Victor,

Bravo,  Well said.  If logic has no place in science than I have no need to comment on anything.  There are too many illogical arguments that have a prominent place in our science today to have anyone think that they are right or wrong and truly believe it.  If we cannot move back to a place in science that brings us the truth then we are all in trouble.

Science has made some very big advancements in the last one hundred years.  If Albert Einstein and others had not seen the quanta as a problem that had to be worked on there would not be computers, or cell phones or so much more in the world (maybe this is the problem) but it has also lead us in some trouble sum directions as far as science goes.  If we do not understand the Quanta and its physical implications then we are doomed to fighting over illogical verses logical arguments in science.  This will not bring us any closer to the real problem.

If one of these so called approaches to the answers of today's concerns in science is correct then it would have been proven by now and have no questionable concerns over its truth.  This is however not the case.  All the science that we have come up with works in a limited range of situations and is not the theory of everything as most people think we should have.    

In a logical sense we need to take a step back and look at all the discoveries that have been made.  Then stop looking at the order of the discoveries and start looking at what happens when we do not care about the order of discovery but what the preponderance of all of it means.  This would have to be with the ability to say to yourself and other scientist in the world, "forget what you thought you knew and look at it with fresh eyes.  This brings to mind a quote from Socrates almost 2500 years ago.

    Socrates said it best, "Learning was first and foremost a process of discovering what it is we wrongly thought we knew, of first exploring ignorance before going on to knowledge. Merely adding bits of wisdom to a mass of foolishness will not make people wiser. It will only increase the danger of their Ignorance."

At this point in science we are dangerous.

Dear Mohamed!

Can you give a link to your article “From E = mc2 to E = mc2/22—A Short Account of the Most Famous Equation in Physics and Its Hidden Quantum Entanglement Origin“

In static model, for example, explained:

1.0. The Universe is infinite in the space and perpetual in the time. Space is flat, not bent, and not expanding.

1.1. CMBR - a power of flow of energy from all raying objects of the Universe, the power depends on their redshift z under law E0/[(1+z) ln2(1+z)], where E0 - a mean power of radiation of a unit of the close volume.

1.2. Pulsars - their period does not depend on distance to them, but in them retardation of signals with smaller frequency is observed, in comparison with signals with larger frequency, owing to a dispersion of a velocity of light in intergalactic and Galactic medium.

1.3. Quasars - their period does not depend on distance to them. Their big redshifts are a consequence of thick and dense clouds of plasma.

1.4. A dark energy - a state of space vacuum with the accumulated energy from the photons which have flown by through it.

1.5. Dark matter - a state of dark energy with the particles of a protomatter which have born in it but the particles yet do not possess a property of radiation.

1.6. The Large-scale structure of the Universe is a matter that was born everywhere and always; this matter is spanning in galaxies under the influence of gravitation.

1.7. The atomic contents of the Universe, distribution of light elements - the lightest stable atoms are born most of all.

1.8. Supernovae SNe Ia are standard candles of the Universe - their curve of radiance is stretched because of different velocity of different frequencies of light in intergalactic medium. The power of flow of energy from SNe Ia depends on a redshift z under law E0/[(1+z)2ln2(1+z)], where E0 - capacity of radiation of nearby SNe Ia in the given gamut. Thus should be observed (and they are observed by Perlmutter group and by Goldhaber group) a dependence on z of values of maximums of radiation in different gamuts and the relative biases on time of receipt of these maximums, intermixing on time of receipt of spectrums of energy in dependence on z. In GR such intermixing of spectrums cannot be, as the tension in a time of an accepted frequency spectrum should be observed only.

To answer the original question: The universe does not look very static, and the standard model of cosmology explains a lot.  

A different question would be if it is expanding or not. This depends on the interpretation.  A minimal interpretation would remain silent about this.  One could interpret the redshift as an expansion of the universe, but also as a shrinking of our rulers.  

A universe with shrinking rulers would not be expanding - it would only look like expanding, as measured by the rulers.  But it would also not be static - it would be changing. 

The model is called "Static" to emphasize the lack of expansion and curvature of space, but not the behaviour of a substance in it! And the rulers here are not compressed over time.

Naturally, in such a model the state of the objects do not describing by the basic field equation of Einstein. The theory of relativity in general is absent here, although there were (and are) those who would like to have a "Static" model of the Universe in the framework of the theory of relativity, for example, Einstein or Logunov.

But the evolution in this space there is: galaxies are born, die (but very rarely), basically we can record "rotation" of their, star formation, jets, etc.

Stars in galaxies are also evolving: they born, die, they have changed and moved with the galaxy and within this galaxy.

A static universe, including us, would display no evolution neither on the large scale nor on the small and microscopic scales. Hence no life forms to make the statement that the universe is static. Answer: Emphatically NO!

Since time "expands" and since R = c.t, space cannot be static, although the relation between time and space is assumed to be more complicated under the influence of gravity. The only things, that are probably invariable in space and time, are the values of the physical constants. Everything else "evolves".

@Erkki J. Brändas @Michael Alexander Kurz

Thank you. But could you repeat this about the Einstein's model of Static Universe?

Maybe you will understand me better, if I call the Model as "The evolutionary model of the Universe with the non-expanding and non-curved space with the preferred reference frame".

I argued for a static (on very large space and time scales) universe in three papers published in Physics Essays between 2010 and (23 3 (2010)) and 2012 (25, 3 (1012) and 25, 4 (2012)).  There were some errors in those publications, which I am correcting now in preparing a book on 'infinite in time universe' that will be published this coming summer.  Those errors are not really important to the concept of the infinite time cosmology.

The point I have made is that static universe cannot really be argued for within the contemporary understanding of classical physics at the fundamental level.  Yet, it comes out simple and logical and, I believe, in full agreement with all astronomic observations, if the fundamentals of physics are clearly defined.  This comes at a price.  First, a distinction need be made between the mathematical character of Minkowski's space-time and physical reality.  Second, either infinite time or spatially infinite universe has to be assumed.

Alexander, I find your questions and some views truly stimulating and valuable.  Nonetheless, I would like to see your static model discussed with no reference to space-time (either flat or curved), dark matter, dark energy, etc., all of which are unconfirmed concepts incorporated in the standard model.  In other words, your static model incorporating those components presents, to me, no more technical value than the standard model.  I do not mean to sound patronizing, but you need to realize that you are not under any obligation to discuss/mention, e.g., dark matter or energy while, of course, you have to address the astronomical observations that are incorporated in the standard model such as CMBR or cosmological redshifts.

Note that "The evolutionary model of the universe" cannot be infinite in time as any evolution must have a beginning.  Note also that your question "Is universe static?" cannot be addressed by any of the 'mainstream' cosmologists and physicists.  They have no interest in pondering the question of space-time being a physical reality vs. a mathematical model.  Given the wide acceptance of the (unproven) interpretation of cosmological redshifts as a Doppler effect, the mainstream scientists have no other chance but to answer your question negatively.  No matter what, their arguments will always be parts of general relativity.

Dear Alexander,

Let me just say that the Einstein equations (without a cosmological constant) will not appear static. To be more specific I could send you my papers on "Arrows of time" and the relativistic Kepler problem, that yields results in agreement with observations as well as manifest uniquely a Schwarzschild like singularity corresponding to a black-hole like entity.

Best

erkki

Hello Alexander,

Erkki Brandas came close to giving the perfect answer: "A static universe, including us, would display no evolution neither on the large scale nor on the small and microscopic scales. Hence no life forms to make the statement that the universe is static. Answer: Emphatically NO!" .... Indeed, all of the observational evidence indicates that the universe is dynamic and likely infinite. In other words, it is neither static nor expanding, but infinite and dynamic. Specifically, an infinite universe cannot expand. The cosmological redshift observed in our portion of the universe cannot be extended and applied to the universe as a whole -- just as the motions in one star cannot be applied to every star.  For example, some stars explode (supernova and gamma ray bursts) while other stars implode (white dwarfs, newborn stars, etc)

Dear Stephen, Erkki, Michael.

Your understanding of the term "Static universe" does not apply or to reality or to the previously defined models. Einstein, Hubble or Zwicky did not assume about the lack of evolution in their models named "Static universe". There was no lack of motion, not the lack of development of life forms.

Please see the definition of "Static universe" at http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1437767  or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe  .

I decided to name my model as had done by these scientists because I believe that I managed to overcome difficulties in explaining those cosmological phenomena, because of which their models were rejected. Of course, I do not know the exact mechanism of "tired light, but supporters of GR do not know, for example, the expansion mechanism of space-time, because this mechanism is not discovered and is not verified.

And the observations that they take as evidence of the expansion can be explained quite differently, without any expansion. Thus, these effects are not evidence (proof) in favour of the expansion of the Universe.

Let's be careful about conclusions. No observations permit us to state that the Universe is infinite, this is theoretical model-building or philosophy. It is then meaningless to state that "an infinite universe cannot expand".

Dear Erkki.

Thanks for the clarification.

I know what you mean. Let me just say that Einstein's equations do not apply to the entire Universe. They are derived for an infinitesimal region of space-time. There they can be applying, but on any final volume we cannot to integrate them without amendment. Note that the example with Einstein’s Elevator does not work if the Elevator has a finite size, but not infinitely small size. There is fact that the Lorentz transformations cannot be applied to a curved movement. See my article in the initial item.)

And the greater the volume, the greater must be the amendment. Well, for the infinite volume of the amendment would be infinite.

And there are no black holes in the Universe, there is only suspicion on them, but all such observations can be explained without black holes, but the action is pretty large mass, and distortion of images near them in the media with optical density.

@Matts, I think that theoretically it can be stated that "an infinite universe cannot expand", but probably not in the framework of GR..

@ Maciej, thank you for the positive words and for the comments. You can use my ideas (if they are your favourite) in your works.

But let me tell you that unfortunately you are a bit not right in saying that in 'mainstream' the redshift is interpreted as a Doppler effect. Actually, in GR the cosmological redshift is the effect of time dilation on 100%, so for the change in frequency due to a moving source in space (its speed), that is, due to the Doppler effect, remain only 0% !

@ Maciej & all.

Of course, the static model is impossible in the framework of GR. This I realized when derived a formula for the distance R and redshift z : R=R0*ln(1+z) and tested it on data from which Perlmutter obtained "an accelerated expansion of the Universe". It turned out the data on Supernovae that he used, are fit this formula. Moreover, Perlmutter in the same article described the effect of mixing of supernova spectra from different eras radiation, such mixing does not correspond to GR, because there should be only stretching spectra over time, but not mixing. So I immediately offered to abandon the theory of relativity and came up with the theory of Absolute space with the preferred reference frame. Comparing it with the SRT showed effects in which obtained equivalence of the theories, and effects in which will be the difference. There were also effects (deWitte, Marinov, Cahill) that do not meet the theory of relativity, but a good fit in my theory. Accordingly, I was able to show why on a rotating circle in the theory of relativity it is impossible to build a reference frame, that is, we cannot apply GR to describe processes in which there is a curved motion path of the observer. In particular, therefore, in the GPS turned out to be a huge positioning error when they tried to make an Autonomous synchronization of the clocks on the satellites in the framework of the theory of relativity.

It turned out that the same theory invented not only by me. The best specialist in the world on this theory is Nickolai Vladimirovich KUPRYAEV - Leading engineer of TK "PHOTON" of the PIAS Samara Branch, Russia. http://bourabai.kz/kupriaev/index.html

I completely agree with you about the term "space-time (either flat or curved)". I don't use it in his theory if only when compared to the RT. In my theory, the time does not depend on space. I use the term "dark energy", which in my theory means such the space in which the vacuum oversaturated with energy. But the term "dark matter" not only applies to GR, as shortage of bright matter in movement of galaxies is appeared even by the formulas of Newton. However, I do not think that in a static Universe can't be evolution. Evolution there is if from the vacuum energy it may be produced some matter particles. But they are born as it has been demonstrated by Dirac!!! In my theory, all these terms have a simple relationships:

- The matter can be destroyed, radiating light and neutrinos.

- Light loses energy by giving it to the vacuum, neutrinos must also give its energy to the vacuum.

- Vacuum saturated with energy is called dark energy.

- In these areas the substance is born, but not immediately, but through the intermediate stage called a "dark matter", for the same reason as in GR, it is a proto-matter and it already has a mass, but not yet have the property of electro-magnetic radiation (perhaps there are no yet electrons and protons).

- From dark matter is born the "bright" substance .

It is the cycle of matter and energy in nature (as supposed by me).

Thus, the evolutionary cycle of matter in the Universe goes on forever, and for such cycles is no need for the mythical Beginning!

I give a chance for modern cosmologists and physicists of 'mainstream' on a theoretical possibility to build another 'mainstream' because I don't completely oppose this theory. I show in which cases these theories give approximately the same result, and where to find the difference, and how much this difference may be. In addition I show them the theoretical error of GR (the inability to synchronize the clocks on rotating circle in the framework of the theory of relativity).

But since in the Universe any trajectory of the object that is involved in interactions with a massive bodies or environment, are curved or refracted, a correct description of these processes in GR impossible. Therefore the entire universe is not the scope of GR.

And I give examples of experiments, the results of which do not correspond to SRT or GR but correspond to the theory of the static Model.

I may add that academician Demyanov (in the Michelson Morley experiment in a working medium, not in vacuum) clearly showed the presence of shifts of interference fringes, is strictly depending on the direction set in the star frame of reference. That fact also does not fit the theory of relativity.

So if a scientist is thinking, he will want to compare these two models. And after testing by the appropriate experiments, he will come to the conclusion of what of the theories it is better to deal with.

Alexander,

A static universe is impossible for several reasons.

1. There are currently no known mechanisms that would allow “tired light” to be accompanied by the observed time dilation at high-z. I also do not agree with the additions of dark matter or dark energy, as they lack experimental proof similar to "tired light" mechanisms. There's really no need for either when you can construct acceptable models from gravitational redshift, Doppler effect and perhaps gravitational lensing.

2. A static universe would imply that objects within such universe have always existed, which would violate the laws of thermodynamics relative to current observations (infinite versus finite age).

3. Such models have extreme difficulty in even predicting a consistent cosmic background radiation, let alone fitting the details of it (B-modes, E-modes, hemispherical power asymmetry and SZ-effect).

Yet I do fully support a steady state sink-source universe that alleviates these problems (and outperforms LCDM/big bang). See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AstRv...9c...4P

Alexander,

I have red your posting with a lot of sympathy. I agree with you that cosmologists have a lot to account for and complexities and difficult puzzles to tamper with.

However, I believe that our universe is an open dissipative system (open in the sense of a black hole). Dissipative dynamics permit gravitational interactions and energy loss without the demand for gravitational waves. Schwarzschild's metric explains many things, like time delay, red shift, light deviation in a gravitational field and of course the GPS that we all enjoy.

There is of course no proofs here regarding the "truth" but it is nevertheless satisfying that so many observations fit the simple Einsteinian idea of a (strong!) "equivalence principle"!

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your remarks!

1_1. But there is no observed facts of time dilation at high-z. This is the only interpretation of increasing observation time of a light's curve of a distant SNe Ia. But this interpretation contradicts to the lack of dependence on z of the "periods" of quasars. An enlarged observed time of the SNe Ia light's curve is not due to the dilation of time (because the extension is not able to explain the effect of mixing spectra of frequencies emitted by the source at different epochs, but coming to us at the same time), but due to the dispersion of the velocity of light in the intergalactic medium (and in the galactic environment, where a similar effect is explained for the pulsars). See Herman Holushko “Distant Type Ia Supernovae Light Curves and Tired Light”

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rnn1g5gt035hpf5/TypeIaResearchPaper.zip

1_2. In cosmology we cannot hold experiments, as we have no lab of required size. We have no devices in other galaxies, so that we could not take readings from these devices and to transfer them to the Ground. We do not have enough precision instruments to search for dependencies predicted theoretically, and so on.

However, we know that dark matter must exist to explain the speed of galaxies and the velocity of stars within the galaxy. We also know about that the vacuum energy may be different, and this excess energy above the average level I call "dark energy", so the "dark energy" has experimental confirmation.

Once again, that STATIC in this model is the space, not matter!

2_1. You are right that in a Static Universe it assumes that the objects in this Universe have always existed, but you are not right, that the same object must always exist. I especially in the previous answers said that objects can "born" and "die".

2_2. The laws of thermodynamics in the Universe do not apply, since gravity is the "Maxwell demon", which cancels these laws (counteracting to the increase in entropy). The laws of thermodynamics apply only there where the forces of chaotic motion is much stronger than the gravitational interaction. In far space it is on the contrary, the gravitational interaction is much stronger!

3_1. It is the static model of the universe - here is the easiest way to explain the CMBR. It is simply the sum of all radiation received in the microwave range from distant sources with regard to their red shift.

3._2. Accounting of “cellular” structure of the Universe and the motion of the Earth in the environment may explain other effects (B-mode, E-mode, hemispherical asymmetry energy and SZ effect).

4. We can all have opinions about pleasant models. For example, I know two people who fond of a model Ritz's BTR.

Each model, which states that it is possible to explain all the effects, has a right to exist, including the model steady state sink-source universe. But only until when or an incompatible effect, or internal contradiction, or restriction will be found.

Since we can't "touch" distant objects, the competition between theories can only go on the breadth of applications and the number of explained effects.

no

Of course, it's a nice when a theory works everywhere.

But GPS developers refused to use the Einstein's theory because the calculation in the framework of it "brought" an extra half a mile positioning errors for each turnover of the satellite. R. Hatch wrote in his work that for military purposes, they were forced to use "another theory". I explained this fact that once synchronized clock on each satellite must show in the framework of this theory a lesser time on each turnover than they show really, and besides, their pace even on the circular orbit becomes lesser on one half of the orbit than on the other. About this R Hatch did not write, he only talked about the fluctuations of the clock rate of time, but I know why this effect should manifest itself.

But how the Schwarzschild metric explains the presence of shifts of interference fringes in the Muller experiment in 1925 on the interferometer of type Michelson-Morley in the working medium (air)? No. There that is impossible. In the 60s Demyanov repeated these experiments in different mediums on the immobile installation, and he also received the shifts of the fringes. Moreover, the shift of the fringes depended strongly on the direction of installation in the star system of reference and has had the sidereal period.

And a redshift which formed by the gravitational effect, for to be consistent with the observed one, then we should be in the empty Center of the Universe, and the density of matter in the Universe must always increase toward the edges, isn't it?

This model for the cosmological redshift may exist, but I would not call this "the pleasant model"!

Let me to prefer a model:

- in which the clocks on the GPS satellites can be synchronized,

- which explains the sidereal period of the observed shifts of interference fringes,

- which does not require exceptional position of the Earth in the space.

@Mark,

What do you mean "NO"?

Alexander,

1. GRBs have also been used with SNIa, and I know the science of both are solid. However, I can’t say the same about quasars as they are not standard candles (yet). There’s also several possibilities in the cause of this in quasars, but in general you will find more evidence for time dilation than against.

There’s many observations that do not support galaxies being at equilibrium, but instead undergo drastic evolution with redshift. Dark matter is only required under big bang paradigms or the theory wouldn’t work for several reasons. However, with enough observations it is possible to create solid cosmological tests including those with galaxies. I would use a different word than static universe though as it will easily be confused with static objects.

2. Over an infinite amount of prior existence or “born/death” would result in maximum entropy and thus there would be no light or heat at present. The only way to have a universe without beginning (in the current state) is to have a sink-source with closed loop to preserve entropy. Even cyclical big bang/collapse models are flawed because their entropy will constantly increase over time; the only way to avoid this is to have constant entropy for the overall system (i.e. a steady state analogous to a water fountain).

Gravity only allows entropy to be reduced locally (as previously stated) IF the entropy of the entire system remains constant over time, e.g. a steady state sink-source universe. This would furthermore require a central object with properties of superfluidity and conductivity, which would emit a near perfect black body spectrum (that undergoes gravitational redshift to local observers).

3. But that is extremely unlikely to ever be producible in a consistent way or even provable. Stacking the spectra of each object in space to produce a perfect black body spectrum that is perfectly redshifted (from a wide variety of gravitational redshifts)?

4. This is not how modern science works, the big bang theory has more contradictions than solutions but remains the mainstream theory. One can also add an infinite amount of ad hoc parts to a theory to make it work after prior failure. The only solution to this is finding the simplest theory in agreement with all observations.

@ Michael,

1_1. GRB comes to us before the signal SNIa in the visible range, because their frequencies are bigger than of visible frequencies, respectively, their speed is bigger in the intergalactic medium.

1_2. Dark matter is required under not only the big bang paradigm, because an observed (up to half the size of a galaxy) a generally linear increase in the speed of the stars can be only if mass increasing as R^3 (up to half the size of a galaxy), but the visible substance increasing is less than R^2.

1_3. The name "Static" means that in the static space of the Universe exists the evolution of matter.

2_1. In empty space, the main process is a gradual concentration of the substance in any areas. That is, the entropy change almost stops by the gravity.

2_2. The light gradually tired therefore from infinity it doesn't get to us, and there is no "thermal death" in a static Universe..

3. The CMBR has a spectrum of a black body due to a very large but finite number of sources.

4. In this case, the model of a Static Universe has a great prospect, because it has refused only once - as it would due to the stretching of the light curves SNIa.

Michael,

A well-known problem with a static, eternal universe is Olbers' paradox: why is the sky dark at night?

Here's another. Life on Earth is younger than the Sun but a species here has already travelled to the Moon and has aspirations of going further. Is it really likely that an infinitely old galaxy would not be thoroughly colonised? I don't see how a closed loop entropy system would help escape this difficulty.

Alexander,

1. The mass of galaxies is determined under the assumption that they are at equilibrium from Doppler effect. Thus we are not observing such galaxies in motion, but snap shots that are extrapolated with various cosmological models. There are many observations that support a z-orientated collapse so that z-axis momentum is transferred to radial momentum, thus resulting in unstable rotational curves. Dark matter is mainly required in big bang cosmology because it would be impossible to form large-scale structures and high-z galaxies in such short time scales otherwise.

It would also be impossible to have a static metric if the universe were not in a steady state. In addition, tired light theories do not have redshift from motion of objects, i.e. they are instead static with the metric. If you insist on using static then you will have to clarify what you mean every time, because expansion refers to both the relative motion of objects and the metric (while steady state would allow dynamic objects with a static metric).

2. There’s also entropy in terms of metal abundance and fusion potential. A universe that does not have a closed flow (sink-source), with what is essentially a perpetual machine powered by gravity, would not be able to explain the local abundance of hydrogen or finite age of galaxies.

3. Can you prove this via your own calculations or others?

4. There are many problems with infinite aged universes that do not properly consider thermodynamics or the background radiation. Until someone actually makes a valid tired light theory with proper calculations to alleviate these problems, it is no better than the big bang theory beyond being able to fit observables such as the volume element and angular size-redshift relations (simply because observations fit a static metric much better).

Robin,

This is only a paradox in a homogenous universe with infinite size. If the universe instead contains a cosmological-scale gravitational potential with finite amounts of matter, then there will only be a finite amount of radiation.

This is my central objection to such models. Any steady state universe must have a sink-source to explain how local hydrogen and new galaxies are produced. For example, there is an outward flow of hot metal poor gas that moves out of the potential, which further forms into galaxies and clusters. This later accelerates back into the potential, until it reaches the center. There is work into a similar process that would need to occur here, were the process at the center can locally reduce entropy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics#The_Second_Law_2 particularly: total entropy = black hole entropy + outside entropy). I would draw an analogy to the jets produced from supermassive black holes.

Thus at every region of the universe, the entropy will be generally constant; it only varies with respect to the bulk flow through space (sink-source).

In the present scenario our universe is accelerating due to presence of dark energy and dark matter. And thus we can say that the universe is non-static. 

Dear Alexander,

please, say, what is Universe for You, and then You will receive the answer on your question.

Regards,

Eugene.

I mean, it is what You see, or what exist?

@Robin

1.It is well known that the Olbers' paradox is not a problem in a static, eternal Universe: it is enough to consider the aging of the light. So all power of the light energy coming to the Land is finite, in particular in the visible range.

2. Besides the creation of DNA in vivo requires a thousand times more years than Earth exists!

But who proved that the Earth life was not introduced from the outside? And that the aliens have not visited us regularly?!  ;)

@Priyanka

We cannot say that the universe is not static. It is only a consequence of Einstein's theory as applied to the Universe. But just in a such applying to the space of the Universe, we must refuse this theory because of its property of relative simultaneity. That property leads to the impossibility of constructing a frame of reference of the rotating objects. In the framework of GR even on the surface of the Earth we cannot synchronize the clocks. Not to mention the entire Universe! GR is a theory for local region, not for global space! Accordingly, the expansion of space remains unsubstantiated.

Tests show that cosmological data much better fit to the flat static space than to the curved expanding space. Therefore, without Einstein's equations the model of extension in general has no arguments in its favor.

Dear Eugene,

Thanks for the good question!

Of course, for me the universe is something that exists. But for us it is not available, except for light and cosmic particles, I call it "traces". And there is a problem - how to find out what and how exists in the Universe. But information is not enough. Therefore, we need to build models and hypotheses, and test them for compliance with the traces by means of different tests.

That's I'm doing.

I built a hypothesis of "tired light" and tested it with Perlmutter' data. I received an excellent fit, which allowed me to build the hypothesis of a static space with the evolving matter. But it demanded to abandon the theory of relativity. And then I built the theory of the Absolute. All three hypotheses are beautifully merged together.

The model is simple:

The eternal and infinite Universe has a flat non-expanding space. The space is filled with all kinds of matter, between which there are any processes under some unknown physical laws. We are moving in this space and are observing the moving near us objects. Part of objects moves along or around us, that allows us to call them as an our "local world", make observations and classify processes. For a description of the processes in the Universe we can build a reference system associated with its space. Let's call it an Absolute reference frame (AFR). For a description of the processes in our world we need to introduce a frame of reference(FR) associated with our world, and it should be understood that these processes occur in the Absolute space and should be described in AFR. Naturally, our reference frame.(FR) should not be internally contradictory and not be contrary to the AFR, and must describe all the processes occurring in some our vicinity. Our physical laws are projections of physical laws in AFR. Therefore, a property of "relative simultaneity" cannot be here. Similar FR must be built for any object in the Universe (even for a photon, but you can see it on my site http://redshift0.narod.ru/ )

Tired light

One can find 11 detailed studies in arXiv astro-ph in 2000-2014 discussing Zwicky's idea of "tired light". Five of them  unambiguously exclude it (0804.3595), claim strong inconsistency (0709.0520), have evidence against it (050441), rule it out (0106566) or argue strongly against it (0104382). All are published.

Of the other studies,generally written by one or a few autors, one claims it is feasible, one makes no statement, and 4 test positively. No one of these 6 are published

But mankind throughout its history is continuously committed to make successful attempts to find the absolute frame of reference, and each time, after we find it, it turns out that everything is relative from Yet Another Absolute Reference Frame. On this occasion, already collected so much statistical information, it's time to create the statistics of these statistics.

Dear Alexander, the fact that the observable part of the universe evolves, in your case would pose a problem if we consider the time scale from minus infinity to plus.

Priyanka,

There are several reasons why the big bang theory does not match observations.

1. Local galaxy counts are consistent with a static metric with minimal evolution. Thus a massive local hole has been proposed that Earth is supposedly perfectly centered on for LCDM. However, such large-scale power is inconsistent with LCDM to the 5 sigma level (so proposing a local hole to solve this problem doesn’t work).

2. Moderate redshift galaxy counts are in agreement with a static metric, where there are 10 times more galaxies than expected in LCDM. This problem is exacerbated in the B-band due to the relatively lower redshift distribution and current angular scale limitations of modern telescopes (hence the "faint blue galaxy problem"). It will only get worse as telescope resolution increases beyond Hubble.

3. Other tests of the volume element or angular scales include the extent of similar luminosity double radio lobes, 90% light diameter of galaxies, the extent of gas in the largest clusters and the harmonic distance between brightest cluster galaxies. Basically every test is in disagreement including inconsistencies within BAO.

4. There are significant anomalies in the CMB including alignments, hemispherical power asymmetry, ect. These are more consistent with a steady state sink-source universe due to large-scale structure and gravitational lensing.

5. There are substantial problems with proposed dark matter dynamics, i.e. the cusp problem.

6. We observe galaxies and clusters cooling with increased redshift, becoming more disturbed (mergers) and having increased metallicity; i.e. observations insist proper time increases with redshift contrary to big bang predictions.

It’s all discussed in this publication: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AstRv...9c...4P

The truth is, all theories, including the Big Bang Theory, are philosophical conjectures based on different interpretations of observations -- such as redshifted light from distant galaxies.

Michael Peck just gave many good reasons why we should question the Big Bang Theory.

I especially liked the description from Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov: "the fact that the observable part of the universe evolves, in your case would pose a problem if we consider the time scale from minus infinity to plus."

The Big Bang Theory is based on assumptions such as (a) the universe had a beginning point in which all matter "evolved from a singularity" and (b) the universe consists of a region encompassed by most of the light that we can observe (i.e., the observable universe).

But what if these assumptions are wrong? What if the universe is much larger (perhaps infinite) that what we can observe? If the universe is infinite, then Komarov is correct .... we are only observing the evolution of matter in a very small region of the entire universe (the observable universe) and our perceptions of reality could be dramatically changed if we could observe regions beyond the observable ones.

While some of the reasons given to defend the idea of a "static universe" are valid, the term "static universe" is horrible. The universe is dynamic (not static). Descriptions should be made with words that reflect reality and standard usage. For example, what if I wrote a sentence with the word "blue" but i really meant red? Few would understand my intent. That is one of the major flaws with the idea of a "static universe" -- a horrible choice of words used to describe ideas that are dynamical rather than static.

Alexander,

Would it not be a simple way out to treat our universe as an open problem with the Schwarzschild singularity as a "real" non-covariant singularity. This would take care of the  confusing questions whether the Universe is finite or infinite, cf. the Zeno paradox.

In addition keeping the quantum conditions between conjugate variables-operators like space-time and momentum-energy, impart analogous behaviour between energy and time.

From this starting point Einstein laws follows commensurate with "Occam's Razor"!

@Matts

1. Of these 11 papers I have studied 7 articles on Tolman test;.

- 4 article by Sandage against Tired light. They contain a lot of errors hence we must not trust to their conclusions .

- 3 articles was assessed to be “positively” - errors are not significant, the need to trust.

2. My articles in major journals do not publish also, and small journals nobody reads. But on my site happens every year more than 30,000 visitors.

@Vasiliy. Glory Donetsk!

You can put differently the question of finding of the Absolute reference system (AFR), for example: "What experiment does show the speed of the observer in the AFR?". You can take such an experiment, for example, the Michelson Morley experiment in a working medium. and check the "candidate for a new AFR".

@Василий. Вы можете уточнить проблему в статической Вселенной гипотеза "если наблюдаемая часть Вселенной эволюционирует"?

Обратите внимание, что в моей Вселенной есть постоянное обновление частиц из вакуума энергии, главным образом электронов и протонов, то есть атомарного водорода. конечно, рождение вещества происходит там, где для этого есть условия, например, при пролете гамма-частицы через область с повышенной энергией.

@Vasiliy. Can You clarify the problem in a static Universe hypothesis "if the observed part of the Universe evolves"?

Please note that in my Universe there is a constant update of particles from vacuum energy, mainly electrons and protons, that is atomic hydrogen. Of course, the birth of a substance occurs there where are conditions, for example, if the gamma particle moves through the region with increased energy.

Alexander,

The Tolman surface brightness test was one of the initial areas I studied, but then I realized better options existed. For example, Broadhurst et al. (1988) did number counts from 20 bj to 21.5 bj and found an unexplainable 3-5x excess of blue galaxies (in big bang frameworks) from 0.25z to 0.45z. With the stacking of spectrums, it was proven that luminosity evolution was minimal in this particular population, while such galaxies on average experience a single major merger from 0 to 1.5z (Lotz et al.). This has remained a substantial problem for LCDM since the 80’s, as the proposed “local hole” extends up to at least 0.3z including that of rich galaxy clusters (less biased when all LCDM assumptions are considered). Thus in terms of galaxies and volume element there is solid observations demonstrating a static metric to 0.5z.

Number counts in various bands will also provide equivalent interpretations with respect to Tolman surface brightness tests. If there is an excess number of galaxies in a certain band, this would imply brightening in that particular band. Big bang models require substantial brightening to explain the changes in angular size and drastic (inferred) luminosity evolution, while my steady state implies the formation of top heavy IMFs due to an increasingly abundant amount of cold baryonic matter with redshift. There is also a problem with completeness in current datasets, as after correcting for angular scale limitations, observations fit a static metric up to the faintest magnitudes including the angular size of distant galaxies.

But there are many observations that support a cosmological scale gravitational potential including SNIa (see http://phys.org/news/2011-09-evidence-spacetime-cosmological-principle.html and http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.0941.pdf). One hemisphere is accelerating faster than the other and it is aligned with hemispherical power asymmetry in the CMB. This is a local affect and can easily be explained by the gravitational potential adding redshift in one direction and blueshift in the other (which is mostly masked by a local Hubble flow or residual thermal expansion).

Michael, Thank You.

1_1. The problems facing the BB, I'm not consider in my model.

1_2. My model of a Static Universe allows proper motion of galaxies under the gravitational attraction of nearby galaxies and dark matter. I do not bind the movement of the object with the curvature of space. In my model there is no theory of relativity and the Einstein equation of state. But I assume that at large distances, gravity is acting weaker than the inverse square of the distance (this is the gravitational analogue of the red shift of light). This eliminates the Mach principle and the instability of the Universe, so a stable metric is possible.

1_3. As I understand it, your model does not match the model Hoyle+Gold. But I did not understand what force provides the birth of matter there. In the Static model the energy from the destroyed matter eventually falls in vacuum, breaking its steady state, which leads to the birth of new particles, mainly protons and electrons. Therefore, our models may be equivalent, only the names are different.

1_4. Theory of tired light does not require a static Universe (since this possible in an expanding space). On the contrary, the model of a static Universe (with a static metric) requires the tired light.

2_1. The birth of new particles from the vacuum, mainly protons and electrons explains the abundance of hydrogen.

2_2. The age of the galaxies we can not know, as we do not know when first star was lit in the galaxy, and we don't know when the stars of the next generations were born and how many generations have passed. I assume that all galaxies very old, they are a thousand billion years old, as birth and death of galaxies - a rare event.(I don't mean collision of galaxies.)

3. No calculations will give us the age of the galaxies, because there is no actual data on the number of complete generations of stars in galaxies.

4_1. Do you think that the question about the age of the Universe is not concern of the an eternal Universe, don't you?

4_2. You are right, the test of the "angular size-redshift" clearly shows the inability of the model of the Universe expansion, and corresponds to the static metric is much better.

Robin,

"The Olbers paradox in a homogeneous Universe with an infinite size not takes into account the redshift, so that the Olbers's conclusion is wrong.

Stephen, Thank You.

But in the title name of this Model I will prefer point of view of its “parents” : Einstein and Zwicky .http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1437767

No

Michael,

Thanks for explaining the details of the Tolman test. I previously understood that an increasing of surface brightness (assuming by Sandage) completely destroys the meaning of the Test, because always we can find a needed valued of such increase.

2. I'm not sure that "One hemisphere is ACCELERATING faster than the other", because of "different speeds" does not mean their acceleration, but simply our own speed differs from the average speed of the other galaxies.

But this conclusion does not require any additional assumptions, because almost always own the speed of one object does not coincide with the average speed of other objects. Especially because we already have the data about our relative motion with respect to part of this system (CMBR). It is natural to expect that these speeds will have the same magnitude and direction.

4 years ago on one forum I said that it is possible to try to detect our movement on the distribution of the redshifts of galaxies. If we assume the system is fixed in average then distribution of difference of medium redshifts on each square minute in opposite direction should vary according to the cosine and the maximum difference is 0.002 in the direction of our movement.

Erkki,

Please return to the ground of reality.

In such The Model, the Michelson Interferometer in a working medium will show or will not the shifts of the fringes, and besides, with a sidereal period, will it? Of course not!

But this experiment (and Cahill experiment) shows the speed of our movement at a single preferred reference frame. And we can see as the speed varies during the year depending on our speed around the Sun. Therefore, in reality, the principle of relativity does not work (only if very roughly). It turns out that the physic laws depend on the speed with which we move at the preferred reference frame.

The Einstein's strong equivalence principle is long overdue to be replaced by the equivalence of mass.

How do you think a theory which claims to universality must not have restrictions on the use or contradictions with reality?

The principle of "Occam's Razor" is not working! Because in a complex system, the more parameters, the more accurate description!

Static Universe is not the best name, Alexander. It desorients people.

Regards,

Eugene.

In 1998 I proposed the metagalaxy model as a hollow sphere with a shell of solid hydrogen at a temperature of about 3K and radius  11.8535x10^9 lightyears. [Ilyanok A.M. Quantum Astronomy. Part II. arXiv: astro-ph / 0001059]. This size metagalaxy was confirmed by experiments with the WMAP satellite 2003. Jeffrey Weeks calculations have shown that the universe is finite and very compact, a radius of about 11 billion. lightyears [Jean-Pierre L., Weeks J. at.al. Dodecahedral space topology // Nature-2003.-V.425.-P.593; www.newscientist.com/article/dn4250-tantalising-evidence-hints-universe-is-finite.html].

More details can be found in the work A. Ilyanok “Femtotechnologies. Step I Atom Hydrogen”

http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0014

My point is simply: before we start investigating complex cases and various media from vacuum to the internal structure of dense stars etc., why not build a solid ground to stand on. Then we could work out the various special cases including as many complications as possible.

The query of this thread is such a simple one that needs a solid ground. Introducing too many trees will block the concept of the forrest.

Alexander,

1. Yes, I have previously studied the surface brightness works of Sandage/Lubin and their conclusion is completely flawed. Essentially their argument boils down to not having a standard hypothesis for galactic evolution in static metric models (simply because there are so many varieties of them combined with a lack of funding). Thus they claim that observations cannot fit a static metric simply because no widespread work has been done in regards to possible evolution in such models. This bias towards big bang cosmology extends to well known studies such as Stanford et al. (1998/2002), where they fudged their local color-magnitude relations in order to fit the predictions of passive evolution in big bang models. However, I ended up reanalyzing their work with a much larger data set and discovered that color evolution in early-type galaxies is inconsistent with purely passive evolution (particularly H-K and J-K); i.e. the currently proposed galactic evolution for LCDM doesn’t even work in the first place! However, the changes in color are consistent with an increasingly top-heavy IMF due to increased amounts of cold baryonic matter with redshift, as I have confirmed through Pickles (1998) stellar SED database.

2. Big bang proponents claim that these results are due to uneven expansion. However, I do not agree with this interpretation but instead that of a global gravitational potential. They infer the uneven expansion from luminosity distance versus redshift. Thus if one direction adds a slight amount of blueshift to a local Hubble flow with redshift for the other, one direction will have luminosity distance increasing faster with respect to redshift. This motion is relative to all local objects, not just Earth (and disappears with increasing redshift, i.e. after the full deflection of local geodesics).

Redshift = Local_Hubble_Flow(redshift) + Global_Gravitational_Potential(redshift&blueshift -> directionally dependent)

Thus instead of introducing dark energy, we have a classical explanation that can be verified through several unique observables (and the Hubble flow remains consistent locally, although observations insist that it is matter that is receding rather than a dynamic metric even in these regards). For a visual explanation see the video I produced nearly 2 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItFWXAfDHY&feature=youtu.be&t=2m27s

Eugene,

I understand you. . But I don't think it will be rightly to have in the model name, the entire list of properties of the space and matter to explain all the observed distant processes. Among these properties there is the term "static space", that's from this term the model name has origin. This term is not misleading, as it is significant for this model. If someone isn't understand this name but he wishes to understand, he can open my article. But if any has not such a wish now he can do it later. You understand this, so I hope and others will be able, whenever they want.

Erkki,

What difficulties have you encountered when reading my article (in the initial message)?

Dear Matts, Erkki & all

Let's be careful about our conclusions. We cannot state that the Universe is infinite or finite, static or expanding. We must talk so only in framework of our models.

We can't know what physical laws operate in deep space. We really receive cosmic radiation, But we don't even know if we see the real objects, or it's some kind of cinema? For example, we sometimes see mirages, but we know there are no objects which seem us.

It’s may be that we see a train but… But behind the screen of the Hugest Cinema there is an absolutely different reality, and an extra-terrestrial Lumiere hides a smile in his green moustache?!! :)

So our observations are real, but we don’t know anything about what was their cause! We can only assume it. Thus, in cosmology we not only do not know what is happening far away from us, but can't verify the reality of our hypotheses. We can check them for a conformity only to our observations, but not to real state of Universe.

So if someone wants to believe in the divine origin of the Universe (the "Big Bang") and that in deep space there are black holes, and space is expanding, please! But please, just don't claim it as established fact. And all we should not disturb other people to consider other possibilities and believe in another Model of the Universe.

What is in the centre of our Galaxy, Alexander?

Michael,

I liked the article by Eric J. Lerner “UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local Universe to z ≈ 5”,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0275

on the results of series of tests, which showed the advantage of the Static Model.

In my correspondence with Lerner I asked him to replace the Hubble formula R=z*c/H, which does not work for z>0.3, on the formula R=(c/H)ln(z+1).

By the way, Eric J. Lerner has no claim to the "static Model" term.

Dear Alexander,

I agree that there are huge problems for the cosmologists to incorporate the Big Bang scenario with the findings of the Supernova Cosmology Project. The former explains many things but not the biggest mystery of all, viz. why the universe is expanding.

I do not believe that "paste and glue" approaches will do here, cf. the Ptolemy model of the universe that did simulate planetary movements to any precision without any deeper fundamental understanding.

We need to have scientific consensus on several key issues, like the possibility of black holes, their properties if yes, gravitational waves, dark matter and energy etc.

To me all theses conundrums point at the need for non-static models of the universe.

Not "static," rather "dynamic equilibrium". Most of what is currently considered "knowledge" in the field of cosmology and extragalactic physics is *dead wrong*:

SensibleUniverse.net/slides

Eugene,

I think that in the centre of our Galaxy there are very massive stars and dense gas-dust cloud.

 Does this question some relation to the theme of "static model"?

Dear Alexander Mayer ,

I totally agree with you. Conclusions from the hypothesis of the expanding space of the Universe in the framework of the theory of relativity at wrongly applying to the whole space of the Universe and to all processes in it, now they try to represent as "knowledge", although this is just an erroneous hypothesis.

Dear Erkki,

Thank you for understanding that these problems exist!

Actually in cosmology almost all the puzzles are formed by the Einstein equation and a non-static model of the Universe. Cosmology would be the most loved and the most simple science for students if this equation and this model would not exist,

Since then, when I figured out that the property "relative simultaneity" is contrary to reality, and the Einstein equation is not applicable to the Universe, it became evident to me the need for a static flat space of the Universe.

Now it is easier for me solve problems that the observation of distant space opens for us .

I suggest you and try to do it. You will like it, I'm sure!

depends what one means by static,  if it is completely static we would not be able to move,  I guess that the question means hoyle/gold theory as opposed to big bang

Dear Mark Roberts

It’s hotter.

I mean static space but matter is dynamic.

Hoyle/Gold theory has an expanding space and requires a huge flow of a generated new matter. In my model the static space, and matter are born very little about as much as destroyed. Excess energy in the vacuum generates the matter. This allows you to maintain the stability of the ratio of energy and matter in the Universe (how is the stability of the water content in the Earth's atmosphere and surface: more hit the atmosphere - more will result in precipitation, more fall to earth - more will evaporate).

Alexanderin ,

In my humble opinion the current model is very unlikely and I have put together a model that is static on the large scale and dynamic on the small scale (Galaxy scale).  So to answer in a few words yes I think it is static.

The Einstein equations are not the complete picture or they would match the Quantum Mechanics model perfectly.  One or the other, or both have to be wrong or at least incomplete.  My logic tells me this is true.  Unless you believe the dogma and not facts then you can stick with the old model has to be correct.

When I was a teenager I know the Big Bang had to be wrong, but I was told over and over again by people that should have known better that I was wrong.  I will no longer blindly follow such a path.  I look at all the questions that are unanswered by the old theory and I realize that I was correct 40 years ago in questioning the validity of that model.

You can only hang on to a model that has no founding in reality for so long before you get ridiculous conclusions.     

Some people on this thread reject millions of man-years of highly qualified research because they have their own genial visions, "which became evident to me".

Matts,

You are correct.  If no one stands up and says it is wrong then we well never get past it.

If you can show me one other theory that has more battle scares from being wrong and still lives as a theory I would consider maybe I am wrong.  

Please show me how all the theories of physics are not wrong when we start a model with all the mass and energy in one place at one point and then have it do anything without more mass and energy than is already there and not break every law of physics,

If you invoke magic it works but you have to violate the conservation of energy, all of newtons laws and on and on just to get the damn thing going let alone make it work as we see the Universe today.

Wrong is wrong even if millions of man hours and days have gone into the theory.  There is no founding in reality to start the theory and there for no matter how great it is I cannot believe it is true.  You can follow the masses of people that think it is and that is fine but I will choose the correct path and see it for what it is.  A theory based on scientists that were motivated by religious believes outside of their science.  This theory could just be shown to be possible with Albert Einsteins theory of Relativity and therefore became the one that everyone liked.

If we were to except your thoughts at the turn of the last century then Albert Einstein would have never been anything more than a patent clerk.

Alexander,

Lerner has been focusing on surface brightness and galaxy size for a while, but his work is largely unrecognized and somewhat unrefined. I found that using the extent of gas in the largest clusters was another good high redshift test. Under big bang interpretations, none of it really makes sense and this is for a reason. The closest Ly-alpha blobs around 2z clearly have dozens of satellite galaxies around a BCG; these have angular sizes around 2 arcsec. However, moving on to the most distant Ly-alpha blobs around 7z provide angular sizes of 0.2 arcsec. In an expanding universe, the angular scale-redshift relation actually begins to increase again after 2z; i.e. objects should not appear smaller if LCDM were correct unless evolution were involved. I further constrained maximum size variations via mergers and found that LCDM could at most have one major merger between clusters from 2z – 7z (mostly due to cosmological time-scales and the merger relaxation times). This will at most vary the size of each final cluster by 50%, compared to the required 1000%. Furthermore, the change in cluster size from 0z - 2z is also fully consistent with a static metric. When you consider the entire redshift range, LCDM predicts 1.73 megaparsec sizes for 0.2z clusters, while high redshift ones must be 0.0168 Mpc (a >100x change in size). For a static metric, this becomes 2.06Mpc to 2.98Mpc (due to reasonable growth with redshift from mergers!)

However, I also believe that Einstein’s macroscopic theory of general relativity is flawed and fails under extreme cases. The reason being that the equivalence principles are built into a macroscopic source (stress-energy tensor) rather than on a per particle basis. When you consider the strong equivalence principle on a per particle basis, it is actually impossible to have event horizon. Recent observations of supermassive black holes have observed jets of particles at ¼ the expected event horizon distance, so there is evidence that the theory may be incorrect. My central test for verification however is the continued lack of gravitational wave detection, but beyond this the predictions are very close to EFEs.

Furthermore, fully consistent steady state/static metric theories require for the elimination of event horizon; the most important reason being that they would have consumed everything over an infinite amount of prior existence.

Hi

I think it is possible to construct different models which are compatible with observations and empirical facts. Meantime in comparison to other branches of science and modern physics, cosmology is very young. That is why in cosmology it is possible and, of course, easier to introduce theoretical framework and cosmological models which are able to answer some observational cosmological questions. 

Article On the Alternative Theories of Cosmology

I guess physical hypotheses are sometimes appearing with different appeal to us as individuals.

I wonder if Alexander and Michael have determined the perihelion motion of planet Mercury in way that does not make use of the standard equations of relativity?

Erkki,

I fully support special relativity and the equivalence principles, just not the modern implementation of the later. The metric I derive for a single charged particle is very similar to the Einstein-Maxwell vacuum solution, but with the 1/r potential defined relative to a Minkowski reference space (i.e. the reference space of the Schwarzschild metric). The coefficients that end up in the metric tensor however are approximately equivalent in the weak field, but near strong fields the theories diverge. The reason why is because each particles 1/r potential follows distance as defined by the space-time metric induced by all other particles under consideration (the test particle case). Thus for vacuum solutions there is a finite summation of finite potentials that are each mapped to r -> r' with respect to the strong equivalence principle (of course this only constrains some metric components, but nonetheless valid for certain gravitational experiments). The result is no event horizon unless there is an infinite amount of energy.

In regards to Occam's razor, this is the simplest theory because particles exist as discrete entities rather than a continuous stress-energy source. I assume that it will provide near identical results for any weak field experiment including the perihelion motion of Mercury (because the weak field approximation of both theories are equivalent).

George, thank you.

Although in my youth I studied with Kolmogorov and Bukhovtsev, but when I decided to engage in physical problems, I had no teachers, and no one could replace my opinion by its one.

Dear Matts,

Thanks for the recognition abilities of these people in this topic!

I have no regrets about the millions of man-years of research. They contributed to the collection of useful observations. However, I believe that thousands of man-years could be spent much better for science if those specialists knew what I know and what I told you.

If we look at the scale of a galaxy and take this to be the machine that produces life and structure of the universe we do not have to say there can not be life with the way it looks.  The fact of the matter is that if we were to just say the universe were our galaxy we could make some very good arguments for there not having to be anything else out there.  The fact that there are maybe trillions of other ones just plays into the argument that I have about the static on the largest of scales.  I see no need to argue but my vote is the the universe has to be static on the largest of scales. 

I want there to be an open debate on the issues here as if we are honest with each other the truth will eventually be seen by all.  I have no illusions that I am 100% correct but I know for a fact that I am not 100% wrong unless logic does not play a part in reality.

Yes, Michael,

the black hole and the event horizon cannot exist in the static Model.

Yes, Michael,

the black hole and the event horizon cannot exist in the static Model.

Please note that in work of Alexander Mayer (SensibleUniverse.net/slides ) there is no validation of the static model and almost no data for z>0.5, that is, there is no place to show the difference between models and what is the best fit to the observed data.

Arman, you are right.

But the fact is that the experiments on the Earth are part of the Universe, so any cosmological model should describe and processes on Earth.

Erkki,

Yes, but did it not me. In the framework of Newton's theory this is done on the website: http://vvs-ya.narod.ru/about2.htm

- Due to the rotation of the Sun around its axis.

Dear Alexander,

almost 20 years astronomers observe empty space in the center of our Galaxy around which stars are rotating. The periods of stars rotations are well determined (they are near 10 years) experimentally and they show, that the mass of this empty space is around 3 millions Sun's mass. What is it?

Alexander Chepick,

I cannot read what is written on this website. If I understand you correctly the calculation, using Newton's theory, takes the perturbation of the other planets and the sun's rotation, causing its oblateness, into consideration. The latter correction is still very small, but it was enough to promote the Dicke-Brans alternative theory, but unfortunately the latter fell in decline since its predictions disagreed with other measurements.

Using Newton's gravitational theory will, as is well known, only give half the deviation of a photon in a gravitational field. My conclusion is that "Einstein" so far is the best bet!

Michael,

I do not see why you need to bring in charged particles in the perihelion problem. Einstein's equations is a simple classical approach. Occam would not agree that a "quantum field overcoat" would be necessary here.

Who knows quadrupole moment of Sun, Erkki?

George,

Yes, “the universe has to be static on the largest of scales” and homogeneous.

Eugene,

Brans and Dicke investigated the solar oblateness by measuring brightness differences varying the magnification of the telescope. As far as I know these measurements have not been retracted or refuted.

Alexander,

Why not use the notion introduced by Fred Hoyle, who devised the steady state theory of the universe. Big Bang or the Steady State this is the question!

Erkki,

The problem with the steady state model is that it was based on something from nothing.  In my humble opinion there is no way to justify the creation of matter from nothing to keep the system in balance.  There is more likely an equivalence that we are missing in the understanding of the cosmos that we have not discovered yet. 

Alexander,

Depending on which SDSS release was used, the angular resolution of the telescope ranges from 0.4 arcsec/pixel to 1.8 arcsec/pixel; Hubble at best can provide 0.03985 arcsec/pixel. However, the smallest objects typically included from Hubble surveys (HDF) have 90% light diameter greater than 0.70” (thus the smallest objects actually detectable are much larger than pixel size). For 50% light diameter, I determined a decrease factor of 3.73x relative to 90%. The problem is that completeness begins to substantially drop beyond 0.5z for 90% light diameter limitations of >1.25” (a large overestimate for SSDS and other ground-based telescopes). Realistically it appears that their incompleteness due to angular resolution limitations begins around 0.08z, where there is minimal divergence between models. This incompleteness can be confirmed by using much larger objects/rods such as the harmonic distance between BCG, length of FR-II double radio lobes or the extent of gas in the largest of clusters.

Eugene,

Evidence as early as 1962 supported the notion that smaller elliptical galaxies collapse into later types, resulting in unstable rotational curves (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1962ApJ...136..748E). Lately there have been many published articles on observed elliptical galaxies forming disk/spiral arms, in addition to the bulges of later types having similar IMF. The Butcher-Oemler effect in the steady state perspective also supports this transformation, where the ratio of early to later type galaxies decreases with redshift. The presence of hot x-ray emitting gas in clusters actually delays this process (i.e. the field evolves much quicker while ETGs at cluster cores remain nearly constant up to 1z). Generally what I have found is a magnitude dependent transition from early to later types (smaller galaxies transform first unless they are in dense/hot environments, i.e. compare the local distribution of dE and Irr galaxies between field and cluster).

Erkki,

Yes and this is why I developed a more classical theory that bridges electrodynamics and general relativity for charged particles. But in the end I’m looking for the simplest theory that matches all observations, and some of these are out of reach at the moment. The problem is that small details like quantum theory or microscopic frameworks become crucial under strong gravitational fields (and this is where I disagree with EFEs). However, it is nonetheless a metric theory based upon classical principles that further provides identical weak field results to EFEs. The conclusion that event horizon cannot form is solely based upon fundamental principles of general relativity such as having a metric theory, the test particle case, per particle solutions and ability to locally test the gravitational potential of objects (which in the limit of a single particle should be 1/r).

George,

Yes, this was also the general "sentence" Fred Hoyle received, although he should have shared the Nobel with Fowler in 1983.

Nevertheless, steady state is a better concept than a static universe. With Big Bang we only have a good theory for the start but not for the end of the universe.

Michael, Is your theory covariant?

Dear Eugene,

Almost 400 years astronomers know that the rotation of any body of systems is not around the Central body of the system, but around the centre of mass of this system. Hence some weight must not be in the centre of mass.

Therefore, astronomers see the empty space in the centre (of mass) of our Galaxy, around which the stars revolve. Observations show that the mass NOT of the Central empty space of about 3 million solar masses, but the fact that astronomers were missing this mass in the entire Galaxy.

Erkki,

Any theory has not to be covariant, only that where such a demand exists as a postulate.

All theories with the preferred reference frame are not covariant!

So my theory is not covariant.

How about the last burst in this zone, Alexander?

Universe is non static

Erkki J. Brändas,

About the perihelion of Mercury.

1. The use of the gravitational theory of Newton, as you know, gives only half the deviation of a photon in a gravitational field, when this deviation is measured near the edge of the Sun!

But from this deviation is not deducted refraction of the beam of photons in the sun's atmosphere. Solar Plasma exists up to a million kilometers above the Sun's surface.

It is unknown how much influence of the atmosphere of the Sun on the deviation of the rays. But on Earth the influence of the atmosphere affects substantial, twice increasing the apparent radius of the Sun! If we assume the same deviation of the ray in the Solar atmosphere then the measured deviation of the photon will be just the same as on the theory of Newton.

2. There is a calculation in the framework of Newton's theory to explain this effect in terms of when inside of Mercury there are cavities formed after evaporation of liquids and light metals.

There are also several modifications of Newton's theory for explain this effect.

The direction of the perihelion of planets is defined relative to the Sun in the star system of reference. But the Sun in this system is shifted relative uniform motion of the centre of mass each year approximately 0.5 million km.

And how do we define the mass of the planet? Yes, according to Newton's law, and not on GR! Moreover, the gravitational constant is determined for a immobile mass, but is applied for the masses moving! The mass of the Earth is determined by the force of gravity. But our kilogram, which falls to the Ground with an acceleration, actually still revolves around the Earth, that is, exists a centrifugal force. And the radiation pressure of the Sun is not taken into account here, but it reduces the force of attraction of the Sun and Earth.

More over, the Solar system moves around the Galaxy and in space, different external forces act on Sun and planets. How taken into account the impact of these forces on the motion of the planets in the Solar system, in particular, the shift of the perihelion of mercury? It is not taken into account.

With all these assumptions I am surprised at the accuracy of the calculation of the perihelion in the framework of GR!

Erkki,

"Steady State" theory in two times worse than the "Big Bang" as it in addition to the expansion space and the birth of the Universe from point, here must be a persistent violation of the law of conservation of energy in the form of a birth of a huge mass of matter to fill the newborn space.

I hope, in Evgeny's theory there are not all of these violations and contradictions observations, and there is only a static space with the evolution of matter, but with the laws of GR

Does the explosion indicates the existence of a Black hole, Eugene?

Dear Sujit ,

Why the Universe is not static?

Do you have proof that the space of the Universe is not static?

Nobody knows what it indicates. We can only constatate the fact and create hypothesis.

Michael,

Incomplete data in SDSS insignificant. An absent of maximum at z>1 on the graph of the angular sizes will still appear, so the model of the expansion of space will disappear.

Yes, Eugene,

In centre of Galaxy stars are very close and thick clouds of dust and temperature is high so processes on stars may go faster. And they faster bursts, for that we don’t need any BH at all.