose what a phenomenon might look like or what it might be is not identifying the phenomenon clearly without ambiguity but a furthest step to the identification procedure. Among the oldest fascinating intellectual endeavors of mankind was to know what the universe is, what it is made of, how it became in to existence, does it have origin and where and when or does it simply exist as it is now, and whether it is bounded or not. Cosmology, astronomy and theoretical physics or physical cosmology are on the frontiers of these fascinating studies, yet none of them clearly declare and identify what the universe is and answer all questions I stated about the universe. Instead each develop its own theory and tell to its followers that this model describes the universe, that model does not. There are these many types of models and so on.

Can we say then these theories in these fields indeed identified exactly what the universe is? If it is identified, then there should be only one model not several as a real object exists in one form, it has only one reality and one model describes it. When we say model, mathematical model, it describes the behavior of the phenomena the model describes and solves problems with some initial or boundary conditions. But the universe remains only in speculations of what models might describe it. In this post there are colleagues who presented what the universe should be in their own measurements rejecting others and others have their own. All these things say : The universe is one of the known unknowns. It is not possible to be outside of the universe and known indeed what it is, because by the time we are out of the universe we are in the universe, without is within.

Regards,

Dejenie Alemayehu Lakew

Vikram Zaveri

@Dejenie,

There are many models of the universe developed in different parts of the world. Scientists are just beginning to get into this field. Different people can comprehend only that model which suits their level of understanding. This is why there is no consensus on the subject.

as Marco points out '

Theories should be judged by how well they predict or fit the Universe. A theory that predicts what happens in the Universe is better than a theory that fits what happens in the Universe.'

SPI-RALL cosmological redshift (CR) hypothesis for 'The Age Formation and Structure of the Universe' which holds by

SPI= proto-Stellar formation Preceded cosmic Inflation

would predicts CR and no ongoing cosmic expansion,

unlike the SCM's that postulates Ongoing cosmic-expansion as the cause of CR as a possible fit to pervasive CR of distant starlight. Failing to disclose the CR fits as well or better with SPI-RALL.

RALL = cosmological Redshit Attests to Lagging Light trails from the CI cosmic expansion event.

thus SPIRAL is a solution to the OP,

there is no ongoing cosmic expansion.

the infographic compares what SPIRAL and SCM hold

for the how and why SPI_RALL best desribes the age, formation and structure of the universe, study the book and memo w/ constructive peer-review concerns if any, with an open mind and fair consideration please.

www.researchgate.net/publication/312519866_SPIRAL_vs_SCM_cosmology_model_comparison_free_infographic

Presentation SPIRAL vs SCM cosmology model comparison free infographic

@Gilbert Rooke.

Looks like everyone has their own crappy theory of everything..:)

If you need enticements.. May I interest you into something I found inside the SDSS dataset... I found that instead of having a single Big Bang, the Universe had 36 Bangs...

That is evidence...:) It is here...you might choose to continue uninterested (I am sure you are peddling your own theory and that explains your lack of interest)...

In any event, some people might find it remarkable that we had 36 Bangs and that they left a fingerprint in the Galaxy density dataset from SDSS.

The same is valid for all people with 'interesting' theories.

If you can beat this, let me know..:)

You can see the HU map:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuEctnD334

to see the ridge. And here to see the things inside the ridge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfxqMsnAinE

ps- If you have trouble understanding, the plot is the density of galaxy versus distance (versus Declination, although declination was dropped from the dataset). There is a ridge at 0.3 from us (distance normalized to the radius of the Universe).

I looked inside that ridge and found this.

Marco,

You have again another interesting theory that there were 36 Bangs than one Big Bang. Since the last big bang, 13.8 billions of years have passed (based on the theory) and in your theory, how old then is the universe ? If what you are saying is true and accepted by a considerable portion of cosmologists and astronomers or theoretical physicists or string theorists, and how far apart are each bangs ? Do they happened in in a periodic manner or just with irregular time interval? It is argued that the Big Bang we know may not be the first bang and the genesis of the universe, instead there might happen big collapses of prior universes in to a singularity and it is stipulated that bangs and collapses happened in a periodic manner. In this analogy we expect the universe we barley know will collapse again in to a singularity.

Soudip Sinha Roy

In certain theories, you might have been seen this sentence " UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING FASTER THAN SPEED OF LIGHT". So what does it mean? In our unseen part of the universe there are some trillions of trillions stars, planets, asteroids etc. and in some cases, they are extensively faster. They continuously collide among themselves and produce some other asteroids which are having a speed of around 25 kmps in minimum. They start to roam around the free space without facing any obstruction. In a free area is anything starts to move at a very high speed then naturally the coverage area will be larger to larger. It requires a bit visualization. So in a particular second there in the universe some millions of collisions are happening as such and in some cases, the speed of asteroids are 2% of the speed of light. Then they naturally expand the area of the universe. Supernovae may expel much, if not all, of the material away from a star at velocities up to 30,000 km/s or 10% of the dpeed of light. Alert Einstein predicted that the positive gravity converges the universe and the darks matters those are subjected to the negative gravity (theoretically) are pushing the universe outwards, and our dear universe is static in the stage between these two forces. This is called Einstein's static universe. For that reason, Albert introduced the cosmological constant to make a balance n the field equation. But he was bit incorrect. Later it was proved that with the help of Hubble telescope that the rate of universe expansion is 67.15 ± 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc.

Hi Dejenie,,

You have again another interesting theory that there were 36 Bangs than one Big Bang.

It is the same theory, just the Cosmogenesis part. The Universe is 13.58 Billion years old. The 35 bangs happened during the first 3012 years.

It is not accepted but the data is shown below.

The calculations are in this repository:

https://github.com/ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse

With respect to being accepted, no scientist had any argument that held water... Most don't say anything.

The Bangs comes directly from the SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey), so the Bangs are true. Cosmologists are just in hiding these days.

The period and dynamics can be seen in the repository. Since the Universe was expanding as the density waves sloshed around, the period was geometrically increasing.

The first of the 36 Bangs took a minute... the last Bang took place 3012 years later.

The Universe didn't come from a Big Bang (the 36 Bangs indicate that). The Universe came from the Big Pop. The Big Pop has to do with the model of Matter based on the Fundamental Dilator. In my theory, matter is made of deformed space.

The Universe doesn't collapse. The reason you expect that, is because you don;t have a theory for how gravity works in 4D and outside a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface.

Current Cosmology doesn't have a fundamental theory of Gravity. My theory has.

The Singularity concept is due to blissful ignorance that there cannot be an infinite force just out of proximity (Laws cannot have a pole). In retrospect it will be obvious what I am saying. At this time, just take my word for it.

With respect to the end of the Universe,that is the last thing in my mind..:)

So irrelevant..:)

George Dishman

Hi Dejenie,

DAL: Earth and other planets in our galaxy are cosmological objects which should obey the same law and display similar behaviors, ...

The material of the Earth is bound by EM forces between atoms which are vastly stronger than the effect of expansion so it is unaffected.

Within a galaxy, the gravitational binding of stars is similarly much greater than the effect of expansion so galaxies maintain their size over cosmological periods (other than through mergers etc.).

Galaxies in a cluster also generally remain bound but that is reaching the limit. Clusters can be far enough apart that expansion will win out and they will slowly move apart. That means that many super-clusters will gradually fragment, but the timescales are very large for that to happen.

Looking at a smaller system than the Universe, our solar system, the spherical objects, planets, and their Moons are spiraling away from their Parent star, the Sun, and the Moons are spiraling away from their Parent planets.

For example, based on observations from the McDonald Observatory in Texas, the Moon is spiraling away from the Earth by about a net rate of 38.2 mm per year. Mars is spiraling away from the Sun by about 15 meters per year, and all of the Moons spiral away from their Parent Planets. The Reason for this is that all of the larger objects are gaining relatively small amounts of mass each year. The are gain mass in Parts Per Billion because the system is billions of years old, so the remaining mass and energy available to gain has dwindled with time to the parts per billion range. Most of the mass gain is in the form of dust and micro-meteorites, but the summation of the mass gain is about 1.3 E 15 kg per year for the Earth alone. That is 1.3146 E 15 divided by 5.97352 E 24 = 1 / 4.5444 E 9 Years. What is interesting is that the amount of material we can actually " hear " entering the atmosphere is only about 1 % of this amount.

If you look at the Solar system as a whole, it is trending toward the removal of smaller objects by having them merge with the 200 or so largest objects in the solar system. That is 1 Sun, 8 planets, and 178 satellites, and a few asteroids.

The same thing happens in all solar systems, and in all galaxies. The trend is small objects merge into big objects, Small Galaxies merge with big Galaxies. Galaxies tend to cluster together. This means that Mass concentration and Energy concentration is an ongoing process. If there are 125 billion Galaxies in the Visible Universe, and the Universe is only 14 Billion years old, then there are nearly 9 galactic Mergers every Earth year in the Visible Universe. If you think about it, the Visible Universe has to be a microscopic volume of the actual Universe.

We are limited to viewing only 46.5 Billion Light Years in any direction from our particular view point. That means we can only view a tiny volume of a mere 4.2116 E 32 cubic light years of space. ( 4/3 Pi R^3 ).

Our Visible Universe could be like a single water droplet in all the Oceans, or single rain drop in all of the Earth's Atmosphere as compared to the real volume of the Universe.

I would think that Clusters would move together and merge, thus making the gravitational centers more concentrated, and thus increasing the average distance between between gravitational centers, and reducing the force of gravity between centers by increasing the division by R^2 as R increases.

So Expansion is the byproduct of mass concentration into fewer and larger Galaxies with greater distances between them.

Hi Michael, you wrote:

'That means we can only view a tiny volume of a mere 4.2116 E 32 cubic light years of space. ( 4/3 Pi R^3 ).'

please give the value as a LY radius to a sphere,

so the maximum LY distance to the initial visible light departure point,

from the most distant detectable stars are now (46.5B LY) assuming SCM.

Michael

It is interesting your opinion. But from this, arise me two questions. If yourself say that the moon and mars are moving away from the center of its orbits, until they will became in free objects. Why do you say the the general trend is the agregattion?. The second question is about the hipotesis that the gravity behaves of the same form at all scales. The galaxies and larger astronomical objects do not fit with the kepler laws. do you accord with this hipotesis?

Best regards

George Dishman

The Moon is moving away from the Earth due to the action of the tides, it also slows the rotation of the Earth so that angular momentum is conserved.

Think of Gravitational Attraction as a 3 Dimensional Net, or as a 3 dimensional spider web of Gravitational Filaments. Every object in the Universe has one of these webs, and the number of filaments is vast, maybe 10^100 filaments or more, but thankfully the vast majority are extremely weak, in fact because of the incredible distances involved their forces are virtually undetectable. This simplifies things a lot.

For the Solar System, we only need to look at the biggest 200 filaments or less to resolve most motions of the Sun, Planets, and Moons. Even more fortunate is that they tend to lie in a plane so that simplifies the calculations even more.

When we move up the the Galactic Scale, Each Star has between 100 Billion, and 200 Billion Filaments that attract each other star in that Galaxy. The same thing applies, Stars that are close together have strong filaments, and stars that are far apart have very weak filaments, but there are 200 Billion Stars each with 200 Billion intergalactic filaments so there 40000 X 10^9 X 10^9 = 4 x 10^22 Filaments interacting in Each Galaxy alone. This is why Galaxies tend to have a " flat spin " like a Vinyl record rather than like a whirl pool, even though there is creep as evidenced by the curves in the spiral arms of a Galaxy.

If we move up to the Inter-Galactic Scale Each Galaxy has 125 X 10^9 Filaments connecting each of the 125 x 10^9 Galaxies in the Visible Universe, and Vastly more in the Invisible Universe. For Simplification lets assume that there are only a cloud of 24 Invisible Universes surrounding our visible Universe Each has 125 X 10^9 Filaments connecting 125 X 10^9 Galaxies. Each Universe has 1.5625 X 10^22 Filaments of its own, and 24 + 1 Universes have 3.90625 X 10^23 Filament connecting 3.125 x 10^12 Galaxies. And since we vastly understated the Invisible Universes, these numbers are very low.

So now think about Galactic Mergers. In each Visible and Invisible Universe, 25 Galaxies are Merging 9 times a year. This means that a Galaxy and all its filaments are lost every 1.6 Days by Galactic Mergers. Each loss is 25 X 125 X 10^9 Filaments which is a loss of 3.125 X 10^12 Filaments Every 1.6 Days.

The Loss is about 1.95 x 10^12 Gravitational Filaments Per Day out of the 3.9 x 10^23 Connections. The Daily Loss of Gravitational Filaments is only one part in 2 X 10^11.

Cross Checking : 14 Billion Years X 365 days per Year is 5.11 E 12 Days.

The Summation of the Loss is 5.11 E 12 X 2 E 11 / e = 3.76 E 23 Inter-Galactic Filaments in 14 Billion Years, for just the 25 Visible and Invisible Universes.

The actual numbers should be vastly more Invisible Surrounding Universes.

Aggregation: The General Trend at all scales is to accumulate matter into fewer, but larger accumulations of matter. Large Objects " Eat " Smaller objects. The Big Eat the small.

The Age is only 14.0 Billion Years, but the Visible Radius is 46.5 Billion Light Years. The Ratio is 3.32143 to 1 which is greater than e = 2.718281828. On this one I assume the Astrophysicists with the really big telescopes know what they are doing in the growing and expanding and accelerating universe.

Take a look at the Hubble Deep Field Picture.

The Angular Momentum and Conservation of Angular Momentum came from the 1700's, but what every one forgets is that it is based on a " CLOSED SYSTEM ". The Solar system and each of it planets are in an " Open System " so they are subject to they availability of new mass, and new energy entering the system and acting on the planets individually, which in turn makes changes to the masses, energies, mass ratios, energy ratios, distances, and orbital velocities of all of the parties in a system.

This change in mass and Energy makes the Sun Gain about 337.2 Lunar Masses every year, while its Solar Energy Output is about 1 % of this amount. This net Solar Mass Gain accelerates all of the Planets and their Moons to slightly higher orbits, while at the same time it lowers its own orbit about its orbital center, a few millimeters.

The Key here is Differential mass Gain. The Biggest in any system gobble up the most mass, and the most available energy, and do the best job of cleaning up their neighborhood of any available materials. The Sun is big and greedy, and Jupiter is large and also a good cleaner of its orbital area.

In any smaller two-party system such as the Earth and Moon, the Larger One, Eats more, and grows larger at a faster rate, so it gains mass much faster, and it increases its gravitational attraction faster than its smaller Partner. The Earth Moon Mass Ratio is a little over 81.3 to 1, but its Gravitational ratio is about 5.94 to 1 so it eats about 81.3 x 5.94 = 483 times the amount of mass as the Moon does each year. ( a rough estimate ).

Think about Sauropod vrs Elephant,vrs cat vrs mouse, and compare it to

Sun vrs Jupiter vrs Earth vrs Moon. The Biggest one Eats the Most, the smallest one eats the least. This is the essence of the Aggregation of Mass into Fewer, but Larger units over billions of years.

Louis Brassard

Michael,

There are galaxies outside our visible universe but we will never receive light or have gravity effects from them because they are outside our cone of observation. The farther we can observe is the CMB. But this visible universe is slightly different for every galaxy and very different for the ones that are very far from us. So although what is outside our visible do not affect us directly, it affect what we can observe in our visible universe and so it does so, it is not completly invisible to us and so maybe the observation of the CMB can reveal a lot about the structure of the universe in the proximity of our visible universe.

Is it studied?

I know the Cosmic Background Radiation and its temperature areas above 0 K are currently being studied. The people doing the work are looking at areas currently that are abnormally low in molecular density, and are of vast Volumes, far bigger than predicted.

The density is on the order of less than 10 molecules in a cubic meter of space, and temperatures barely above 0 Kelvin. These areas make normal empty space look crowded and warm.

Just think if you had a really big telescope there you would not have to worry about light bending around objects, or temperature distorting an image. Your View of the Universe in all wave lengths would be vastly beyond what we can see from our dusty arm of the Galaxy.

I suspect that Gravity does act in a similar manner to Energy such as Photons, so there may be a point where Gravity goes from nearly zero to absolute zero as the distance increases. I only say this because they finally detected Gravity waves due to the detection of the sudden merger of two black holes a few billion light years away.

Gravity wave should send out ripples thru Space-Time. But, it took the Merger of two Super Massive Black Holes to create detectable Ripples.

There is one thing that bothers me. If all other waves diminish in Amplitude with distance, and the wave length gets longer, then why do we insist that Light is some how special and its blue shift, and red shift are related to rates of expansion, and not to the same processes we see in all other waves like ripples on a pond.

Photons have mass, Energy, and Velocity. The Bend, refract, and reflect, so why can we not say they also loose amplitude, get longer, and slow down ( over vast distances and elapsed times ).

ok michael, the yours is very convincing. The agregattion looks wins to the dispersion until now. Although, the criterion to neglecting "philaments" is based on supposition that the gravity behaves of the same form at all scales: Sorry, but this is in doubt. Equally, this do not matter for the present debate.

The next question come from..."The Age is only 14.0 Billion Years, but the Visible Radius is 46.5 Billion Light Years. The Ratio is 3.32143 to 1 which is greater than e = 2.718281828. On this one I assume the Astrophysicists with the really big telescopes know what they are doing in the growing and expanding and accelerating universe."

The visible radius is refer to the distance actualized to the present of the distant galaxies, whose measured distance is 14 Billion Years?

James Garry

Michael,

Light does indeed obey the inverse-square law for their intensity.

But that's simply a function of the wavefront expanding as the square of distance - the photons in the light do not themselves lose energy.

Equally, they cannot slow down.

(nor, to first order, can a ripple on a pond - the material properties of water fix the wave's speed - although dispersion makes this a non-ideal material)

The wavelength of a photon, equally, cannot change - that would indicate that it is losing energy and unless you can specify a loss mechanism (ie, scattering) then a photon will travel at the same speed and with the same energy for all time.

(in a non-expanding universe)

From an alterntive point of view, a photon of light has an infinite scope, meets the inverse square law and maintain invariant its frequency and energy if is an isolate system and moves throughout a pristine vacuum. But, there arent a such type of vacuum in the observable universe. For the average density of materia (and energy) in the intergalactic space, occurs certain dispersive phenomena (thermodinamically speaking) that produces certain drain of the photons energy, in form of transference of energy to medium. Phenomena of 2dn order in general discarded, whose manifestation is the cosmological redshift and the CMB. This phenomena, limits the scope of the photons (because the medium is not completely transparent) and acts too over the gravity, producing the same effect at very large distances.

Carlos

When ever I find that my mathematics does not seem to work out correctly, I have left out a Multiplier that relates the constant rate of change to a CHANGING rate of change in a system. Typical are: square root of 2 or (1 plus the square root of 2 ), OR, The exponential : e = 2.718281828, or ( 1+ e ) = 3.718281828. note that 3.2143 lies between the values of ( e ) and ( 1 + e ), and rarely ( Pi ) and ( 1 + Pi ) , 3.1415926 and 4.1415926.

I developed an equation for he Density of Planets that includes 2 of these.

Density ( of a Rocky Planet ) as a Function of the Radius in Kilometers is:

Den (RP) = ( 1 + Pi ) X 10^-9 X R^3 + ( 1 + sqrt 2) X 10^-1 X R + Constant.

The first term is the tri-axial coefficient of compression ( a cube being compressed on all six faces so it becomes denser ).

The second term is the Uni-axial coefficient of compression ( a cylindrical or hexagonal column being compressed along its axis ) . This is gravitational axial compression vertical to the surface of the planet.

The third term is the Constant that represents the average density of material in the crust of the planet. Venus = 2657.05, Earth and Moon 2900, and Mars = 2941.05.

Note that Venus is like granite, and Mars is Basaltic, and the Earth and Moon are roughly a 30% granite, and 70% basaltic mixture ( 2900 is closer to 2941.05 than to 2657.05 )

This means that all You need is the Radius of a Rocky Planet to calculate its Volume, Density, Mass, Surface Gravity, Surface Area, and get a good guess on its composition. You can even use it for Ice Planets, but the value of C is very low,

similar to ice ( 900's to 1100's ). You can also get a quick ratio of the surface gravity by taking the Ratio of the Radius X Density ( smaller Planet ) divided by the Radius X Density (of Earth) which is in the denominator and = to 35,113,407.40.

James

I like your answer as Photons do not glue themselves to one another like water molecules so they do not slow down by interaction with other photons. They either make it all the way from another Galaxy to our eye without colliding with a single molecule, or they do not make it here at all.

If I remember the Hubble Deep Field Looked at the same dark and empty area of space for 100 hours to make one Image that could nearly see to the visible limit of the Universe. Other areas were just way too crowded with Galaxies, stars, and dust to see that far.

I am waiting for the Webb telescope. It should be spectacular.

Eugene F Kislyakov

Dear Louis,

we have gravity effect from the objects outside of our cone of observation (consider black hole, for example) and it is one of the problems of general relativity.

Regards,

Eugene.

For those interested in the past, I recommend getting a copy of the Laminated wall chart called : A CORRELATED HISTORY OF THE EARTH I have three copies , 2010, 2013, and 2016. It is still being updated as new information becomes available.

One that chart, are a few references to the spin rate of the Earth, and the number of hours per day, and the number of days per year.

Based on differential mass gain rates between the Sun and the Earth, the length of years will get longer as the Earth ( and all the other Planets ), are acelerated to higher and higher orbits by the Sun. The problem is the Solar mass gain rate is unknown, and the mass gain effected are unevenly distributed to each of the planets, and other orbiting objects.

It is best just to let a Year be a standard year of the same length.

Dear Michael,

Your work indeed answers my point that the length of time earth needed to travel around the sun which is called one year changes /increases as cosmological time passes by and paths of other planets as well get stretched and needed longer times that the earlier times, but for the comfort of simplicity and control of abuse that cosmologists and others use the usual one year length. In that case however the time in which the seasons reappear will also change. Did your work appear in journals of science somewhere?

SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis predicts cosmological redshift (CR) but explains why it is from past cosmic expansion /inflation and CR not evidence of ongoing cosmic expansion.

edition 6.60 now live

'Distant Starlight and the Age, Formation and Structure of the Universe'

Paperback: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1519262205

Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0181C4Q1W (free w/ kindle unlimited)

Dear Thierry,

Welcome to the discussion. You and others say the answer is negative, that the universe is not expanding at all, and others including Noble prize winners say the affirmative, indeed the universe is expanding, another group say, the expansion is visible only on the outer edge of the universe not on the interior per se. All these are, sorry to say, are different religions of cosmology, or pattern fitting efforts not precisely describing and knowing it. Which one should we believe and take as the truth of the universe? If we fail to describe a natural phenomena with one theory or more and fail to arrive to the fact that the phenomena has the same property regardless of the theory we use, then the phenomena is unknown yet and the theories are no different than the different religions of the human society.

Regards,

Dejenie

Hi Dejenie,

while i agree some assumptions are 'doctrine' to their proponents,

just because the science is disputed and some of the narratives include assumptions, does not mean there is no scientific explanation that aligns with all the factual observations and may be the actuality.

I accord with you Dejenie, I think that the cosmology is a very young science, and we lack to travel a very long way to understand our "obervable universe". My answer to your question is based on a not verified assumption. The theories are just theories, although these are there well based, while the facts no dictaminates its veredict. From my point, the ultimate juez are the objetive facts, the objetive observations, not the "consensus". Until now, the BB is a model with "consensus" but the observations not enterely fits with this. It is almost a religion.

Abdul Malek

The following quote from Geoffrey Burbidge says all that can be said about the Big Bang theory and an expanding universe. In an infinite and eternal universe, "inflation", "expansion" etc. ad nauseum has no meaning at all!

“By 1982, when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsuminan and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents.

In fact in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers” : G Burbidge, In “The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology. https://books.google.ca/books?id=4TZGDi1Py88C&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=burbidge+Vatican+conference+on+big+bang&source=bl&ots=N5vlN1eDpj&sig=sy_8SqiML11PiBU65Vc7mfxAVog&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=burbidge%20Vatican%20conference%20on%20big%20bang&f=false

Also, Halton (Chip) Arp praised the following (linked) article against Big Bang theory and in support of an infinite and eternal universe; even though it contradicted his (and Narlikar et al.) “Variable Mass” idea about the quasars redshifts:

“Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies”:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

Hi Thierry,

SPIRAL CR hypothesis explains why the prevalent cosmological redshift of distant starlight is consistent with past but not ongoing cosmic expansion.

SPIRAL's cosmic blue-shift offset sub-hypothesis explains why we might expect to find 'objects with a very different redshift reside physically in the same regions'.

So a big bang yes. the SCM big bang no.

either way the physical universe had a start.

if you are looking for something eternal, that aligns w/ the strongest science, you are looking for our One common designer creator, aka G-d of Abraham who predates time, and is not of the physical matter of His creation.

last update of the SCM vs SPIRAL comparison was this past Feb.

Presentation SPIRAL vs SCM cosmology model comparison free infographic

Abdul Malek

Dear Eugene,

If you are talking about Olber’s paradox; it has been refuted even from the perspective of mainstream cosmology, without invoking “Big Bang” creation or an expanding universe; that even Wikipedia discusses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

For more than a decade now, I am trying to promote the dialectal idea (originating with Epicurus; Giordano Bruno was burnt alive on the Stake by the Inquisition, for this!) of an infinite and eternal universe from a philosophical (dialectical) and modern astrophysical & QED point of view and in discussion with some prominent (anti- Big Bang) astrophysicists like Chip Arp (was a personal friend), Narlikar et al. The dialectical view is the exact opposite of a finite, and hence one-time "created" (Big Bang or not) universe.

From a dialectical point of view, not only we are limited by a visible universe, but everything in it, the galaxies, stars and even fundamental particles of matter (including photons) comes into being and passes out of existence; mediated by chance and necessity and the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. Any macroscopic body (the galaxies, for example) are dynamic entities like living organisms, whose cells die off and new ones are formed on a continuous basis, maintaining their dynamic equilibrium structure. Hence the number of photons originating from various processes (matter-antimatter annihilation, nuclear and various physicochemical etc.) within the visible universe also attains a dynamic equilibrium state over long time period that limits the brightness that we observe.

Moreover, the dialectical view predicts abundant matter particles in inter-galactic media that causes somewhat of a “tired light syndrome” due to various types of absorption and scattering of the photons degrading their intensity and frequency. In fact this degradation can be conceived as giving rise to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) as quantum dynamical “Zero-point” energy.

In addition to the article linked above, I have few published books and articles in relation to the view of a dialectical universe, particularly the following:

Book, “The Dialectical Universe” : https://www.amazon.com/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

Article, “The Infinite…”: http://www.ptep-online.com/2014/PP-39-04.PDF

Think about the Universe as beginning with vast amounts of semi-uniformly destributed energy that has gradually changed to concentrated locations of larger and larger amounts of matter into Galaxies that grow larger by collecting and merging with other galaxies. This changes the mass, gravity, and energy distribution from distributed to ever decreasing number of locations of ever increasing concentrations of power.

The by-product of this change is accelerating expansion of the spaces between Galaxies, while increasing mass inside the Galaxies, and decreasing mass between the Galaxies.

Mariano Ruiz Espejo

Yes, it seems to be so according recent researches. If we know a few part of galaxies in the universe, it is possible to be mistaken.

Charles Sven

Greetings Professor Lakew:

Today, virtually almost all of the leading cosmologists repeat the mathematically assumed concept of space expansion –– there seemed to be no way to go from nothing to that singularity to space expansion ––– but due to technology we now have observable 3D physical evidence that the Big Bang occurred in pre-existing space – precluding expansion.

Evidence derived from advanced technology has been increasing dramatically over the last 100 years, but not well incorporated in our understanding of how our Universe came to be. Here is what’s needed to evaluate:

The Key! – We start with some almost ageless atoms [see the Kamiokande study], combine them into a match; then when struck drive light photons out at some 186,000 miles per second.

Look at atoms under a scanning electron microscope and we see what looks like some tiny ball bearings, more than likely, a view created by electrons orbiting the atom, traveling at the speed of light [giving us that ball bearing shape] that drives the above light photons with instant transfer of energy.

Continuing this atom study, smash a gram’s worth of some U235 atoms and we – redirect – a tremendous amount of energy [that was driving the atom’s electrons] to destroy cities, while at Stanford Labs we do the opposite – smash two giant opposing energy beams and create some very tiny components of matter.

So now we must explain how a 13+ billion year old atom has speed of light electrons orbiting ‘every’ atom without batteries and how these same atoms can – redirect – enough power to fuel our Sun and stars.

The best analysis of the above phenomenon suggests that the energy source is ‘dark energy’ driving all those electrons that permeates our Universe, conceivable existing for an almost infinite amount of time, both prior to and continuing after the Big Bang, animating atoms.

Further it is most likely that this ‘dark energy’ is/was highly turbulent, [before and after the Big Bang] running an infinite amount of patterns until a sufficient amount of ‘dark energy’ converged into a small enough space that converted that ‘dark energy’ into the basic components of matter as replicated at Stanford – confirming How the Big Bang Banged.

Once we have a firm foundation of – How – the Big Bang Banged; we can apply the above 3D physics to determine the Where & When questions. Further, we can now describe what the real nature of the CMB is [based on that explosion in pre-existing space], along with how galaxies formed, and refute the so called accelerating; expanding space fallacy with a solid understanding of what replaces such fallacies – all in my book – “The Big Bang Book: How, Where & When Demonstrated” –– available at: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Book-Where-Demonstrated/dp/0967035317

Chapter one sample at: http://allnewuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/How-the-Big-Bang-Banged.pdf

Reviews of my book are at Amazon. I am easily available for an interview and should you like, write an article about this study.

Respectfully,

Charles Sven

http://allnewuniverse.com/

847-395-6008

[email protected]

I found / proved that physical properties of the ideal circular motion in the gravitational field can more simply and accurately reflect the laws of motion of gravitationally bound points like stars and planets in the universe. Regardless the mass of the orbiting point / body, the central mass and its variation determine the physical properties. With real data verification error less than 3.5%, I and Ping Tao established, proved, verified and published eight new physical equations( in the simplest form) which are universal and independent of the coordinate system to answer the questions, which can not be answered by known theories. These findings provide a proven theoretical basis for the explanation of the Secular Increase of the Astronomical Unit.

Published articles(researchgate.net/profile/Jihai_Zhang5):

Relationships Between Two Gravitationally-Bound Points in Single or Multiple Systems In the Universe

With real data verification error less than 3.35%, this article proved: 1.The ideal circular motion in the gravitational field can be used to analyze the motion of gravitationally bound point in the universe. 2.The central mass determines the properties ( with four new physical equations ). 3.These properties are independent of the mass of the gravitationally bound point. 4.The relationship between the gravitationally bound points in multiple systems with different central masses( proof of being universal and independent of the coordinate system ). 5.The relationship between gravity and centrifugal force.

The Inward / Outward Speed Relationship Between Gravitationally Bound Points

This article proved: 6.The relationship( with two new physical equations ) between the radius and the expansion / contraction speed of the gravitationally bound points due to the variation of the central mass. 7.Only when the central mass is fixed, the centrifugal force is equal to gravity and the expansion / contraction stops.

The Secular Increase Of Astronomical Unit Due To The Loss Of The Solar Mass

With real data verification error Less than 2.2%, this article proved: 8.The relationships ( with two new physical equations ) between the contraction / expansion speed, the central mass, the radius and the cross-radial velocity of the gravitationally bound point. 9.A simple and reliable method of astronomical raw data process. 10.The secular increase of astronomical unit is due to the loss of the solar mass.

Gravitational Attraction is Additive, Not Multiplicative, and the forces all have vectors where each and every pair of objects

has individual Gravitational Attractions that are proportional their own mass, but inversely proportional the square of the distance between the two masses. For two masses there are four vectors.

For 3 Masses there are 6 Vectors, for 4 masses, there are 12 vectors, for 5 masses there are 20 vectors, for 6 masses there are

30 vectors. For N masses there are N^2 - N Vectors, where every Vector has a strength that is proportional to its own mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the center to center of the masses.

For a Galaxy of 100 Billion Stars, and 1,000 Billion Planets, there are ( 1.1 E 12 ) ^2 - 1.1 E 12 Vectors. The 1.1 E 12 is insignificant compared to the 1.21 E 24 , so the number of vectors can be rounder to 1.21 E 24

Formation of a circular / elliptic orbit:

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

If the cannonball is fired with sufficient speed, the ground curves away from the ball at least as much as the ball falls – so the ball never strikes the ground. It is now in what could be called a non-interrupted, or circumnavigating, orbit. For any specific combination of height above the center of gravity and mass of the planet, there is one specific firing speed (unaffected by the mass of the ball, which is assumed to be very small relative to the Earth's mass) that produces a circular orbit, as shown in (C).

As the firing speed is increased beyond this, non-interrupted elliptic orbits are produced; one is shown in (D).

What Shape Is an Orbit?

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html

Orbits come in different shapes. All orbits are elliptical, which means they are an ellipse, similar to an oval. For the planets, the orbits are almost circular.

Louis Brassard

Dear Dejenie,

If we would live into an uniformly expanding Universe, that the expansion would be the same at the micro scale than at the highest scale than would would have no way to notice this expansion since our units of measurement would expand as well and so our measurement would remain the same and we would not be able to observe any expansion.

THe theory of Big Bang does not posit such uniform expansion, only an expansion of the distances at cosmological scales and no expansion at the atomic, nor planetary , nor galactic scales.

Such questions can only be answered reliably if you start from a solid foundation. If you can accept that the universe is a field and that this field can be considered as an eigenspace of a normal operator that resides in a quaternionic non-separable Hilbert space, then the field can be described by a quaternionic function and obeys quaternionic differential calculus. In that case the field can be deformed and expanded by particular field excitations that are triggered by point-like artifacts. The field excitation that does this is a spherical pulse response. Over time it integrates in the Green's function of the field. The pulse injects the volume of the Green's function into the field. Subsequently the volume spreads over the field. Consequently the field locally and temporarily deforms and persistently expands.

See: "The Behavior of Basic Fields" in http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen

Stefano Quattrini

it is inline with this question

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Nature_based_on_a_perfect_hyperfluid_an_active_background_the_unique_responsible_of_all_the_interactions

Why more tightly bound systems (such as sun-Mercury) to show a greater secular trend than less tightly bound ones (such as sun-Earth) according to the conclusions of my articles and the real data cited?

Physically, it can be explained that under the same change in the solar mass, the farther away from the center, the smaller the absolute values of gravity and the centrifugal force, the smaller the difference, the smaller the acceleration and the smaller the outward speed. Until zero. It was proved by equations (8) to (13) in my second article.

Stefano,

The quaternionic first order partial differential equations are continuity equations and have integral equivalent Stokes, Gauss equations. They describe the flow, divergence, gradient and curl of the volume that is contained in quaternionic fields.

See: "Behavior of Basic Fields" in http://vixra.org/author/j_a_j_van_leunen

I think physics is the foundation of engineering, a correct understanding of nature. Its importance is also to anticipate and prepare the future, including the protection and rational use of natural resources. Therefore, any new theory must be correct, consistent with the real data and not violate proven physics laws.

According to equations (4) and (5) in my third article, the inward / outward speed is proportional to the gravity / centrifugal force of a gravitationally bound point.

The universe is a field that deforms and expands.

https://www.opastonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/tracing-the-structure-of-physical-reality-by-starting-from-its-fundamentals-atcp-18.pdf

https://www.opastonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/the-behavior-of-basic-fields-atcp-18.pdf

Arno,

Could you please give detailed reason(s) , why in your answer, the universe is neither elastic nor expanding.

Sadanand Pandey

A higher value for the cosmological constant, it turns out, leads to a greater rate of expansion. It also leads to an ever increasing rate of expansion, because the cosmological constant is an intrinsic property of space, and doesn't dilute as the universe expands, unlike the energy density of matter (the same amount of matter has to be spread out over more space).

Cosmologists have determined that the universe is flat, and therefore the energy density of the universe is approximately equal to the critical density. They have also established that the ratio of the energy density of all matter and radiation in the universe to the critical density, ΩmΩm, is 30%, or 0.3. The remaining 70% or 0.7 comes from the ratio of the energy density of the cosmological constant to the critical density, ΩvΩv. The equations of general relativity then shows that this particular combination leads to an accelerated expansion of the universe.

Sadanand,

Mechanisms deform and/or expand the field that represents the universe. Formulas can describe what happens but never do the job themselves.

Preprint Dark objects

Hans,

Formulas indeed describe behaviors or relationships in nature but do not create behaviors.

Most of physics behaves like formulas. It describes the behavior of objects, but does not explain why that behavior occurs. Physical reality applies its own mathematics and behaves according to what the structure of that mathematics tolerates. That mathematics guides and restricts the extension of its foundation(s) to more complicated levels of its structure.

Physical theories tend to ignore this guidance and restrictions.

According to our published articles, more accurately, G = 6.67408E-11 and the solar mass loss rate is 1E-12.

Of the field excitations that are caused by point-like actuators only the spherical shock fronts can deform their carrier field. All massive objects in the universe are constituted by these field excitations. Photons are constituted by one-dimensional shock fronts. They do not contain spherical shock fronts. So, they do not deform their carrier. Mass characterizes the deformation of the embedding field by a massive object. Photons do not deform their carrier field. So, fundamentally, they do not own a non-zero mass. Also waves do not deform their carrier field. Thus also waves and wave packages do not posses mass. However, massive particles can be distributed in sets that can be described by a location density distribution that has a Fourier transform. Thus that distribution of particles can imitate wave packages. The content of such wave packages has mass!