Dear Mr. Thierry De Mees!

The first explanation of the redshift of the spectra of stars due to a Doppler effect was heard in the lessons of astronomy in 1970 yr. by me. I told the teacher that this is contrary to the law of conservation of energy and there must be another reason. I was given a quartet in physics (out of five), but I have not changed my mind up to day.

The concept proposed by You has more chances to be correct.

I'm curious to know how many scientists disagree with the hypothesis of the displacement of the spectra of stars due to the Doppler effect?

I wish you success.

Sincerely yours, Ivan Ivanovich Dolgov 20180315 Д\д

Dear Mr. Thierry De Mees!

The first explanation of the redshift of the spectra of stars due to a Doppler effect was heard in the lessons of astronomy in 1970 yr. by me. I told the teacher that this is contrary to the law of conservation of energy and there must be another reason. I was given a quartet in physics (out of five), but I have not changed my mind up to day.

The concept proposed by You has more chances to be correct.

I'm curious to know how many scientists disagree with the hypothesis of the displacement of the spectra of stars due to the Doppler effect?

I wish you success.

Sincerely yours, Ivan Ivanovich Dolgov 20180315 Д\д

Dear Ivan Ivanovich Dolgov,

Thank you for your support.

You wrote: "I'm curious to know how many scientists disagree with the hypothesis of the displacement of the spectra of stars due to the Doppler effect?"

What usually happens, unfortunately, is that scientists are trapped by 1) their universities, which follow mainstream science; 2) religion, which follow monotheistic belief; 3) Einstein's theories and their interpretations; 4) journals, which follow universities, Einstein and religion; 5) the lobbies that link it all together...

All of them are leading to the idea that theory supersedes observation...

Well there are people who do not accept GR. This reminds me of a story someone told me once. One person visited Alaska and met a local character who invited him to dinner. He had carried half a dozen apples in his personal luggage. And he decided in thanks for the invitation to offer his host the apples and said that they were the fruit of a tree called apple tree. To his astonishment, the host did not believe in the existence of apple trees and even said that the existence of apples did not prove that there were apple trees ... Gravitational waves were predicted by Einstein's theory for instance. And the observers sought signs of gravitational waves as a test of General Relativity. A forecast of more than 100 years. Of course, everyone believes in what they want to believe. The character mentioned above did not believe in apple trees. In 2017, Nobel of Physics awarded the detection of gravitational waves, predicted by Einstein. Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish and Kip Thorne took the prize for their work on LIGO. Those responsible for the Nobel Prize in Physics believe in apple trees.

Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,

This is a thread about the perfectly equidistant Quasar groups, directly proportional to the value 0.205, with a standard deviation of less than 0.0001.

Karlsson wrote a paper on that in 1977 and the observation has been confirmed.

However, it means that there is no explanation whatsoever given by any of the Noble Prize winners to that, and that this important observation has simply been denied by the mainstream community, which includes the Noble Prize commitee.

Maybe you will explain that?

Hi Thierry

The conclusion of Karlsson is that "... there might exist different types of quasars". His conclusion was absolutely right. We know today that quasars make up a family tree. Quasars are part of a known class of objects, the active galactic nuclei (AGN). There are other known classes: galaxies and blazers of Seyfert. All classes of quasars require the existence of supermassive black holes to feed them. Seyfert galaxies are the AGNs that produce the lowest energy (100 kiloelectronvolts (KeV)). Karlsson's work is a pioneer in this regard.

Concerning your statement: "... However, he does not interpret it as a velocity redshift, but an energy loss due to recoil with particles in space."

First, as you know, the redshifted frequency of the emited photons corresponds to the redshifted energy of the source. Second, see for instance the following article by Alasdair Macleod. He wrote: "It has always been considered a serious error to treat the cosmological redshift as a Doppler velocity effect rather than the result of space expansion." He demonstrates in his article "that in practical terms this is not the case, and that the apparent distance - redshift relation derived from a Doppler interpretation is consistent with supernova data. The normal Doppler effect is examined in detail and shown to conserve energy as expected. Eenergy loss associated with the expansion of the Universe is treated in a similar manner to the normal well-behaved Doppler effect. The mechanism by which energy is conserved with the normal Doppler shift is applied to the cosmological redshift and the energy violation disappears. An additional luminosity-dependent recession factor is introduced. The effect on astronomical objects is examined an d it is found to add only a small additional redshift to a body generating power by nuclear means but can be very large for objects powered by gravity. A possible connection to the claimed anomalous redshift of quasars is considered. "

(https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0407/0407077v1.pdf)

I come back about your statement: "...

a static universe, because the groups are perfectly equidistant in space, and the peaks are identical in global intensity.

It seems to falsify the expanding…"

Moreover Thierry,

should make a distinction between cosmological redshift and the Doppler shift: in the second case, the wavelength of the emitted radiation depends on the relative motion between observer and source at the instant the photons are emitted. For a source travelling towards the observer, the wavelength is shifted towards the blue part of the spectrum, and for a source travelling away from the observer, the wavelength is shifted towards the red part of the spectrum. However, according to general relativity (cosmological redshift), in the second case one shoud consider that the wavelength of the source's radiation, as originally emitted, is lengthened as it travels through the expanding space. So the conclusion is clear: cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself; it does not result from the relative motion of individual bodies!

Please take a look on the article:

What do we talk about when we speak of cosmological redshift? Gabriel R. Bengochea (February 2018).

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02444.pdf

Dear all

There is in reality a lot of recent articles on this topic. For those interested I list below just a few among the most recent ones:

1.Cosmological constraints from the redshift dependence of the Alcock-Paczynski effect: Dynamical dark energy Xiao-Dong Li, Cristiano G. Sabiu, Changbom Park, Yuting Wang, Gong-bo Zhao, Hyunbae Park, Arman Shafieloo, Juhan Kim, Sungwook E. Hong. Mar 5, 2018. 12 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1803.01851 [astro-ph.CO]

2.What do we talk about when we speak of cosmological redshift? Gabriel R. Bengochea. Feb 5, 2018. 8 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1802.02444 [astro-ph.CO]

3.Cosmological constraints from low-redshift data Vladimir V. Luković (Rome U., Tor Vergata), Balakrishna S. Haridasu (INFM, Italy (main)), Nicola Vittorio (Rome U., Tor Vergata & INFN, Rome2 & Rome U., Tor Vergata & INFN, Rome2 & Rome U., Tor Vergata & INFN, Rome2 & Rome U., Tor Vergata). Feb 13, 2018. 23 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1801.05765 [astro-ph.CO]

4.Electromagnetic redshift in anisotropic cosmologies Sergio A. Hojman, Felipe A. Asenjo. Jan 16, 2018. e-Print: arXiv:1801.05472 [gr-qc]

5. Cosmological inference from standard sirens without redshift measurements Xuheng Ding, Marek Biesiada, Xiaogang Zheng, Kai Liao, Zhengxiang Li, Zong-Hong Zhu. Jan 15, 2018. 12 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1801.05073 [astro-ph.CO]

6.Constraining sterile neutrino cosmologies with strong gravitational lensing observations at redshift z~0.2 S. Vegetti, G. Despali (Garching, Max Planck Inst.), M.R. Lovell (Iceland U. & Durham U., ICC & Heidelberg, Max Planck Inst. Astron.), W. Enzi (Garching, Max Planck Inst.). Jan 4, 2018. 9 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1801.01505 [astro-ph.CO]

7.Forecast and analysis of the cosmological redshift drift Ruth Lazkoz, Iker Leanizbarrutia, Vincenzo Salzano. Dec 20, 2017. 17 pp. Published in Eur.Phys.J. C78 (2018) no.1, 11 DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5479-0 e-Print: arXiv:1712.07555 [astro-ph.CO]

8.Testing gravity on cosmological scales with cosmic shear, cosmic microwave background anisotropies, and redshift-space distortions Agnès Ferté, Donnacha Kirk, Andrew R. Liddle, Joe Zuntz. Dec 5, 2017. 12 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1712.01846 [astro-ph.CO]

9.Extracting cosmological information from the angular power spectrum of the 2MASS Photometric Redshift catalogue A. Balaguera-Antolínez, M. Bilicki, E. Branchini, A. Postiglione. Nov 13, 2017. Published in MNRAS 2018 DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty262 e-Print: arXiv:1711.04583 [astro-ph.CO]

10.The impact of large-scale tides on cosmological distortions via redshift-space power spectrum Kazuyuki Akitsu, Masahiro Takada. Oct 31, 2017. 15 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1711.00012 [astro-ph.CO]

11.Anisotropic dark energy transit cosmological models with time-dependent ω(t) and redshift-dependent ω(z) EoS parameter Dinesh Chandra Maurya. 2017. 23 pp. Published in Int.J.Geom.Meth.Mod.Phys. 15 (2017) no.02, 1850019 DOI: 10.1142/S021988781850019

12.High-redshift post-reionisation cosmology with 21cm intensity mapping Andrej Obuljen, Emanuele Castorina, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Matteo Viel. Sep 22, 2017. 37 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1709.07893 [astro-ph.CO]

13.Stochastic Order Redshift Technique (SORT): a simple, efficient and robust method to improve cosmological redshift measurements Nicolas Tejos, Aldo Rodriguez-Puebla, Joel R. Primack. Sep 11, 2017. 14 pp. Published in Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 473 (2018) no.1, 366-379 DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx2317 e-Print: arXiv:1709.03499 [astro-ph.CO]

14.The Relation between Cosmological Redshift and Scale Factor for Photons Shuxun Tian. Sep 25, 2017. 5 pp. Published in Astrophys.J. 846 (2017) no.2, 90 DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa86af e-Print: arXiv:1709.08322 [astro-ph.CO]

15.Scale invariant cosmology and CMB temperatures as a function of redshifts Andre Maeder. Aug 29, 2017. 7 pp. Published in Astrophys.J. 847 (2017) no.1, 65 DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88cf e-Print: arXiv:1708.08648 [astro-ph.CO]

16.Frequency-based redshift for cosmological observation and Hubble diagram from the 4-D spherical model in comparison with observed supernovae Shigeto Nagao. 2017. 10 pp. Published in J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 880 (2017) no.1, 012058 DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/880/1/012058 Conference: C16-09-12.2 Proceedings

17.A possible new cosmological redshift effect due to ΛΛ on traveling gravitational waves in Friedmann universes Stefano Viaggiu (Rome U., Tor Vergata). Aug 1, 2017. 11 pp. Published in Int.J.Mod.Phys. D26 (2017) no.14, 1750168 DOI: 10.1142/S0218271817501681 e-Print: arXiv:1708.00176 [hep-th]

18.Accelerating Approximate Bayesian Computation with Quantile Regression: Application to Cosmological Redshift DistributionsAccelerating Approximate Bayesian Computation with Quantile Regression: application to cosmological redshift distributions T. Kacprzak, J. Herbel, A. Amara, A. Réfrégier. Jul 24, 2017. 10 pp. Published in JCAP 1802 (2018) no.02, 042 DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/02/042 e-Print: arXiv:1707.07498 [astro-ph.CO]

19.KiDS-450 + 2dFLenS: Cosmological parameter constraints from weak gravitational lensing tomography and overlapping redshift-space galaxy clustering Shahab Joudaki (Swinburne U., Ctr. Astrophys. Supercomput. & Oxford U.) et al.. Jul 20, 2017. 31 pp. Published in Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 474 (2018) 4894 DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx2820 e-Print: arXiv:1707.06627 [astro-ph.CO]

20.Search for CII Emission on Cosmological Scales at Redshift Z~2.6 Anthony R. Pullen, Paolo Serra, Tzu-Ching Chang, Olivier Dore, Shirley Ho. Jul 19, 2017. 14 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1707.06172 [astro-ph.CO]

21.Cosmological constraints from the redshift dependence of the volume effect using the galaxy 2-point correlation function across the line-of-sight Xiao-Dong Li, Changbom Park, Cristiano G. Sabiu, Hyunbae Park, Cheng Cheng, Juhan Kim, Sungwook E. Hong. Jun 29, 2017. 11 pp. Published in Astrophys.J. 844 (2017) no.2, 91 DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7cfc e-Print: arXiv:1706.09853 [astro-ph.CO]

22.The redshift distribution of cosmological samples: a forward modeling approach Jörg Herbel, Tomasz Kacprzak, Adam Amara, Alexandre Refregier, Claudio Bruderer, Andrina Nicola. May 15, 2017. 25 pp. Published in JCAP 1708 (2017) no.08, 035 DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/08/035 e-Print: arXiv:1705.05386 [astro-ph.CO]

23.Precision cosmology with redshift-space bispectrum: a perturbation theory based model at one-loop order Ichihiko Hashimoto (Kyoto U.), Yann Rasera (LUTH, Meudon & Kyoto U.), Atsushi Taruya (Kyoto U. & Tokyo U., IPMU). May 7, 2017. 22 pp. Published in Phys.Rev. D96 (2017) no.4, 043526 YITP-17-46 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043526 e-Print: arXiv:1705.02574 [astro-ph.CO]

24.Unified approach to redshift in cosmological/black hole spacetimes and synchronous frame A. Toporensky, O. Zaslavskii, S. Popov. Apr 26, 2017. 14 pp. Published in Eur.J.Phys. 39 (2018) no.1, 015601 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6404/aa8d58 e-Print: arXiv:1704.08308 [gr-qc] |

25.zBEAMS: A unified solution for supernova cosmology with redshift uncertainties Ethan Roberts, Michelle Lochner, José Fonseca, Bruce A. Bassett, Pierre-Yves Lablanche, Shankar Agarwal. Apr 25, 2017. 18 pp. Published in JCAP 1710 (2017) no.10, 036 DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/10/036 e-Print: arXiv:1704.07830 [astro-ph.CO]

Hi Thierry

I mention the work of Alasdair Macleod for instance which is in contradiction in part (in practice he says) with my statement to bring about the crucial element of doubt among a few scientists concerning the corresponding violation or not of energy. This is in my opinion the crucial point to elucidate. For me: It is a serious error to treat the cosmological redshift as a Doppler velocity effect rather than the result of space expansion.

Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,

Unfortunately, all your answers are besides the question.

How do you deal with the 5 observed, perfectly equidistant 'Karsson Peaks' of quasar groups in space, with statistically 102 sigma of certitude (remember that 3 sigma gives 98% of certitude already) , as explained here?

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

Dear Thierry

Perfectly equidistant? In the expanding universe? Geodesic measurement of distance? Or what? Are you thinking of course in a static universe...what are the data indications you have that the universe is static? I don't any...Do you realize the conceptual contradictions in your statement? You are using redshift data to .... (ops) context the cosmological conception of redshift...based on cosmological redshift data...you have to make an intelectual choice here: or you a accept the GR conception of redshifting or not... in the 2nd case you have to use a completely different physical theory, completely different data and completely different ideas... otherwise you are using apples to prove that apple trees does not exist...

Shall replace context by contest in the previous message...

Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,

"Perfectly equidistant?"

Yes, if you have read the paper, you have seen that the value between the peaks of that large survey of quasars is exact.

"In the expanding universe?"

I never said that.

"Geodesic measurement of distance?"

The path of light is followed ( null geodesic ).

"Are you thinking of course in a static universe..."

No, I think nothing. I start from scratch, and find the exact equidistance of light between the 5 peaks.

"what are the data indications you have that the universe is static?"

The 5 exactly equidistant peaks. It can be seen as circling light about (our part of) the universe, if static.

"Do you realize the conceptual contradictions in your statement?"

There aren't any.

"You are using redshift data to .... (ops) conte[s]t the cosmological conception of redshift...based on cosmological redshift data..."

No, I am not. There is just redshift data at the start, from scratch.

"you have to make an intelectual choice here: or you a accept the GR conception of redshifting or not..."

I don't have to "accept" anything. I start from scratch. GR is not mandatory. All the so-called GR evidence has been found by using the equations of gravitomagnetism.

"in the 2nd case you have to use a completely different physical theory, completely different data and completely different ideas... otherwise you are using apples to prove that apple trees does not exist... "

As I said, perfectly equidistant groups of quasars, with a certitude rate of 102 sigmas, cannot be explained by other means than circling light in a static (part of) universe. Since all the tests of GR are also explained by gravitomagnetism, it doesn't harm GR much. The relationship between GR and an expanding universe is only theoretical and has no direct observational evidence, only indirect evidence based upon interpretations.

The interpretations w.r.t. the alleged expanding universe are religious in the first place, and are supported in the second place by a multitude of conveniently chosen data, while other data, like the present one, is disavowed since 1977.

But indeed, perfectly equidistant groups of quasars should result in a paradigm shift.

Dear Thierry

Thanks for your explanation.

There is an increasing number of evidence that the recoil-light-fatigue is a real phenomenon.

It was discovered that the solar flares gave unexplained redshifts. This can very well be explained by recoil-light-fatigue.

In the universe, as Ashmore puts it, "Light of wavelength 5x10 -7 m would have a collision cross-section of 2.8x10 -21 m 2 and each photon would, on average, make one collision with an electron in the plasma of IG space every 75,000 light years."

Article Gamma-Ray Lines of X-Class Solar Flare of July 23 rd , 2002 ...

Dear Thierry

The Universe is not only expanding. Astronomers found in 1990, for the first time, in a study of exploding stars (the supernovae process) in distant galaxies that the Universe’s expansion is accelerating. Of course, this was a surprise for most scientists because they thought at this time that the expansion of the Universe was slowing down. The expanation at this time for this discovery was based on the presence of dark energy, pulling the Universe apart.

See article:

Inflation and compactification from Galaxy redshifts

G. Paál, I. Horváth, B. Lukács

Astrophysics and Space Science

May 1992, Volume 191, Issue 1, pp 107–124

According to the authors: "The distribution of galaxies in the pencil-beam surveys of Broadhurstet al. which proved periodical across 8–10 consecutive steps in a flat dust model withq0=0.5 is found to reveal extended periodicity up to 16–17 phase-coherent steps, covering the total sample, in a flat, moderately inflationary model withq0=−0.5 (vacuum/dust ratio 2/1). In the latter model the vacuum component helps to reach the critical density and lengthens the expansion time-scale. It is shown that the explanation of the found periodicity as a consequence of space compactification as suggested by G. Paál twenty years ago in connection with apparent quasar periodicities is still possible."

The understanding of this acceleration has been enhanced by Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess.

"The expansion of the Universe was discovered by Vesto Slipher, Carl Wirtz, Knut Lundmark, Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble in the 1920’s. The expansion rate depends on the energy content – a Universe containing only matter should eventually slow down due to the attractive force of gravity. However, observations of type Ia supernovae (SNe) at distances of about 6 billion light years by two independent research groups, led by Saul Perlmutter and by Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess respectively, reveal that presently the expansion rate instead is accelerating. "

Excerpt of "Scientific Background on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 THE aCCELERATING UNIVERSE compiled by the Class for Physics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences"

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/advanced-physicsprize2011.pdf

Dear Thierry

I feel an ethical obligation to challenge your claims.

You can not be selective in the treatment of data, to conclude that there are falsifications of the scientists in their conclusions on expansion of the Universe.

And do not fail to consider, when you use the concept of redshift, that there are two distinct yet complementary approaches associated with this concept: cosmological redshift and the Doppler shift. Your statement about "perfectly equidistant quasars" makes no sense in a Universe not only expanding but accelerating. And it makes less sense even if you consider the Universe to be static. It did not make sense also, if I understood correctly, that you advocate, in an earlier message, the existence of ether in the Universe.

See the conclusion from the Nobel Academy concerning the expansion of the Universe:

" Conclusion The study of distant supernovae constitutes a crucial contribution to cosmology. Together with galaxy clustering and the CMB anisotropy measurements, it allows precise determination of cosmological parameters. The observations present us with a challenge, however: What is the source of the dark energy that drives the accelerating expansion of the Universe? Or is our understanding of gravity as described by general relativity insufficient? Or was Einstein’s “mistake” of introducing the cosmological constant one more stroke of his genius? Many new experimental efforts are underway to help shed light on these questions."

For you that selectively challenges General Relativity and all the data that prove many of its predictions, this conclusion shows the way to materialize alternatives to GR. By the way, Adam Guy Riess, Brian Schmidt and Saul Perlmutter received the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Dear Thierry

Please see below some of the most recent publications about the topic of expansion of the Universe. I have recorded 347 articles on this topic.

1.Numerical Solution of the Problem of the Expansion of the Universe in the Schwarzschild Metric I.M. Vasenin, V.L. Goiko. 2018. 6 pp. Published in Russ.Phys.J. 60 (2018) no.10, 1690-1695 DOI: 10.1007/s11182-018-1270-4

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote

2.Adiabatic expansion of polytropic universe with varying cosmological constant: Models tested with observational data Ahmet M. Oztas, Emre Dil, Elif Dil, Michael L. Smith. Jan 12, 2018. 19 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1801.05033 [gr-qc] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

3.Comment on “How the huge energy of quantum vacuum gravitates to drive the slow accelerating expansion of the Universe” Francisco D. Mazzitelli, Leonardo G. Trombetta (Centro Atomico Bariloche & Balseiro Inst., San Carlos de Bariloche). Dec 30, 2017. 2 pp. Published in Phys.Rev. D97 (2018) no.6, 068301 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.068301 e-Print: arXiv:1801.00138 [gr-qc] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

4.Power law expansion of the early universe for a V(a)=kanV(a)=kan potential Augusto S. Freitas (Sergipe U.). 2017. 5 pp. Published in Mod.Phys.Lett. A33 (2017) no.01, 1850005 DOI: 10.1142/S0217732318500050

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote

5.Value of H, space-time patterns, vacuum, matter, expansion of the Universe, alternative cosmologies Luis Gonzalez-Mestres (Megatrend U.). 2017. 20 pp. Published in EPJ Web Conf. 164 (2017) 08010 DOI: 10.1051/epjconf/201716408010 Conference: C16-07-06 Proceedings

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• Link to Fulltext

6.A model for accelerated expansion of the universe from 𝒩 = 1 supergravity Ricardo C.G. Landim (Sao Paulo U.). 2017. 3 pp. DOI: 10.1142/9789813226609_0249 Conference: C15-07-12 (PART C: PARALLEL SESSIONS - Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe), p.2201-2203 Proceedings

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote

7.Dynamics of expansion of the Universe in model with the additional coupling between dark energy and dark matter R. Neomenko, B. Novosyadlyj, O. Sergijenko (Lviv State U., Astron. Observ.). Dec 1, 2017. 7 pp. Published in J.Phys.Stud. 21 (2017) 3901 e-Print: arXiv:1712.01128 [gr-qc] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

8.Some Consequences of the Expansion of the Universe on Small Scales H.A. Harutyunian. 2017. 10 pp. Published in Astrophysics 60 (2017) no.4, 572-581 DOI: 10.1007/s10511-017-9508-3

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote

9.Exploring the expansion dynamics of the universe from galaxy cluster surveys Deng Wang, Xin-He Meng. Sep 13, 2017. 8 pp. Published in Phys.Dark Univ. 18 (2017) 30-37 DOI: 10.1016/j.dark.2017.09.005 e-Print: arXiv:1709.04134 [astro-ph.CO] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

10.100 Years of Relativistic Cosmology (1917-2017). Part I: From Origins to the Discovery of Universal Expansion (1929) J.A.S. Lima, R.C. Santos. Sep 12, 2017. 18 pp. Published in Revista Brasileira de Ensino de F\'isica, vol. 40, 1, e1313 (2018) e-Print: arXiv:1709.03693 [astro-ph.CO] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

11.Quantum computational complexity, Einstein's equations and accelerated expansion of the Universe Xian-Hui Ge (Shanghai U. & UC, San Diego), Bin Wang (Yangzhou U. & Shanghai Jiaotong U.). Aug 22, 2017. 21 pp. Published in JCAP 1802 (2018) no.02, 047 DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/02/047 e-Print: arXiv:1708.06811 [hep-th] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

12.Role of acceleration in the expansion of the universe and its influence on an early-universe modified version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle Andrew W. Beckwith. 2017. 6 pp. Published in J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 880 (2017) no.1, 012057 DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/880/1/012057 Conference: C16-09-12.2 Proceedings

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• Link to Fulltext

13.Dynamic universality class of model H with frustrated diffusion: ϵϵ expansion Ho-Ung Yee (Illinois U., Chicago & RIKEN BNL). Jul 26, 2017. 10 pp. Published in Phys.Rev. D97 (2018) no.1, 016003 RBRC-1246 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.016003 e-Print: arXiv:1707.08560 [hep-ph] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service; Link to Article from SCOAP3

14.Accelerated Expansion of the Universe based on Emergence of Space and Thermodynamics of the Horizon Fei-Quan Tu (Zunyi Normal School), Yi-Xin Chen (Zhejiang U. & Zhejiang U., Inst. Mod. Phys.), Bin Sun, You-Chang Yang (Zunyi Normal School). Jul 19, 2017. 8 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1707.06461 [gr-qc] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

15.Stability of Accelerating Universe with Linear Equation of State in f (T) Gravity Using Hybrid Expansion Law S.R. Bhoyar, V.R. Chirde, S.H. Shekh. 2017. 14 pp. Published in Astrophysics 60 (2017) no.2, 259-272 DOI: 10.1007/s10511-017-9480-y

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote

16.Λ(t)Λ(t)CDM and the present accelerating expansion of the universe from 5D scalar vacuum José Edgar Madriz Aguilar, J. Zamarripa, A. Peraza, J.A. Licea (Guadalajara U.). Jun 26, 2017. 6 pp. Published in Phys.Dark Univ. 18 (2017) 11-16 DOI: 10.1016/j.dark.2017.09.003 e-Print: arXiv:1706.08886 [gr-qc] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

17.The ϵϵ expansion and Universality in three dimensions Nicolas Sourlas. Jun 22, 2017. 3 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1706.07176 [cond-mat.stat-mech] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

18.Does information entropy play a role in the expansion and acceleration of the Universe? Biswajit Pandey. May 24, 2017. 4 pp. Published in Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 471 (2017) no.1, L77-L81 DOI: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx109 e-Print: arXiv:1705.08945 [gr-qc] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

19.δ~δ~ Gravity, δ~δ~ matter and the accelerated expansion of the Universe Jorge Alfaro, Pablo González (Chile U., Catolica). Apr 7, 2017. 54 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1704.02888 [gr-qc] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

20.Accelerated Expansion of the Early and Late Universe in Terms of the Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravitation. I R.M. Avagyan, G.H. Harutyunyan, S.V. Sushkov. 2017. 11 pp. Published in Astrophysics 60 (2017) no.1, 142-152 DOI: 10.1007/s10511-017-9470-0

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote

21.Parametric equations of the expansion of a closed universe with torsion Prastik Mohanraj. Mar 16, 2017. e-Print: arXiv:1703.05857 [gr-qc] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

22.How the huge energy of quantum vacuum gravitates to drive the slow accelerating expansion of the Universe Qingdi Wang, Zhen Zhu, William G. Unruh (British Columbia U.). Mar 1, 2017. 34 pp. Published in Phys.Rev. D95 (2017) no.10, 103504 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103504 e-Print: arXiv:1703.00543 [gr-qc] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

23.Universal dual amplitudes and asymptotic expansions for gg→Hgg→H and H→γγH→γγ in four dimensions Félix Driencourt-Mangin, Germán Rodrigo (Valencia U., IFIC), Germán F.R. Sborlini (Milan U. & INFN, Milan). Feb 24, 2017. 5 pp. Published in Eur.Phys.J. C78 (2018) no.3, 231 IFIC-17-07, TIF-UNIMI-2017-1 DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5692-5 e-Print: arXiv:1702.07581 [hep-ph] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

24.Quantum Circuit Cosmology: The Expansion of the Universe Since the First Qubit Ning Bao (Caltech & Caltech, IQI), ChunJun Cao, Sean M. Carroll (Caltech), Liam McAllister (Cornell U., Phys. Dept.). Feb 22, 2017. 12 pp. CALT-TH-2017-006 e-Print: arXiv:1702.06959 [hep-th] | PDF

• References | BibTeX | LaTeX(US) | LaTeX(EU) | Harvmac | EndNote
• ADS Abstract Service

25.On early and late phases of acceleration of the expansion of the universe Clément Stahl (Rome U.). Feb 18, 2017. 172 pp. e-Print: arXiv:1702.05630 [gr-qc] | PDF

Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,

You are spamming this thread, but bring absolutely nothing that would falsify the direct evidence of the perfectly equidistant quasar groups.

Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,

As I told you before, I start from the direct observation of redshift from scratch.

The interpretation of cosmological redshift is an interpretation based upon GRT and...interpretation. It is no direct observation.

Dark energy is no direct observation, but an (embarrasing) interpretation.

You remind me the difference between the Doppler redshift and the alleged "expanding universe". I will however not enter in this debate of the interpretation that the universe would allegedly expand and accelerate, without the Doppler redshift being applicable.

The reality of the recoil-fatigue is applicable from the observation of the impulsive coherent Raman effect, visible in laboratories.

It is seen by unexplained redshifts in solar flares.

So, the total coherence of the observational recoil-light-fatigue, the 6 perfectly equidistant quasar group peaks and the interpretation of circling light go hand in hand.

Finally, I have shown repeatingly that the number of papers concerning an expanding and accelerating universe, or the number of believers, is not relevant at all.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278619657_Demonstration_of_Karlsson%27s_formula

Article Lyman α forest of quasars

Article Gamma-Ray Lines of X-Class Solar Flare of July 23 rd , 2002 ...

Hi even nobel prizes?

Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,

You wrote: "Hi even nobel prizes?"

You make me think of kids at school who said: "my mother told me it is like that, so it is right"....

Invoking authorities is weak, dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos, very weak....

What is the relevance of Nobel Prizes in gravity and cosmology?

Only that the lobbies do their job, and that they are making sure that the crowd is following...

How many people believed that Newton's gravity theory was correct? Millions. Newton would have had the Noble Prize if it existed.

So, what does it prove?

"Hi even nobel prizes?"

Who are the Nobel Prize committee's advisors?

Weak? If you say...

Dear Thierry

That's great that you have a sense of humor. Let me show something about evolution of the Universe.

The effective action of a gravitational system containing matter fields plus surface terms may be written as:

(1) I = ∫_M[R/(16πG)+L(m)]+∮_(∂M) L(b);

R is the Ricci scalar of the whole spacetime, L(m) is the Lagrangian of matter in bulk, and the Lagrangian L(b) describes the physics of the boundary (which includes the extrinsic curvature of the boundary and holographic dual gauge theories).

The next step corresponds to the variation of the action with respect the metric, which gives the modified Einstein's equation:

(2) Rμν−(1/2)Rgμν=8πGT(m)μν+J(b)μν;

J(b): current describing the exchange of energy and momentum between the bulk and the boundary. If you just consider the first term in the Lagrangian, you get the conventional form of Einstein's equation:

(3) Rμν−(1/2)Rgμν=8πGT(m)μν;

In the frame of a holographic picture for instance, then you must take into account the previous term (2).

Now when you apply the above results into a homogeneous and isotropic flat Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) universe described as

(4) ds^2=dt^2−a(t)^2dxidxi,

the Einstein field equation gives the acceleration equation for the scale factor a(t):

(5) a¨/a=−(4πG/3)(ρ+3p)

From this expression you can define the Hubble parameter of the universe and confirm through observation not only the evolution, but the expansion and acceleration of the Universe. The observational data are completely consistent, at least qualitatively, with these conceptions.

Dear Thierry

Let me add the following:

The knowledge of the acceleration of the Universe is strongly supported by various astronomical probes of complementary nature such as type Ia supernovae data (SN Ia), galaxy redshift surveys, cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) data and large scale structure data. You should read some of the papers I listed previously to convince yourself about these facts.

Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,

In my former posts I have given precise documentation that supports the recoil-light-fatigue, as observed in laboratories and in solar flares.

You boldly ignore all of it, and what you do is just copying textbooks, which gives absolutely no observational evidence of neither of the equations you exhibit, nor the expansion or acceleration of the universe. Only selective and biased interpretations without direct observation.

The perfectly equidistant Karlsson peaks however are a very tangible evidence, with a confidence level of over 99.999%. This, in contrast to the expansional universe, is real, and directly observational evidence.

The recoil-light-fatigue by the collision of light with hydrogen atoms is a reproducible event in laboratories, and it perfectly coincides with Zwicky's exponential Hubble equation.

The consequence is that light is circled 5 times (with a beginning of a sixth thime) and that the Hubble constant can perfectly cope with the recoil-light-fatigue.

Article Demonstration of Karlsson's formula

Preprint Compelling Evidence of a Static Universe by the Karlsson Pea...

Well, dear Thierry, the first article you recomend mention that:

L'étude du spectre montre que les rougissements de la lumière résulte d'un pompage d'atomes d'hydrogène de 1S à 2P. En conséquence les rougissements n'ont pas une origine cosmologique.

The study of the spectrum shows that the redness of the light results from a pumping of hydrogen atoms from 1S to 2P. Consequently, the reddenings do not have a cosmological origin.

So, the basic problem is to unravel an ancient mystery involving processes of the decay in atoms, the so called “Lyman forest”, i.e., the absence of Lyman beta and gamma lines. Experimentalists observe many Lyα lines in the “Lyman forest”, but no redshifted Lyβ (or Lyγ) lines are observed so far. The conection with your statement about static universe comes later. Will return.

Hi Thierry

The first statement of the author you follow is:

This absence is surprising because, although these 1 lines are less intense than Lyα, they should be seen since so-called Lyα lines are very saturated. The reason is very simple, although it does not seem to appear in the literature: In calculating position of a shifted Lyβ (or Lyγ) line from shift of a Lyα, we just find another Lyα line which hides Lyβ (or Lyγ) line ! Usual explanation of gas compression into very thin filaments that would absorb sharp lines despite a “cosmological expansion”, requires creation of new laws of physics.

The author then clearly (and indirectly) contests well-known and experimentally well-established formulae describing atomic decay, in this case more precisely the Rydberg formula:

1/λ = RZ^2(1/n1^2 - 1/n2^2)

Do you have the perception of the clear and evident formal, conceptual, experimental and logical inconsistencies of such a challenge?

There are many mysteries not unraveled in physics. In fact, this is one of them. No theory in physics accounts for 100% of all known facts. In general the facts that are not fully described by established theories, such as the theories that describe the series of decay lines and absorption lines in the atomic spectra.

The solution of this mistery demand propably an extension of these theories, for example, just to make a connection with effects associated with the interaction of many bodies systems, such as atomic-electron and proton-electron, and electron-electron couplings involving quantum degrees of freedom as for example spin.spin, or couplings of the type spin.angular momentum, that can produce secondary emission and absorption lines (as the EPR line shifts for instance).

But an obscure method that "reveals" superimposed, "hidden lines", has no chance, forgive me of obscuring consolidated theories (the author claims, "it does not seem to appear in the literature" - of course...). The effort to take such a challenge to prove that the Universe is static, challenging in the same package Rydberg formula, general relativity, Bohr atomic model, Planck model and many others, does not really have any chance to thrive.

Do you wish me to continue?

Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,

Of course you would contest anyway everything that would harm your Bible, and prefer to claim that "the universe is expanding without the Doppler effect being applicable".

There is no need to challenge many theories in order to come to a static universe.

Would it be that incredible that there may be some rare, different interactions between light and hydrogen atoms than Rydberg's formula may establish, or any other theory, even observationally verified?

Raman's effect already proves an effect of recoil-light-fatigue.

Unexplained redshift from solar flares already has shown the existence of recoil-light-fatigue.

You try to avoid the discussion about the 6 perfectly equidistant Karlsson peaks, with a confidence level of over 99.999%, and which proves a perfectly static universe.

So, what does it help to "continue", dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos?

Article Gamma-Ray Lines of X-Class Solar Flare of July 23 rd , 2002 ...

Dear Thierry

again, thanks for your sense of humor. Will continue them.

Dear Thierry

Just to start with, the collected data of the transmitted Lyman-alpha forest spectrum flux provides in the high-redshift intergalactic medium one of the most robust ways to probe cosmological density fluctuations on relatively small scales. This is one of the most important evidences which gives support to the extension of GR called pseudo-complex general relativity. I have applied with collaborators and my PhD sudents of my theoretical group those ideas in the development of approaches for the description of properties of neutron stars, white dwarfs and dark-matter/dark-energy compact stars. Fluctuations of spacetime represent one of the most important theoretical frameworks to mimic dark energy. The repulsive character of dark energy provides a dynamical background which permeates the universe and allow the quantum dynamical repulsive ingredient to increase the masses of compact stars. For neutron stars we got 2.3 solar mass, in excelent agreement with recent observations. Our model for NS is based in an effective relativistic lagrangian field theoretical density, with lorentz invariant baryon-meson couplings, considering the fundamental baryon octet, lepton degrees of freedom in the context of mean field. We develop the equation of state in the domain of special relativity and we make a field theoretical Riemanian transportation to the domain of GR to determine the maximum mass of the compact stars.

I come back to the issue of Raman "interpretation/description" of "hiden/missing" atomic spectrum lines...

Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,

The need for "dark matter", a immensely strong and unseen 'thing', is just a gigantic free parameter that you inject to your theory, in order to get it all fit.

I can prove that my cat is blue with any such gigantic free parameter.

The same happened with "dark matter" in galaxies and galaxy clusters. Astronomers didn't even understand the Virial Theorem and applied it wrongly.

I truly hope that your PhDs will once be liberated from your chains, and find a way to unbrainwash themselves from such religious and anti-scientifical nonsense.

Hi

All astronomers, and astrophysicists and cosmologists? You are the only person on earth that understand the Virial theorem? Uau...

Dear Thierry

Only to conclude this discussion about the article you mention, insofar as it is not worth discussing about an article written on completely wrong grounds. Let me tell you something about Raman scattering and the author's attempt to describe missing lines using the Raman technique. Again there is a gross error in his attempt. And the reason is very simple. While the original process, which the author contests, corresponds to elastic scattering, Raman scattering is inelastic. Evidently, wavelengths and frequencies, in this case, suffer displacements, but these displacements do not correspond to Doppler shift, as the author tries, in an absolutely artificial way, to mimic and make believe. All the other conclusions of the author are absolutely irrelevant from there. All the best for you.

Dear Cesar Zen Vasconcellos,

I agree with you that displacements do not correspond to a Doppler shift, but there is indeed a redshift due to inelasticity.

The essence is anyway that recoil-tired-light exists in inelastic Raman scattering, as abserved in the lab, and that unexplained redshift is effectively seen in solar flares, which cannot be cosmological. The word Doppler, used in the author's paper is not "the" explanation.

From then on, it is important to evaluate the density of the hydrogen atoms in the intergalactic space.

Lyndon Ashmore cites Peebles, P.J.E. 1993 "Principles of Physical Cosmology", who comes to a number of 0.1 atoms/m³.

On the other side, Ashmore comes with a calculus in which the recoil-light-fatique would correspond to a wavelength loss per collision equal to: h/mc, with "h" Planck's constant and m the mass of an electron.

The Hubble constant can then be written in the number of collisions, as :

H = 2 n h r /m c , in which r is the radius of the electron.

The number of collisions he obtains is then 0.5 atoms/m³.

This number is indeed obtained when considering that the 5 Karlsson peaks show circling light that gives a five-fold of the initial 0.1 atoms/m³.

Oh, yes, concerning the Virial Theorem, I explain what is wrong with it in the annexed paper. It would be a nice exercise to you and to your PhDs to try falsifying it....or to learn using it...

Maybe will they learn that they use it wrongly. The next step could be to learn how to integrate the mass of disk galaxies, starting from a spherical galaxy of which all the orbits swiveled into one plane due to the transmitted angular momentum from the bulge. (See gravitomagnetism).

Then, they will hopefully understand that there doesn't exist any "Dark Matter", only an inefficient detection of regular matter, beyond the radius that shows a mass density below the required treshold in order to form stars.

Article Erroneous Use of the Virial Theorem for Elliptical-and Disc ...

Dear all,

It seems to me that the conclusion is that there is indeed circling of light about (our part of) the universe, and that it is static, since 150 quasars, in 5 perfectly equidistant groups of 30 quasars, can only be explained if we always speak of the same 30 quasars that are in our line of sight.

"150 quasars, in 5 perfectly equidistant groups of 30 quasars"

Dear Thierry,

In view of tired-light theory I agree that equidistant red shifts may be attributed to equal travel distances of light through space but need not compellingly mean repetitive travel of light along one and the same closed circular path.

http://www.noeticadvancedstudies.us/Ashmore.pdf

Dear Johan,

Since the 5 groups of 30 quasars are perfectly equidistant, what would be another plausible explanation?

Remark that there is also the beginning of a 6th group (with less quasars) that is also perfectly equidistant.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

"Since the 5 groups of 30 quasars are perfectly equidistant, ..."

Dear Thierry,

when reviewing our earlier discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Would_it_make_sense_to_assume_a_limited_age_in_case_of_a_static_universe?view=5b20def08272c9fc070ca0e0

I got stuck on your following remark:

"The observation of the Karlsson peaks in the redshift of quasars, when associated with these tired light theories, indicate distances obtained by the calculus of the average number of "contacts" of light with hydrogen."

Your circling light theory apparently rests on the assumption that density of intergalactic hydrogen is highly constant over the whole line of sight. But, in fact, equidistance of Karlsson peaks should just imply equal numbers of "contacts" of light with hydrogen. Wouldn't this as well allow for assuming straight line of sight with gas densities increasing in proportion with distance?

Dear Johan,

"Your circling light theory apparently rests on the assumption that density of intergalactic hydrogen is highly constant over the whole line of sight."

Not really, but it helps. Since the circling happens in the same space, nearly the same path even, is it not logic?

"But, in fact, equidistancy of Karlsson peaks should just imply equal numbers of "contacts" of light with hydrogen."

Nearly yes, on average, since it is the same space and the same path.

"Wouldn't this as well allow for assuming straight line of sight with gas densities increasing in proportion with distance?"

No, because that would only be true if the quasars were evenly spread in space. But here, we have real peaks of physically grouped quasars. So, there is an area in the universe where for some reason, we got a group of 30 quasars that are reasonably close together, and reappear to us again and again for the 5 groups.

What would be the statistical chance to get 5 groups of 30 perfectly equidistant quasars in a straight line of sight, with the same density of intergalactic hydrogen between each of the groups?

Best regards,

Thierry

Dear Thierry,

thanks a lot for your clear arguments that in fact sound quite reasonable, and your circling light mechanism appears quite an elegant explanation of observational phenomena. Nevertheless I still don't feel comfortable with circling light when trying to explain this by gravitational deflection. Do you think closed loop light deflection on large scale might be due to accumulation of tiny unidirectional, i.e. centripetal deflection components occuring on every light/particle collision event?

Dear Johan,

I suppose that you assume the universe quite uniform in density, which wouldn't allow light deflection in a systematic way by just the effect of gravity?

In fact, there are a few options to look at, when assuming this:

1) let's look at the deflection near particles. That should be symmetric for light passing at the left side or the right side, after balancing out for several interactions, even if the particles are spinning in random orientations.

2) if the particles are spinning in one direction only, the light would be deflected differently at the left equatorial side as at the right side. In average, that would balance out as well.

3) if the lightwave is screwing and the particle either not spinning or spinning in random orientations, there could not be a systematic deflection either after balancing out several successive impacts.

So, I don't see any solution for a systematic bending of light in an uniform universe.

For a finite universe, which means a universe with a large overall mass, which limits the extend of the ether and bends the light in side it, we get a similarity to galaxies, in which matter orbits, and as explained by gravitomagnetism, light as well.

For an (in)finite universe with stronger/larger voids and densities, it is clear that certain light paths can be closed, even if it is not circular at all. It should be a rare phenomenon to be exactly in the line of sight, but in the present case of 30 quasars out of millions or billions of them, it doesn't seem abnormal.

With best regards,

Thierry

"certain light paths can be closed, even if it is not circular at all. It should be a rare phenomenon to be exactly in the line of sight, but in the present case of 30 quasars out of millions or billions of them, it doesn't seem abnormal."

Quite a good reasoning, Thierry, I agree.

Dear Johan,

Thank you :-)

One option I forgot, a special case of 2) is that *all* the hydrogen atoms of an important region would have the same spin direction. In that case one side at the equator will bend light more than the other side.

That effect is also calculated for light that is grazing the Sun, by gravitomagnetism: light bends unequally.

But in that case, the origin of the hydrogen must be the same.

In gravitomagnetism, red giants have only a little gravity, almost none, because the spin of the star has aligned the particles on the long term, nearly similarly as the magnetisation of a steel rod.

The point is that parallel spinning particles repel (op top of Newtonian gravity), according to gravitomagnetism.

In galaxy clusters, one also sees gravitational bending on locations where there is not even matter seen.

That could be the process you were looking for: light bending due to large areas where all the hydrogen spins in the same direction.

Thanks for your hint!

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees