Although Hubble’s Law can be used to explain the expansion of the universe that is derived successfully from the Acceleration Doppler Effect, it is hard to believe that a star can move faster than light speed with an acceleration driven by a mysterious Dark Energy, also gathering in an intrinsic expansion that all stars are moving away from earth consistently at the same time. To avoid these problems, Wu’s Spacetime Reverse Expansion Theory based on Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory is proposed to interpret Hubble’s Law and so-called universe expansion.

According to Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, the shrinkage of the circulation period (tyy) and orbital size (lyy) of Wu’s Pairs are caused by aging of the universe. As a consequence, a photon emitted from a star more than 5 billion years ago has a larger wavelength than that on the present earth, which causes Redshift and obeys Hubble’s Law.

During Wu’s Spacetime shrinkage process, the potential energy of Yangton and Yington circulating pairs can be converted to their kinetic energy with no need of external energy. Also, despite the intrinsic expansion reflected by reverse expansion, the distance between the star and earth remains unchanged at all time. There is no such thing as that the star is accelerating by Dark Energy and moving away from earth at a speed faster than light speed. Because of these reasons, it is believed that in explanation of Cosmological Redshift and Hubble’s Law, Wu’s Spacetime Reverse Expansion Theory (aka Earth Shrinkage Theory) based on Wu’s Aging Affected Spacetime Shrinkage Theory is more reasonable than Universe Expansion and Acceleration Theory based on Acceleration Doppler Effect. As a matter of fact, the universe is not expanding, instead earth is shrinking at all time.

Dear Giuseppe Pipino

I have scanned the paper and in my opinion Juan De Vicente’s conclusion is reasonable although it will be criticized by others with the argument that the luminosity-angular density relation is too limited to make a definitive conclusion that the universe doesn’t expand. They probably will also argue that there is no better explanation for the non-Doppler redshift of the light of distant galaxies so “we stick by the expansion of space”.

Yesterday Quanta Magazine published an article about the JWST observations of the early galaxies (https://www.quantamagazine.org/jwst-spots-giant-black-holes-all-over-the-early-universe-20230814/). The article describes some opinions of cosmologists about these crazy big black holes “at the start of the universe” and some proposed solutions to interpret the observations.

The problem is that a black hole nearly equal to the black hole in the centre of the Milky Way cannot be formed in a period of only 200 or 300 million light years from the start. Although they cannot prove that it is impossible because they use Einstein’s curved spacetime as theoretical base.

What the cosmologists expected was the forming of stars out of clouds of Hydrogen (first generation stars). The collapse of these stars results in the creation of black holes and next the black hole will grow because of the accumulation of matter. But it shows that the black holes are at the start of the galaxies and there are observations that some early galaxies are nothing more than a black hole with an accretion disk that is fed by swirling giant clouds of Hydrogen (and Dark matter).

There is evidence because the paper of the BICEP2 Collaboration (2016), “Keck ArrayVII: MATRIX BASED E/B SEPARATION APPLIED TO BICEP2 AND THE Keck Array” (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05976.pdf) shows the polarization of the CMBR by huge gravitational fields (see picture above). It proves that Hydrogen atoms emerged in the early universe after the emerging of the black holes. This is in line with the increase of the accumulation of energy from vacuum space during the evolution of the universe. Thus “at the start” of the universe (before the proposed start at 13,8 billion years ago) there was only vacuum space that was “filled” by large amplitudes of the electromagnetic field.

With so much free energy around the concentration of energy doesn’t stop at the size of a proton. It keeps on to concentrate and massive black holes were the result. But the consequence of all these created black holes is that the average amplitudes of the electromagnetic field in vacuum space decreased below a certain threshold that is needed to create black holes directly from “free energy”. From that moment the proces of concentration of energy resulted in Hydrogen atoms.

During the last 13,8 billion years the decrease of the amplitudes of the electromagnetic field in vacuum space went on because of the creation of more and more matter. But the decrease of the average amplitudes results in the lengthen of electromagnetic waves (non-Doppler red shift). That is what we observe in experiments if we try to empty a closed vessel from electromagnetic radiation.

So I am convinced that Juan De Vicente’s paper is absolutely correct. At least the conclusion! :)

With kind regards, Sydney

Giuseppe Pipino "It goes without saying that if these data passed the examination of careful criticism they would represent a revolutionary result that would change the history of astronomy forever."

A deep analysis of new JWST data will lead to new findings. But any analysis follows paradigms. If the wrong paradigm is used, an analysis of the best and correct data will lead to incorrect results.

In the following preprint about gravitation, a new paradigm about an eternal universe is suggested.

Preprint What gravitation really is

Starting with a proof that force fields contain an energy density and that all forces are caused by the dependency of that energy density on the configuration geometry, revolutionary new views on old physical facts are presented in the article.

The chain of evidence presented in the article leads to a spectacular new cosmology and even explains dark matter and offers a new understanding of black holes. The new understanding is based on an upper limit for gravitation. It is shown that without such an upper limit, the energy density in gravitational fields would lead to a contradiction with astronomical observations.

I do not want to anticipate all the available information in the article. But I can ensure that it is worth reading it for people interested in the issue of this RG thread.

If I understand the postulate correctly, the idea is that light slows down over time. But the time at which we see the light emitted by distant objects is much later than the time at which it was emitted, and as it reaches us it is going at c, the maximum speed of light. That is completely backwards from the proposal, so it makes no sense to me. In any event, many experiments have proven the proposals in Special and General Relativity, such as the fact that time appears to move slower when things are moving at high speed, and slower when gravitational forces are larger. Presuming these proofs of S & G Relativity are valid, then Einstein's conclusion that unless the mass density of the Universe is greater than a critical value, the Universe will expand, faster and faster (though not necessarily MUCH faster), for the rest of eternity. So there does not seem to be any problem with the ordinary description of what is going on.

The problem is not with the expansion of the Universe, but with assumptions made by cosmologists about how galaxies can form in the earliest stages of the Universal Expansion. "Current" theories cannot explain how very large galaxies formed so fast, early on. That is a problem that is yet to be solved; but the question about whether the Universe is expanding, though contradicted by many people who would love to turn all of science upside-down, is almost as certain as that apples DO fall down, and not up.

Courtney Seligman "...but the question about whether the Universe is expanding, though contradicted by many people who would love to turn all of science upside-down, is almost as certain as that apples DO fall down, and not up."

What makes you that sure about the expanding universe? What is your argument contrary to an about static 3-sphere/S³ structure of the universe?

Courtney Seligman wrote:

You did not quite understand the proposal. The fastest speed of light AT THE PRESENT TIME is

c_0=299 792 458 ±1 m/s

The cosmological principle requires that this speed be the same at every point in the universe at present time. But there is nothing to prevent this speed limit from being different a million or a billion years ago.

The hypothesis of the VSLT theory is that the speed of light, i.e. the speed emitted by each atom during a given energy transition, decreases over time at the rate

dc(t) / dt=-H c(t)

In the above H is a time and space invariant whose value coincides with the value measured for the Hubble constant, i.e.

H≈72 (km/sec)/ Mpc = 2.33 10^-18 sec^-1

Then H c(t) at the present time holds H c_0 ≈ 7 10^-10 m/sec^2

Follows dc(t)/dt= - 7 10^-10 (m/s)/sec

But 1 sec= 3.17 10^-8 year.

Therefore dc(t)/dt= - 2.2 10^-2 (m/s)/year

So according to the VSLT hypothesis the speed of light emitted by atoms decreases by 2.2 (centimetres/sec) every year.

This means that a source located one million light years from us, which emitted its photons one million years ago, emitted light with speed Δc= 2.2 10^-2 *10^6 = 22 10^3 (m /sec) greater than that emitted by atoms now. That is, the speed of light emitted by this source differs from the speed of light emitted by current light sources by a percentage equal to

(22/300 000)*100= 7.3 per thousand.

One may wonder why this speed difference is not measured in the laboratory.

It actually IS measured. And it is precisely the REDSHIFT measurements that provide that speed difference.

In fact, note that it is impossible to suppose that c varies without associating it with a shift in frequency (or wavelength).

It is known that the energy of the photon depends on its wavelength according to the relation

E= hc/λ

The energy of the photon depends on the difference between the energy levels related to the quantum leap that produced the photon. This difference remains constant over time. Therefore the energy of the photon E is conserved.

It follows that if c decreases over time, the wavelength λ (relative to a given quantum leap) also decreases over time. Then distant sources that emitted their photons long ago emitted photons with a wavelength λ LARGER than the wavelength of photons emitted by atoms in the Milky Way now. This is the phenomenon of COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT.

Giuseppe Pipino "The hypothesis of the VSLT theory is that the speed of light, i.e. the speed emitted by each atom during a given energy transition, decreases over time"

The VSLT (variable speed of light) theory must be wrong. The speed of light is related to vacuum permittivity and permeability. These vacuum properties determine quantum mechanical expressions, which describe the energy levels of atomic and molecular states. This energy levels are responsible for details of chemical properties. If those properties are not constant, the molecular logistics of metabolic processes would lose their balance. Evolution of life requires absolute stable chemical properties over a period of several billion years. Our existence proofs the VSLT theory to be wrong.

Despite that Cosmological Redshift is caused by Acceleration Doppler Effect, one theory suggested that photon can lose its energy and reduce its frequency (increase wavelength and reduce light speed) over time. I can hardly agree with this idea, because once photon is generated, it will stay at the same frequency (also the same energy and wavelength) until it is transferred to another energy state through collisions with other particles.

Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory can be used successfully in explanation of both Cosmological Redshift and Gravitational Redshift as follows:

When the universe becomes older, based on Five Principles of The Universe and complying with Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), the speed of Yangton and Yington circulation is getting faster which can make Wu’s Unit Length and Wu’s Unit Time smaller due to the attraction caused by Force of Creation in Wu’s Pairs. This phenomenon is named “Aging Affected Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory”. Furthermore, in compliance with Principle of Parallelism, dimension and duration of an object or event should become smaller with aging of the universe. In other words, size should become smaller and time should become faster with aging of the universe. Also, wavelength should decrease with aging of the universe (λ ∞ lyy), such that Cosmological Redshift can be observed on earth.

On the other hand, at a massive graviton bombardment (or at a large gravitational field in a stationary single parent object system) based on Graviton Radiation and Contact Interaction Theory, the speed of Yangton and Yington circulation is getting slower which can make Wu’s Unit Length and Wu’s Unit Time bigger. This phenomenon is named “Gravity Affected Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory”. Furthermore, in compliance with Principle of Parallelism, dimension and duration of an object or event should become bigger at massive gravitational field. In other words, size should become bigger and clock should become slower at massive gravitational field. Also, wavelength should increase at massive gravitational field (λ ∞ lyy), such that Gravitational Redshift can be observed on earth.

In case of static state, the dimension and duration of an object or event are dependent on the local gravitational field subject only to the static graviton flux, as is the wavelength and light speed, for examples, Gravitational Redshift, Deflection of Light and Perihelion Precession of Mercury. However, in dynamic state, they are dependent on both static graviton flux and dynamic graviton flux, for examples, Aether Inflow, Aether Wind and Time Dilation.

According to Aging Affected Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, the diameter of Wu’s Pairs lyy (Wu’s Unit Length) and the period of the Wu’s Pairs tyy (Wu’s Unit Time) on the present earth are smaller than that of the stars 5 billion years ago. Based on Principle of Parallelism, normal unit length (meter) and normal unit time (second) also become smaller on the present earth. However, the universe on the contrary becomes bigger (reverse expansion) as measured by the shrinking normal unit length on the present earth. This is named “Wu’s Spacetime Reverse Expansion Theory” (or Earth Shrinkage Theory}. In addition, the photon emitted from a star a few billion light years away, has a slower light speed (Absolute Light Speed) and lower frequency but longer wavelength than that of the present earth. These preserved ancient properties (longer wavelength) can be observed as the photon quenches onto the present earth which is known as Cosmological Redshift.

Wolfgang Konle Wrote:

>

Dear Wolfgang,

Your argument doesn't seem convincing at all. As far as we know, Earth is the only place in the universe that contains life. As far as we know, life on Earth arose about three billion years ago, when the Earth was about 1.5 billion years old.

The conditions that have allowed the birth of life on Earth are many. First of all, the presence of water.

Then the right distance from the Sun that allowed the right temperature, not too high to evaporate the water, nor too small to freeze it.

Then the presence in the water of many elements with a high atomic number which allowed the development of organic molecules (and therefore the right age of the Earth, the Solar System and the Milky Way).

Finally, the stability of the Earth's orbit which allowed the Earth's temperature to remain more or less constant for the entire time necessary for the development of organic molecules.

As far as we know so far, the Earth is the only planet in the universe where the previous conditions have occurred.

But the conditions that allowed the development of life on Earth HAVE NOTHING TO DO with the speed of light and electromagnetic forces.

If we think that in the space of about a billion and a half years that was necessary for the development of life, the speed c, and the constants ε,μ have varied by about 4% (this is the extent of the variation resulting from the formula dc/dt=-Hc ) there is absolutely NO REASON to think that such variations would force life NOT to develop.

The entity of the electromagnetic forces acts on the interactions (chemical reactions) that are exercised between the atoms and between the molecules.

If these forces were GREATER in the past it means that the SPEED of the reactions that took place in the past was GREATER, not that such chemical reactions could not take place.

It's up to you to prove that this is not the case. But the demonstration must take place on mathematical grounds, not on dogmatic statements.

What physical relations do you use to demonstrate that a variation of c, ε,μ makes the development of life impossible?

What calculations do you do?

Edward Wu

wrote:

Dear Edward,

I think you misinterpreted the VLST (Varying Light Speed with Time) theory.

You can find this theory, clarified in every detail, on the site:

Variable Speed of Light with Time and General Relativity (scirp.org)

If you read the article you will find exactly what you write, which is that once the photon is generated it will remain at the same frequency and also at the same energy and wavelength.

The problem of the decrease of c with time arises BEFORE the photon is generated, since the speed c with which the photon is generated directly depends on the speed v with which the electron (whose transition between two distant energy levels ΔE generates the photon) rotates around the nucleus.

For simplicity we are adopting the Bohr-Sommerfield model. This model proves adequate to explain atomic spectra. And so it is adequate for our purposes.

The electron does not move in a vacuum, but moves in a sea of neutrinos.

In fact, neutrinos (particles with a rest mass other than zero) interact very little with matter. So once created they are indestructible.

Neutrinos are created by numerous processes, including the nuclear reactions that take place inside stars, supernova explosions, etc.

The quantity of neutrinos produced in the universe per unit of time is very high and these neutrinos, once produced, are indestructible.

It can be deduced that space is literally filled with a very high neutrino density which behaves like a FLUID within which the atomic electrons have to move.

The fact that neutrinos have rest mass (albeit very small) leads us to conclude that atomic electrons INTERACT, albeit very weakly, with this neutrino fluid undergoing a FRICTION force, which slows down its movement, i.e. its own speed v.

Since v=α c , with α=fine structure constant (dimensionless, therefore independent of time and space), if v decreases over time, c also decreases over time.

Once the photon is emitted it MAINTAINS its speed. That is, it maintains both its own frequency and its own wavelength. In fact, note that since the photons do not have mass at rest, they DO NOT INTERACT with the neutrino fluid, therefore they are not held back by this.

Giuseppe Pipino "But the conditions that allowed the development of life on Earth HAVE NOTHING TO DO with the speed of light and electromagnetic forces. ... If these forces were GREATER in the past it means that the SPEED of the reactions that took place in the past was GREATER, not that such chemical reactions could not take place."

No, a modified permittivity alters the energy density of intrinsic electrical fields in atoms and molecules. Changing permeability modifies magnetic energy density. This has not only consequences for the speed of reactions. The nonlinear modification effects also have consequences for the possible existence of molecules. Processes which generate specific molecules do not work as before with other values of those basic natural constants. In any case those modifications of fundamental chemical properties of matter would disturb the extremely sensitive balance of metabolic processes in cells.

It is not necessary to prove this, because we already know it from quantum mechanics.

You also overlook, that with relativity theory, nature has implemented the principle of a constant speed of light, independent from an absolute movement. This principle arranges stable intrinsic properties of matter, within a period long enough for the evolution of life.

"What physical relations do you use to demonstrate that a variation of c, ε,μ makes the development of life impossible?"

The Schroedinger or Dirac equation.

Wolfgang Konle wrote

>

No. It was not nature that implemented the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, but it was Albert Einstein in his 1905 theory of Special Relativity.

This principle, combined with the principle of Relativity, proves capable of providing the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS from which a series of experimental consequences derive which at the moment, with the precision of current measurements, have all been verified.

Among them the contraction of lengths, the dilation of times, the increase of relativistic mass, etc.

However, THERE CANNOT BE AN ULTIMATE PHYSICAL THEORY of the universe. Each physical theory is a BETTER APPROXIMATION than the theory that preceded it.

Thus Special Relativity is a better approximation of Newton's theory which preceded it. Newton's theory gives corrected results for velocity v

Giuseppe Pipino "No. It was not nature that implemented the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, but it was Albert Einstein in his 1905 theory of Special Relativity."

Of course it was nature implementing the constancy of the speed of light. Albert Einstein only recognized this implementation.

"Are you able to demonstrate HOW from Scrodinger's equation it can be deduced that a change in c would make the development of life impossible?"

Without going into details of molecular logistics of metabolic processes, it is obvious that modifications of chemical properties disturb this logistics with fatal consequences. What remains therefor simply is proving that a modified permittivity of space leads to a modification of chemical properties.

The Schrödinger equation is about the energy content of the wave function. The wave function describes the probabilistic distribution of electrons in atoms and molecules. The distribution contains kinetic energy depending on electron mass and the energy contained in electric fields. The Schrödinger equation describes various equilibrium states of this different types of energy, which all depend on geometry and time. The speed of light determines the relation between space and time dependency. The permittivity determines the relation between space and electrical field energy.

This relations show the dependency of the dynamics of atomic processes on the speed of light. They also proof that the energy levels of stable states depend on the permittivity value. The energy levels determine the stability of molecules.

Of course metabolic processes are extremely complicated and we cannot calculate the influence of small modifications of chemical properties on the efficience of the metabolic processes. But we can imagine what chaos a shortage of a single kind of molecules, or a poisoning by to many molecules, can cause. Metabolic processes are a network of complicated interactions on a molecular base. If within a single step something goes wrong, the whole chain fails.

Now you are saying, please proof that modified properties of matter harm the existence of life. No, life is far too complicate to trace specific effects. In turn it is to be proven that life would be clever and fast enough to find alternate solutions for partial processes, which fail because the properties of matter have been changed.

Sorry, but I think there is no chance to develop as an example replacement mitochondria if basic processes do no longer work. All life, which uses mitochondria would be dead without a chance to adapt.

We cannot proof the specific mechanisms, which would harm life, but we know for sure that slightest disturbances lead to severe consequences for sensitive logistic chains.

Can you proof the opposite, that life is robust enough to survive modifications of basic properties of matter?

Giuseppe Pipino

1. Photon – A Free Wu’s Pair

According to Yangton and Yington Theory, photon is a free Wu’s Pair (the building block of the universe, a pair of superfine circulating Yangton and Yington Antimatter particles with inter-attractive Force of Creation), traveling in the normal direction of the Yangton and Yington circulation orbit in space at light speed. Therefore the mass of a photon is the same as that of a Wu’s Pair (myy).

Since the circulation orbit is extremely small, any force induced by the Yangton (positive electric unit charge) can be neutralized by its counter force induced by the Yington (negative electric unit charge), therefore photon doesn’t respond to the electromagnetic field at all. While under gravitational field, photon can only be affected by heavy bombardment of gravitons at massive gravitational field, therefore photon has zero gravity on the surface of earth, but can be deflected by extremely large gravitational fields such as sun and massive stars.

2. Electromagnetic Wave

Because of the similarity between the inter-attractive Force of Creation between Yangton and Yington Pairs (Wu’s Pairs) and the electrical force between electron and positron, it is assumed that a Yangton carries one positive electric unit charge and a Yington carries one negative electric unit charge. Together they form an electric dipole. These electric unit charges are the basic units of the normal electric charges that are carried by electrons, positrons and protons, except in a much smaller scale. According to Yangton and Yington Theory, once Wu’s Pairs are released from a substance, they become photons. Because of the circulation of the Yangton and Yington Pair (the rotation of the electric dipole) on the vertical plane of photon traveling direction, electromagnetic wave can be generated and carried by the photon to a far distance in space.

3. Photon Emission

A photon can be emitted from the parent object through a two stage process: separation stage and ejection stage.

1. Separation Stage

To unlock a photon from the surface of an object (such as electron), it requires thermal energy (kinetic energy) to overcome the string energy caused by the string force between two adjacent Wu’s Pairs on the object.

According to Whirlpool Theory, a spinning particle separated from its parent spinning system should have a kinetic energy E that is proportional to the particle mass m and the spin frequency ν (ν is dependent on local gravitational field and aging of the universe).

E = κmν

Therefore for a photon,

E = κmyyν

Where κ is whirlpool constant and myy is the mass of photon (or Wu’s Pair).

2. Ejection Stage

After separation from the parent object, photon is ejected toward the normal (axial) direction of Yangton and Yington circulation orbit by the repulsive string forces generated between the two adjacent Yangton particles, also between two adjacent Yington particles, where one from the emitting photon and the other one from Wu’s Pair on the surface of the parent object.

4. Inertia Transformation versus Non-inertia Transformation

Photon just like electron or any other particle, while emitted from the parent object (source), it travels at two speeds: (1) Ejection Speed which is subject to the ejection force and direction, and (2) Inertia Speed which is subject to the speed and direction of parent object. This is called "Inertia Transformation“.

In contrast, Phonon is not a particle emitted from the vibrator (sound source). Instead, it is an energy particle that is generated in the medium through the vibration process (energy transformation process) by the vibrator, carrying and transmitting radically in the medium at a nature speed of the medium no matter of the source. This is called "Non-inertia Transformation“.

5. Absolute Light Speed

In photon Ejection Stage, because of the constant repulsive string forces, regardless of the frequency, a photon escaped from its parent object (light source) should always have a constant speed in vacuum 3 x 108 m/s (at a constant gravitational field and aging of the universe such as on earth) known as “Absolute Light Speed” in the ejection direction observed at the parent object (light source) at the instance of Photon Ejection and at anytime for a constant speed light source referenced at light origin or its inertia system.

In fact, Absolute Light Speed is dependent on Wu’s Unit Length which is a function of gravitational field and aging of the universe, but not the temperature. Absolute Light Speed is dependent on Wu’s Unit Length of a reference object at a fixed quantum energy state (hν). When temperature increases, more electrons move to the higher quantum energy states, also the micro structure and macro structure are expanded (thermal expansion), but Wu’s Unit Length and Wu’s Unit Time of the same quantum energy states remain no changes. In addition, Wu’s Unit Length can be influenced by particle bombardments such as static graviton flux (gravitational field), dynamic graviton flux (Aether Wind) and plasma bombardment, as is the Absolute Light Speed. Furthermore, photons with different angular momentum could also have different Absolute Light Speeds.

6. Inertia Light Speed

In the Separation Stage, according to classical Newtonian physics, photon also carries the inertia of the parent object (light source). Therefore, photon travels not only at the “Absolute Light Speed” (3 x 108 m/s) in the trajectory direction from the light source, but also with a speed and direction as that of the light source observed at a reference point which is called “Inertia Light Speed”.

7. Equation of Light Speed

When a photon emitted from a light source, due to the Vision of Light and Photon Inertia Transformation, it undergoes two separate motions: ejection motion which gives Absolute Light Speed and inertia motion which provides Inertia Light Speed.

Light speed C' (Normal Light Speed) observed at a reference point is the vector summation of Absolute Light Speed C observed at light source (dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe 3 x 108 m/s on earth) and the speed of light source V observed at the reference point (Inertia Light Speed). This is known as“Equation of Light Speed”.

C’ = C + V

Equation of Light Speed holds at the time of photon emission, no matter the reference points. It also works for a constant speed light source at anytime referenced at light origin or its inertia system.

Equation of Light Speed is the “Law of Light” which shows directly “Light Speed Is Not Constant”. In addition, it can be used to explain many physical phenomena such as Cosmological Redshift, Gravitational Redshift, Deflection of Light and Gravitational Lensing which are caused by the variations of Absolute Light Speed and Wavelength, also Axial Redshift, Transverse Redshift, Acceleration Redshift and Event Horizon, which are due to the changes of Inertia Light Speed and direction. In fact those phenomena can also be considered as the nature proofs of Equation of Light Speed and that light speed is not constant.

Some physicists believe that light speed is constant because C = 1/(ε0μ0)1/2can be derived from Maxwell Equations, also ε0 (permittivity) and μ0(permeability) are constants, therefore C is constant. However, this proof is misleading because even C (Absolute Light Speed) is constant, it can’t be used to prove that C’ (Normal Light Speed) is equal to C (Absolute Light Speed), as claimed by Einstein’s Special Relativity and Lorentz Transformation. Therefore, Einstein’s Special Relativity and Lorentz Transformation are both wrong, light speed is not constant indeed.

In contrast, according to Yangton and Yington Theory, C (Absolute Light Speed) is constant no matter of light source which matches very well with that C = 1/( ε0μ0)1/2 derived from Maxwell Equations. Also, because of the unit quantities, C is dependent on local gravitational field, as is that of e0 and u0, therefore, Equation of Light Speed is in compliance with Maxwell Equations.

According to Big Bang Theory, in the beginning of the universe, there was no Matter, Energy and Time, except Space. A Singularity was first generated 13.8 billion years ago, and then Energy and Matter were produced immediately from Singularity by Big Bang Explosion. This theory known as Big Bang Theory has been broadly accepted by scientists in the past decades.

In contrast, according to Space and Energy Correlated Five Principles of the Universe of Yangton and Yington Theory, Space and Energy were cogenerated with Yangton and Yington Bubbles (building blocks of Space) and Wu’s Pairs (building b;locks of Matter) in the Singularity and Big Bang Explosion. Also, Space is a continuous network of Yangton and Yington Bubbles with Matter composed of Wu’s Pairs dispersed inside. Therefore, if ever there is another universe created from None by another Singularity and Big Bang Explosion outside of the existing universe, then these two universes must totally separate from each other by None, which is known as Multiverse. However, if a new Singularity and Big Bang Explosion is allowed to be generated inside an old existing universe, then the galaxies with age older than the new Singularity and Big Bang should be observed, which is known as Multi Big Bang Theory.

Recently some matured and very well defined galaxies with redshift of 13.5 billion light years were observed by JWST which indicates that the universe could start long time earlier than 13.8 billion years ago. This fulfills Multi Big Bang Theory. It also concurs with the theory that our universe has an age of 26.7 billion years rather than 13.8 billion years.

There is another possibility based on Yangton and Yington Theory, in which Wu’s Pairs with larger Wu’s Unit Length can be created in the initial stage of the younger universe than that of the older universe where earth was born. As a consequence, a big redshift corresponding to 13.5 billion years from the galaxies of the younger universe can be observed by JWST (on earth) based on Cosmological Redshift and Aging Affected Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory.

Furthermore, despite Cosmological Redshift caused by either Acceleration Doppler Effect or Aging Affected Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, one theory suggested that Cosmological Redshift is caused by photon losing energy and reducing frequency (increasing wavelength and reducing light speed) over time (Photon Aging Effect). I can hardly agree with this idea, because once photon is generated, it will stay at the same frequency (also the same energy and wavelength) until it is transferred to another energy state through particle collisions.

In conclusion, According to Yangton and Yington Theory, Inflation of the universe is caused by the creation of Yangton and Yington Bubbles (building blocks of the Space), which is different from expansion of the universe based on Cosmological Redshift and Hubble's Law. In addition, expansion of the universe is generated by Aging Affected Wu's Spacetime Shrinkage Theory (Earth Shrinkage Theory) instead of Acceleration Doppler Effect (Universe Expansion) and Photon Aging Effect. Also, Multi Big Bang Theory can explain the mature galaxies corresponding to redshift of 13.5 billion years observed by JWST.

Edward Wu "Wu's equation of light speed: C’ = C + V"

Sorry Edward, but this is total nonsense. The GPS system we are always using for navigation, permanently proves that general relativity theory is correct, up to the highest accuracy we can measure. According to that theory you must apply relativistic velocity addition, which leads to c+v=c.

Wolfgang Konle

Please don't jump to the conclusion so fast.

First, you have to know what Equation of Light Speed really is.

Equation of Light Speed

When a photon emitted from a light source, due to the Vision of Light and Photon Inertia Transformation, it undergoes two separate motions: ejection motion which gives Absolute Light Speed and inertia motion which provides Inertia Light Speed.

Light speed C' (Normal Light Speed) observed at a reference point is the vector summation of Absolute Light Speed C observed at light source (dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe 3 x 108 m/s on earth) and the speed of light source V observed at the reference point (Inertia Light Speed). This is known as“Equation of Light Speed”.

C’ = C + V

Equation of Light Speed holds at the time of photon emission, no matter the reference points. It also works for a constant speed light source at anytime referenced at light origin or its inertia system.

Equation of Light Speed is the “Law of Light” which shows directly “Light Speed Is Not Constant”. In addition, it can be used to explain many physical phenomena such as Cosmological Redshift, Gravitational Redshift, Deflection of Light and Gravitational Lensing which are caused by the variations of Absolute Light Speed and Wavelength, also Axial Redshift, Transverse Redshift, Acceleration Redshift and Event Horizon, which are due to the changes of Inertia Light Speed and direction. In fact those phenomena can also be considered as the nature proofs of Equation of Light Speed and that light speed is not constant.

Some physicists believe that light speed is constant because C = 1/( ε0μ0)1/2 can be derived from Maxwell Equations, also ε0 (permittivity) and μ0(permeability) are constants, therefore C is constant. However, this proof is misleading because even C (Absolute Light Speed) is constant, it can’t be used to prove that C’ (Normal Light Speed) is equal to C (Absolute Light Speed), as claimed by Einstein’s Special Relativity and Lorentz Transformation. Therefore, Einstein’s Special Relativity and Lorentz Transformation are both wrong, light speed is not constant indeed.

In contrast, according to Yangton and Yington Theory, C (Absolute Light Speed) is constant no matter of light source which matches very well with that C = 1/( ε0μ0)1/2derived from Maxwell Equations. Also, because of the unit quantities, C is dependent on local gravitational field, as is that of e0 and u0, therefore, Equation of Light Speed is in compliance with Maxwell Equations.

Secondly, to measure the distance between satellite and cellphone, one needs to know the microwave travelling time and microwave speed from satellite to cellphone. According to Equation of Light Speed, since satellite is the microwave source and also reference point (V =0), therefore C' = C (Absolute Light Speed). Also, based on Gravity Affected Wu's Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, Absolute Light Speed is dependent on the gravitational field at microwave source (satellite). Furthermore, because gravity reduces with altitude, therefore C observed at satellite is a little faster than 3x108 m/s (on earth). However, the most important issue is time dilation caused by gravity. Because time runs faster at high altitude (less gravity at satellite than on earth), therefore, the actual time travelling between satellite and cellphone needs to be adjusted. General Relativity calculates time changes by using Lorentz Factor (1 -V2/C2)-1/2, which gives a right tendency but for wrong reason, because all the properties of an object or event such as dimension, duration and spacetime (potential energy) are dependent on gravity, and gravity can cause acceleration but not the other way around.

Edward Wu "First, you have to know what Equation of Light Speed really is."

Dear Edward, you are only repeating your arguments for an arithmetic speed addition. For non relativistic speeds this is ok. But c is a relativistic speed and therefor requires relativistic speed addition.

"...therefore C observed at satellite is a little faster than 3x108 m/s"

No, this is not correct. If you measure c in a satellite or between closely spaced satellites, you exactly get the same value as measuring it in a lab on earth. Only long measurement distances, which reveal the inhomogenity of the gravitational field of earth, lead to a significant Sagnac effect. But the Sagnac effect is not at all in contradiction to general or special relativity.

Relativity theory only considers the local speed of light within inertial reference systems. The Sagnac effect considers the speed of light, which had crossed gravitational field deviations.

Wolfgang Konle

Satellite is at high altitude where has less gravity than that on earth (ground). The light speed generated from satellite has faster light speed than that on earth and the atomic clock at satellite runs faster than that on earth (ground). It is agreed by both General Relativity (Relativism) and Yangton and Yington Theory (Gravity Affected Wu's Spacetime Shringkage Theory). The only difference are the followings:

1. General Relativity claims that it is due to acceleration, but Yangton and Yington Theory says it is caused by gravitational force.

2. General Relativity uses Lorentz factor to calculate relativistic properties, but Yangton and Yington Theory doesn't have a fixed formula for calculation except giving a tendency.

Edward Wu Are you casually naming stuff after yourself?

• "Wu's equation of light speed"
• "Wu’s Pairs"
• "Wu’s Unit Length and Wu’s Unit Time"
• "Gravity Affected Wu's Spacetime Shrinkage Theory"

It's for the scientific community to decide if a concept has enough merit to be named after its proposer.

Edward Wu "The light speed generated from satellite has faster light speed than that on earth and the atomic clock at satellite runs faster than that on earth (ground)."

No, the light speed is the same everywhere . This is the basic claim of relativity theory.

Wolfgang Konle

Sorry, light speed is not constant. it changes with local gravitational force and aging of the universe, also it is subject to the reference point. Special Relativity is totally wrong and General Relativity is partially right only when acceleration is caused by gravity.

Edward Wu "Special Relativity is totally wrong and General Relativity is partially right"

Sorry, but this is the standpoint of a lonesome rider. You'd better stop going on in that direction.

Ray Butler

You are absolutely right. I shouldn't name all the theories and equations under my name. However, I am the sole inventor of Yangton and Yington Theory based on a pair of superfine Yangton and Yington circulating antimatter particles - Wu's Pairs (the building blocks of the universe) including 7 equations, 40 theories and 61 papers with a published book "My Universen - A Theory of Yangton and Yington Pairs". Yangton and Yington Theory is a theory of everything. In order to distinguish it from Newton's classic physics, quantum physics and Einstein's Relativity, I used my name for easy presentation and comparison. Name is not important. You can call all my equations and theories with Yangton and Yington X and Y Equations and Theoryies. It doesn't make any difference to me.

Wolfgang Konle

Truth will speak for itself. Newton, Einstein, Konle and Wu are nobody in front of Truth.

Edward Wu "Truth will speak for itself"

Fortune cookies slogans will not help you on your off road path. Positioning yourself unmistakably opposite to proven facts will irrecoverable damage your reputation.

Wolfgang Konle

Special relativity is based on the postulation that "Light speed is constant no matter of light source and observer". Keep in mind "It is a postulation". What makes you so sure it is a proven fact? My reputation has nothing to do with truth. Both Newton and Einstein are giants in science not because that they are always right. In fact, it is because that they can foresee something that other people can't see and have the guts to bring it up to the world that is controlled and bullied by a group of academic scholars.

Edward Wu "What makes you so sure it is a proven fact?"

The Lorentz transform leads to that fact. The Lorentz transform describes the relation between inertial reference systems. It is the proven mathematical background of the relativity theory.

Wolfgang Konle

Lorentz transformation is also based on the assumption that "Light speed is constant no matter of reference system". I agree Lorentz Transformation is true only for inertia reference system, but not for different gravity system and non-inertia system. Also, by no means, that "Light speed is constant" is proven by Lorentz transformation.

As one of my mentors, Lawrence Aller, used to say about such theories, "RUBBISH". Any suggestion that light slows down with time is completely wrong. If it did, then light from distant galaxies would pass us at less than the accepted value of the speed of light, and ALL light that reaches us, no matter where it comes from, near or far, passes us at the same speed. So no matter how cleverly mathematical theories based on that idea are presented, they are wrong, WRONG, and FAR TOO WRONG TO DESCRIBE WITHOUT RESORTING TO PROFANITY. As a result, you can be certain that the paper in question will never pass peer review, because the reviewers are discouraged from using profanity. (Though I'm sure it runs rampant in their minds every second that they waste on such crap.)

Edward Wu

General relativity extends the claim of a constant speed of light to accelerated inertial reference systems, including systems under the influence of gravitation. Genaral relativity is proven as well as special relativity.

Wolfgang Konle

According to Equation of Light Speed and Photon Inertia Transformation based on Yangton and Yington Theory, Normal Light Speed C’ (light speed observed at the reference point) is the vector summation of Absolute Light Speed C (light speed observed at the light source which is dependent on the gravitational field) and Inertia Light Speed V (speed of light source observed at the reference point). Since C’ = C + V, therefore light speed is not constant C’≠ C (when V ≠ 0). This is the fundamental difference between Yangton and Yington Theory and Special Relativity which is based on the postulation that light speed is constant no matter light sources and observers.

Furthermore, according to Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, Wu's Unit Length lyy (diameter) and Wu's Unit Time tyy (period) of Wu's Pairs (building blocks of the universe) are bigger at large gravitational field and early stage of the universe. Therefore, photon as a corresponding identical object or event, its wavelength (λ ∞ lyy) is bigger and Absolute Light Speed (C ∞ lyy-1/2) is smaller at large gravitational field and early stage of the universe. These are the reasons of Gravitational Redshift, Cosmological Redshift and Deflection of Light which oppose to General Relativity that light travels along the curve of spacetime.

Most people don’t understand the differences of “Space” and “Time” with respect to “Dimension” and “Duration”, even including Einstein himself. It is why Special Relativity is based on a wrong postulation that light speed is constant. Also, General Relativity is derived from a wrong theory that space and time are driven by acceleration instead of gravitational field. Even more, Einstein created a magic word “Spacetime” trying to correlate space and time together, which in fact is only a property (potential energy) of the object or event reflecting the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. Also, Einstein’s Field Equation is nothing but a transformation of energy based field equation from a nonlinear geometry system (geodesics) to a Normal Spacetime System (Cartesian Coordinate System) on earth.

According to Yangton and Yington Theory, graviton is a string structure composed of Wu’s Pairs, a Yangton and Yington circulating particle pairs with built-in attractive Force of Creation (Building Blocks of the universe). Gravitational force is generated by string force between two gravitons and the propagation of gravitational force is interpreted by graviton radiation and contact interaction. The dimension and duration of an object or event can change with the local gravitational field because of the expansion of Wu’s Pairs caused by bombardment of gravitons, also aging of the universe due to the attraction caused by Force of Creation in Wu’s Pairs (known as Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory). In addition, because of the intrinsic structures of the corresponding identical object or event, Principle of Parallelism can be used to correlate the quantities of the same properties of different objects and events under subatomic equilibrium at the same location and time (same gravitational field and aging of the universe). Also, based on Principle of Parallelism and Wu’s Spacetime Equation, all the quantities of the properties of an object or event can be transformed to Wu’s Unit Length of a reference subatomic particle (known as Wu’s Spacetime Transformation). As a result, Wu’s Spacetime Field Equation is derived to correlate acceleration to gravitational field in comparison to Einstein’s Field Equation which correlates potential energy (Einstein’s spacetime) to acceleration.

Edward Wu "Since C’ = C + V, therefore light speed is not constant C’≠ C (when V ≠ 0)."

With this claim we now completed a full turn. Sorry but this still is absolute nonsense. You should have a detailed look in textbooks, which describe proofs of relativity theory. Many scripts from universities are freely available. If you then still are convinced that relativity theory is wrong, you can try to proof it wrong. But without such a proof, you only are one of the numerous gossiper who do not understand relativity theory.

Wolfgang Konle

Here are some proofs of C' = C +V. Please read them carefully before you make any comments.

Edward Wu

Sorry, "Light Speed in Vacuum Is not a Constant" does not contain any proof. I only found various stories about YY things and Euclidian geometry. The stories however are fairy tales but without any entertainment value.

All your geometry argumens are applicable to the propagation of sound waves but not to electromagnetic waves. You completely ignore "spacetime", which embodies the relation between space and time.

Wolfgang Konle

Please don't use those insulting words such as Fortune Cookie Words and Fairy Tales. I thought you are an academic scholar, or there is no need to waste my time for the discussion.

Inertia Transformation versus Non-inertia Transformation

Photon (light) just like electron or any other particle, while emitted from the parent object (source), it travels at two speeds: (1) Ejection Speed which is subject to the ejection force and direction, and (2) Inertia Speed which is subject to the speed and direction of parent object. This is called "Inertia Transformation“.

In contrast, Phonon (sound) is not a particle emitted from the vibrator (sound source). Instead, it is an energy particle that is generated in the medium through the vibration process (energy transformation process) by the vibrator, carrying and transmitting radically in the medium at a nature speed of the medium no matter of the source. This is called "Non-inertia Transformation“.

Einstein’s Spacetime

Einstein’s Spacetime is a property function (potential energy) derived from a nonlinear geometry system (geodesics) and transformed to a Normal Spacetime System on earth. It is the derivative of potential energy to distance reflecting the curvature of the potential energy and the corresponding acceleration, as well as the distribution of matter, energy and momentum of the objects in space.

Just like space (dimension) and time (duration), spacetime (potential energy) in Einstein’s General Relativity is also a property of the object or event with fixed quantity at a location and time (gravitational field and aging of the universe). Also, in compliance with Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory and Principle of Parallelism, it relates to the local gravitational field in the same way as that of the normal unit acceleration of a reference corresponding identical normal object or event. As a result, Einstein's Spacetime is a replica of the normal unit acceleration of a reference corresponding identical normal object or event. It is an image of Wu’s Unit Length of the reference subatomic particle and reflects the local gravitational field and aging of the universe.

Galilean Transformation versus Lorentz Transformation

Galilean Transformation is used to transform between the coordinates of two reference frames which differ only by constant relative motion within the constructs of Newtonian physics. Equation of Light Speed is a special case of Galilean Transformation. Light speed observed at light source (Absolute Light Speed) is always constant, no matter the light sources. In addition, Absolute light speed is dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe.

Lorentz transformations, on the other hand, are a six-parameter family of linear transformations from a coordinate frame in spacetime to another frame that moves at a constant velocity relative to the former. The respective inverse transformation is then parameterized by the negative of this velocity. In appliance with Einstein’s Special Relativity, Lorentz Transformation is also based on the postulation that light speed is constant.

Edward Wu

• "Photon (light) just like electron or any other particle, while emitted from the parent object (source), it travels at two speeds: (1) Ejection Speed which is subject to the ejection force and direction, and (2) Inertia Speed which is subject to the speed and direction of parent object. This is called "Inertia Transformation“."

This is wildly different to the accepted understanding of a photon: massless, not subject to force (other than the gravitational warping of its spacetime path), and with a single, fixed velocity of c, irrespective of the source's velocity.

Ray Butler

Wave Particle Duality

Based on Yangton and Yington Theory, it is believed that only spinning polarized particles such as photon and electron can have both wave and particle properties known as “Wave Particle Duality”. In contrast, graviton is a spinning non-polarized particle, it doesn’t have wave property.

Photon - A Free Wu’s Pair

According to Yangton and Yington Theory, photon is a free Wu’s Pair (building blocks of the universe, a pair of superfine circulating Yangton and Yington Antimatter particles with inter-attractive Force of Creation), traveling in the normal direction of the Yangton and Yington circulation orbit in space at light speed. Therefore the mass of a photon is the same as that of a Wu’s Pair (myy).

Since the circulation orbit is extremely small, any force induced by the Yangton (positive electric unit charge) can be neutralized by its counter force induced by the Yington (negative electric unit charge), therefore photon doesn’t respond to the electromagnetic field at all. While under gravitational field, photon can only be affected by heavy bombardment of gravitons at massive gravitational field, therefore photon has zero gravity on the surface of earth, but can be deflected by extremely large gravitational fields such as sun and massive stars.

Edward Wu "Photon (light) just like electron or any other particle, while emitted from the parent object (source), it travels at two speeds: (1) Ejection Speed which is subject to the ejection force and direction, and (2) Inertia Speed which is subject to the speed and direction of parent object. This is called "Inertia Transformation“."

Sorry, but there are not two speeds. A photon cannot be ejected like a bullet. Such an imagination is blatantly wrong. The only thing what happens if a light source is moving, is that a Doppler shift occurs.

Wolfgang Konle

You are exactly right. Doppler Effect is a proof of Equation of Light Speed.

In Equation of Light Speed C' = C + V (all vectors), where V is the speed of light source observed at reference point, which is the main factor causing Doppler Shift, including Acceleration Doppler Shift (a > 0), Axial Doppler Shift (V = constant) and Transverse Doppler Shift (moves in the transverse direction).

Edward Wu "Doppler Effect is a proof of Equation of Light Speed."

No, the Doppler Effect proofs relativity theory with a constant speed of light.

If you consider the energetic performance of the emission from a moving sender, you see that you will have the equality between sent and received power only by assuming a constant speed of light.

If you would add up both effects of an approaching sender, an increased speed and the increased energy by the Doppler effect, the received power would be larger than the sent power.

Wolfgang Konle

Sorry, your explanation of constant speed of light based on power equality doesn't make any sense to me. With all respects, I would like to stop this discussion because I don't think it will go anywhere.

Edward Wu "Sorry, your explanation of constant speed of light based on power equality doesn't make any sense to me."

If an emitter moves towards a receiver and the receiver absorbs the complete emission, the received power is the emitted power increased by the factor (c+v)/c. This power enhancement is just achieved by the Doppler shift.

Courtney Seligman

Equation of Light Speed

When a photon emitted from a light source, due to the Vision of Light and Photon Inertia Transformation, it undergoes two separate motions: ejection motion which gives Absolute Light Speed and inertia motion which provides Inertia Light Speed.

Light speed C' (Normal Light Speed) observed at a reference point is the vector summation of Absolute Light Speed C observed at light source (3 x 108 m/s dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe) and the speed of light source V observed at the reference point (Inertia Light Speed). This is known as “Equation of Light Speed”.

C’ = C + V

Equation of Light Speed holds at the time of photon emission, no matter the reference points. It also works for a constant speed light source at anytime referenced at light origin or its inertia system.

Equation of Light Speed is the “Law of Light” which shows directly “Light Speed Is Not Constant”. In addition, it can be used to explain many physical phenomena such as Cosmological Redshift, Gravitational Redshift, Deflection of Light and Gravitational Lensing which are caused by the variations of Absolute Light Speed and Wavelength, also Axial Redshift, Transverse Redshift, Acceleration Redshift and Event Horizon, which are due to the changes of Inertia Light Speed and direction. In fact those phenomena can also be considered as the nature proofs of Equation of Light Speed and that light speed is not constant.

Absolute Light Speed

Under both thermal and subatomic equilibriums, photon is a corresponding identical object and light speed is a corresponding identical event. According to Wu's Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, Principle of Parallelism and Wu’s Spacetime Equation (tyy= γlyy3/2), the wavelength of the Absolute Light (λ ∞ lyy) is bigger and Absolute Light Speed (C ∞ lyy-1/2) is smaller at large gravitational field and early stage of the universe, such that Gravitational Redshift and Cosmological Redshift can be observed.

The Absolute Light Speed C observed at light source is dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. It is constant at a fixed local gravitational field and aging of the universe, such as 3x108 m/s on earth (m/s is dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe), no matter the light sources. In fact, Absolute Light Speed is dependent on Wu’s Unit Length which can be influenced by graviton bombardments such as static graviton flux (gravitational field) and dynamic graviton flux (Aether Wind). Although bombardment can be generated by other particles such as plasma, it is mainly dominated by gravitational field and aging of the universe which exist almost everywhere in the universe.

In addition, when photon passes by a massive star, because of the large gravitational field of the star, Absolute Light Speed decreases such that Deflection of Light can be observed. This is different from reflection, in which photon travels in a medium, Absolute Light Speed slows down due to the interference of Wu's Pairs (Mass) with the medium (the density of the medium), while maintaining the same frequency and coherency.

Inertia Light Speed

Because of the variations of Inertia Light Speed V, the speed of light source, Doppler Effects such as Axial Doppler Shift, Transverse Doppler Shift and Acceleration Doppler Shift can be observed, also Event Horizon can be interpreted.

The wavelength, light speed and frequency of Axial Doppler Shift, Transverse Doppler Shift and Acceleration Doppler Shift can be calculated with a result as follows.

1. Axial Doppler Shift:

Blueshift

In case the light source (star) moves toward the observer (reference point) at a constant speed (a = 0), λ1 = λ, C1> C, ν1 > ν.

Redshift

In case the light source (star) moves away from earth (reference point) at a constant speed (a = 0), λ1 = λ, C1< C, ν1 < ν.

2. Acceleration Doppler Shift

Blueshift

In case the light source (star) moves toward the observer (reference point) at a constant acceleration speed (a >0), λ1< λ, C1> C, ν1 > ν.

Redshift

In case the light source (star) moves away from earth (reference point) at a constant acceleration speed (a > o), λ1 > λ, C1< C, ν1 < ν.

3. Transverse Doppler Shift

Beginning Position, λ1 > λ, C1> C.

Center Position, λ1 = λ, C1= C.

Ending Position, λ1 < λ, C1< C.

As a result, light speed does change with Absolute Light Speed and Inertia Light Speed.

Edward Wu "As a result, light speed does change with Absolute Light Speed and Inertia Light Speed."

No, there is no "absolute" and "inertia" light speed. A comparison between light - and sound emission clarifies this:

Both emissions show a Doppler shift. If c is the propagation velocity of an emission from approaching source the frequency shift is given by f'=f(c+v)/c. The power P' received from the approaching source is the emission Power P shifted by the same factor: P'=P(c+v)/c. This holds for all kinds of wave emissions. But there is a difference. The energy of electromagnetic waves is given by E=hf. Therefor the Doppler shift of electromagnetic waves already embodies the power shift. Both effects, Doppler shift and power shift therefor would lead to an imbalace between sent and received power. In terms of the power shift of electromagnetic radiation, relativistic velocity addition c+v=c saves the power balance.

Sound waves do not get an energy increase with a frequency increase. In their case power balance is achieved with the power shift.

Wolfgang Konle

As a comparison, in case of the blue shift caused by light source (star) moving toward the observer (reference point) at a constant speed (a = 0), the differences of Wu's Theory and Konle Theory can be shown as follows:

Wu's Theory: λ1 = λ, C1> C, ν1 > ν. (actually C1= (1+V/C)C, ν1 = (1+V/C)ν)

Konle Theory: λ1 < λ, C1= C, ν1 > ν. (actually λ1 = (1-V/C)λ, ν1 = (1+V/C)ν)

The only way to prove which theory is correct is by measuring the travelling time of light for the same distance t1 = D/C1. If Wu's Theory is correct, then C1 is bigger and t1 should be smaller. Otherwise Konle Theory is correct. (I believe this can be proved by satellite communication. I wonder if anybody there has a certified data to prove it.)

Furthermore, in case of acceleration (a > 0), I wonder how you explain blue shift by your energy theory?

Edward Wu "...in case of the blue shift caused by light source (star) moving toward the observer (reference point) at a constant speed "

Your definitions have some weak points. Blue shift already implies λ1 < λ.

Then we have to compare:

Wu's Theory: λ1 = λ, C1> C, C1= (1+v/C)C=C+v

Standard Theory: λ1 < λ, C1= C, λ1=λC/(C+v)

The Doppler shift proves the Standard Theory.

Wolfgang Konle

Blue shift is caused by v1 > v, not by λ1 < λ. Visible lights to human's eyes are dependent on frequency not the wavelength. It is a big mistake for most scientists.

Wolfgang Konle

Furthermore, in your energy model, can you explain how you get f'=f(c+v)/c? Also, what about f' at acceleration v = v0 + a?

Edward Wu "Blue shift is caused by v1 > v, not by λ1 < λ. Visible lights to human's eyes are dependent on frequency not the wavelength. It is a big mistake for most scientists."

Blue shift is caused by v and it is f1>f or λ1 < λ. Do not forget c= λf. The big mistake is on your side.

"can you explain how you get f'=f(c+v)/c"

f'=f(c+v)/c is the Doppler shift formula for any emission of waves with propagation velocity c, frequency f, from an emitter moving towards the receiver with velocity v. f' is the received frequency.

Acceleration does not occur in that formula and has nothing to do with Doppler shift.

Wolfgang Konle

Equation of Light Speed C' = C + V is one of the laws in physics.

1. C is Absolute Light Speed 3x108 m/s, the light speed observed at light source which can be changed by the local gravity and aging of the universe of light source (both m and s are dependent on gravity and aging of the universe). C can also change with media, for example C is slower in air and water than that in vacuum. C is not constant.

2. C' is the light speed observed at the reference point, which can change with both C (Absolute Light Speed) and V (Inertia Light Speed, the speed of light source observed at the reference point). Because of various V, Doppler Shift including Axial, Transverse and Acceleration Doppler Shifts can be observed. (Acceleration Shift does exist simply because Cosmological Redshift can be observed with universe expansion under acceleration).

3. Einstein's Relativity is fundamentally wrong because of the following reasons:

Space and Time are nature quantities. They don’t change with anything at all. However, the Dimension of a corresponding identical object and Duration of a corresponding identical event are associated quantities of the object and event. They can change with local gravitational field because of the expansion of Wu’s Pairs caused by bombardment of the gravitons based on Graviton Radiation and Contact Interaction Theory complying with Gravity Affected Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory, as well as aging of the universe due to the attraction caused by Force of Creation in Wu’s Pairs complying with Aging Affected Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory and CMB radiation.

Einstein believed that Spacetime (potential energy), instead of a function of local gravitational field and aging of the universe, was born naturally and its curvature (acceleration) can drive the distribution of matter and energy. Einstein derived his theories including Special Relativity, General Relativity, Spacetime, Field Equations and Mass and Energy Conservation, all based on two wrong assumptions: (a) Light speed is always constant no matter the light sources and observers (reference points), and (b) Acceleration is the principle factor of general relativity and Spacetime.

In contrast, according to Yangton and Yington Theory, it is believed that (a) Light speed is not constant, instead, it is the vector summation of Absolute Light Speed C and Inertia Light Speed, and (b) Acceleration is not a principle factor, instead, gravitational field and aging of the universe are the principle factors of Wu’s Spacetime. In other words, the Dimension and Duration of an object or event are a function of Wu’s Unit Time (tyy) and Wu’s Unit Length (lyy) of a reference corresponding identical subatomic particle depending on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe no matter of the acceleration (except that acceleration is solely due to gravitational field where only Einstein is right).

Velocity is relative. In Twin Paradox, the observation of speed by one twin brother is totally identical to that of the other twin brother except in opposite directions. In addition, acceleration is also relative. Just like velocity to Special Relativity, acceleration can also be reversed in General Relativity. For example, a spaceship in a massive star is bigger and moves slower when observed on earth (compare to the same spaceship located and observed on earth). This observation agrees to both Einstein's General Relativity and Wu's Yangton and Yington Theory. However, when the observation is reversed, Einstein from the massive star will also see a bigger and slower spaceship on earth, but Wu will see a smaller and faster spaceship on earth due to earth less gravity. It is obvious there is a self conflict in Einstein’s general relativity. In fact, both dimension and duration of an object or event change only with gravitational field (also aging of the universe) instead of acceleration (except gravitational acceleration).

Edward Wu "Equation of Light Speed C' = C + V is one of the laws in physics."

Sorry again. c+v=c is the correct equation for the speed of light c.

hf' is the energy of a Doppler shifted photon. The power equation p'=p(c+v)/c is fulfilled with c'=c and f'=f(c+v)/c. The energy in each photon of the incoming light is already multiplied with this power enhancement factor. To achieve power balance, the velocity of the incoming photons must be the same as the velocity of the outgoing photons.

The Doppler shift and the energy dependency of photons on the frequency proofs you wrong.

Your lengthy descriptions are only an eyewash.

Wolfgang Konle

Fine, let's stop this discussion. It goes no where.

Edward Wu

Our discussion finally reached its destination, confirmation of relativity theory. Thank you.

Wolfgang Konle

No, I don't agree with you at all. You are just an impossible person. Stop bully.

"c+v=c is the correct equation for the speed of light c." What kind of nonsense is this?

"hf' is the energy of a Doppler shifted photon", you mean that photon loses its energy through redshift and gains energy through blueshift. That is definitely wrong.

In addition, redshift and blushift have nothing to do with receiver. Your energy balance theory between emitter and receiver is totally a nonsense.

Edward Wu "No, I don't agree with you at all. You are just an impossible person."

Stop your impertinence. Without factual arguments you are becoming personal. That is paltry and inacceptable.

The power balance between an approaching emitter and a stationary receiver proofs the constant speed of light. It is fact, that Doppler shifted photons contain more energy. If additionally the approaching speed of light would be increased, a larger number of photons per time would reach the receiver. Combined, the two effects would cause an imbalance between received and emitted power. Power balance therefor requires a constant speed of light. The boosted photons appear at the receiver with the original speed of light.

This is an entirely factual argument. Edward, if you think something is wrong with this argument you can tell it. But you must not consider this argument as a personal attack.

Wolfgang Konle

You started the insulting first. I have politely said that with all respects, let's stop this discussion. Then you said "Our discussion finally reached its destination, confirmation of relativity theory". Did I ever agree with you and reach confirmation of Relativity Theory? That is a lie, a misleading and a bully. Shame on you.

Edward Wu Did I ever agree with you and reach confirmation of Relativity Theory?

Did I claim that we reached confirmation? No I claimed that our discussion reached its destination. You have not been able to disarm my statements about a constant speed of light. Therefor our factual discussion is terminated and the constant speed of light, as validated with my statements, is confirmed.

It is not necessary that you formally agree. Having no factual objections is sufficient. If in addition you express your frustration, this is not acceptable in a fair discussion.

The only way to pretend on your point of view is to disarm my factual statements against it. If you cannot, then your theory is falsified.

So objects (planets) revolving around a star are not, according to the standard ΛCDM model, subject to cosmic expansion, as they are gravitationally bound.

Objects (stars) gravitating around the nucleus of a galaxy (stars) are not subject to cosmic expansion as they are gravitationally bound.

Objects (galaxies) rotating around the nucleus of a cluster are not subject to cosmic expansion as they are gravitationally bound. In fact, if the redshift of any galaxy belonging to a given cluster is measured, the same redshift is always found.

According to the ΛCDM standard model the only objects subject to cosmic expansion are clusters.

But what prevents us from thinking that clusters also revolve around the nucleus of a supercluster?

For example, our Galaxy rotates around the nucleus of our Local Cluster (or Local Group), which rotates around the nucleus of a super-cluster called Laniakea extended for 160 Mpc.

If this is true then all clusters of the Laniakea supercluster should not be subject to cosmic expansion since they are gravitationally bound.

Then the redshifts that are measured for the Laniakea clusters are not due to cosmic expansion, but some other cause.

What is wrong with this reasoning?

Dear Giuseppe Pipino

In the past the expansion of space was "linked" to Einstein's theory of General relativity and the big-bang hypothese. But since 25 years the concept has changed. Now the idea is that large scale structures like galaxies are pushed away from each other. Thus the old idea that space itself expands, is outdated. There is some kind of a force (energy) that pushes the large scale structures away from each other, creating more "void".

Now think about the Bose -Einstein Condensate (see Wikipedia). If we extract electromagnetic amplitudes from a closed vessel "filled" with a small cloud of atoms, the atoms will transform into one "phenomenon" of groundstate electromagnetic amplitudes (see image).

But if there is a small supply of electromagnetic radiation the atoms slowly retrieve their "normal" individual properties. The conclusion is that the local density of electromagnetic amplitudes determine the properties of physical phenomena like electromagnetic waves and not the (direction of the) motion of large scale structures.

Thus in my opinion you are right: the non-Doppler red shift from the light of distant galaxies is not caused by their mutual "drift apart".

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,

Thank you for the answer. However I find it hard to understand it.

My question is: If the expansion of space (in the sense of the GR) should NOT be placed at the origin of the cosmological redshift but, as I understand from your answer, the mutual separation of the galaxies is caused by some form of energy, what is - from your point of view - the origin and nature of this energy?

In your answer you refer to a Bose-Einstein condensate in which a macroscopic set of atoms (bosons) brought to a very low temperature behaves like a wave.

But I don't see how to relate outer space to a Bose-Einstein condensate. First of all, VERY LOW temperatures (of the order of thousandths or millionths of a degree Kelvin) are required to have this condensate. While the temperature of outer space is 2.725 °K, coinciding with the temperature of the CMBR. Therefore, in cosmic space there cannot exist a Bose Einstein condensate that expands like a wave and drags the galaxies along in its expansion.

Then, assuming that such a condensate could exist, it should lead to the mutual separation of all the galaxies belonging to the same cluster.

While it occurs that the galaxies of the same cluster all have the same redshift (except for very small differences that can be explained by the difference in age and mass).

This means that the galaxies of the same cluster DO NOT move away from each other, as it should happen if space were a Bose-Einstein condensate that behaves like a spherical wave.

My guess is different.

I suppose that outer space is a NEUTRINIC FLUID.

Neutrinos are particles that interact with matter only with the weak force and gravitational force. This last interaction is very weak, but not null, since it has been demonstrated that neutrinos have rest mass.

Once created, a neutrino is virtually INDESTRUCTIBLE. This means that given a galaxy of age T all the neutrinos produced by each star during T, multiplied by the number of stars in the galaxy, are present in the volume of the galaxy (at equilibrium, the neutrinos leaving the galaxy are compensated by those coming from 'external).

This means that each atomic electron which, in the Bohr model moves around the nucleus with speed V=αc (with reference to the hydrogen atom α=1/137) is found to be moving in a FLUID which exerts a force of friction on this electron , having direction opposite to the direction of the electronic speed V.

For frictional forces, F=- k V , k being a constant.

My guess is that k=mH with m=electron mass, H=Hubble constant.

Then F=-m H V=-m H α c

But F=m a=m dV/dt= m α dc/dt; Then mα dc/dt=-m α H c;

(1) dc/dt=-Hc

Integrating the previous one we have that the law that provides c as a function of time is

(2) c(t)= c_M e^-Ht

A variation of c with time results in a temporal variation of the wavelength emitted by the electron during a given quantum leap.

In fact, being c=λ f if we assume f fixed by the constant quantum leap E2-E1, if c decreases in time also λ will have to decrease.

It follows that if we compare the wavelength λ1 of a photon emitted by an atom (belonging to a galaxy one billion light-years away) one billion years ago, with the wavelength λ0 emitted by an atom at the time current, we will find λ1>λ0. This is my explanation of redshift. I look forward to your criticisms and comments.

Regards

Giuseppe

Dear Giuseppe Pipino

The wave length of the light of distant galaxies is a property that represents the transferred energy by an electromagnetic wave. BEC shows that all the dynamics are just manifestations of the electromagnetic field. Because even the decrease of local scalars by the Higgs field (rest mass) is wiped out in/by the condensate. In line with the general concept of QFT.

The consequence is that the origin of the non-Doppler red shift of the light of distant galaxies must be directly related to the change of energy density (amplitudes) in vacuum space during the evolution of the universe. In line with the concentration of “free” energy in the universe because of the creation of dark matter, clouds of (Hydrogen) gas and galaxies (E = m c2). In other words, during the evolution of the universe the energy density in vacuum space has decreased.

Thus BEC shows that your assumption that the non-Doppler red shift of the light of distant galaxies has no relation with the expansion of space is – in my opinion – reasonable.

With kind regards, Sydney

P.S.

I have searched for some papers about the properties of cosmic voids. Because if galaxies/clusters of galaxies are really drifting apart, the size and the number of voids must decrease the further we look into the past.

Alice Pisani (Princeton university) seems to be one of the experts:

Conference Paper Precision cosmology with cosmic voids

Article Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes

Preprint Voids fill us in on rising cosmology tensions

The last 2 papers are quite technical but both introductions give an impression about "what is going on".

Sorry, there is a "better" paper of Alice Pisani about the aim to relate voids to Dark energy (see the PS in my previous post).

Article Counting voids to probe dark energy

With kind regards, Sydney