Nothing more special than happens anywhere else, as can be deduced from solving Einstein's equations.

Howver, the ``edge of the Universe'' isn't a fixed place; since the Universe is expanding, it ``moves'' with it. How to describe it is in any textbook on cosmology. These lectures: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/cosmo.html might be a good place to start-in particular to learn what are the questions that it makes sense to ask.

Gary Stephens

Hi Gary. The best way I have found of considering this problem is to take the hypothesis that there is a space boundary.

If we reject the idea of an infinite universe we are left with two possibilities:

1. Finite with no boundary.

2. Finite with a boundary.

Option 1. Is normally taken by cosmologists but the problem is that for this case the universe would have to be curved back on itself and observations of the CMB show that space is flat on the large scale.

Option 2. Would appear to have a big problem when we ask what is outside the boundary? This is like asking what happened before the Big Bang (which has a time boundary). My answer is that the only region where space is defined is within the boundary.

One could ask what happens to matter and radiation as it reaches the space boundary. My answer is that matter and radiation are wave disturbances of the medium which dissipate at the boundary.

I would add that it is the existence of the space boundary which is the cause of the expansion of the medium of space.

(In a finite, no boundary model it is hard to see the cause of the expansion of space)

Richard

The model of the universe that one adopts should include an answer to this question. Failure of the model to address this question implies a limited if not incorrect model.

The STOE does answer this question with a finite universe.

By analogy:

Consider a flat parking lot with a drain. Have a (or several) sources of water flowing onto the parking lot. The universe of water will spread out over the parking lot until the rate the water going down the drain equals to rate on water flowing onto the parking lot. The edge of the water may fluctuate, with changing inflow rates.

I'm a specialist in Solid State Physic and teaching Special Relativity. For differents reasons I'm questioning the standard model of Big Bang. All the astronomical observations can be interpreted without to appeal to expanding space picture. I seem that Alfven-Lerner proposal of a plasma universe must be considered as a plausible. In this hypoyhesis our universe have no principle nor end. If we scaling what we see at all dimensions scales, in the way that matter is organized, starting from atoms and subatomic particles is noteable the organization in dynamic dominions or phases integrated in higher dynamic structures. Starting from this picture, our observable universe is a fraction of a dynamical phase, spatial and temporalilly finite, integrated to a superior structure. It means that if we go away enough we must to reach a no-stellar region, outside of our stellar forming phase where ruling another forms of matter and radiations, exotic and weakly interacting with us. And so on. Speculatibly talking.

Gary Stephens, Thanks for the invite to respond here. As you said, it's not possible to answer with confidence, and there are many conjectures. The most consistent answer I've found is that at the larger scale universes are like galaxies, with oblate spheroid halo's far bigger than the main disc, and are recycled by the equivalent of AGN accretion & quasar jets of re-ionized matter. That can explain many 'anomalous' features including the CMB's peculiar anisotropies and underlying helicity. It's just another theory but the best correspondence with data I've found. i.e. see; Research A CYCLIC MODEL OF GALAXY EVOLUTION WITH BARS (Published HJ 2014)

contraction of matter will be started even though time moves forward.

Ref: fig. 2page 1341 of the paper

Dark Energy Is a Phenomenal Effect

of the Expanding Universe-Possibility for

Experimental Verification. Journal of High

Energy Physics , Gravitation and Cosmology,

7, 1333-1352.

https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2021.74083

Thanks for asking a question that I know with 100% confidence that THIS answer also resolves the Dark Energy enigma! The short answer is "Everything that IS happening -- NOW -- is happening at the edge of the universe." Think of this edge as an inside-out ever-expanding "Event Horizon" of a "Black Whole" -- the boundary condition between physical existence and not-yet-existent. Between all that was and all that is right now. Within the thinnest of 24-quantum-thin surface are two distinct layers - an Impedance phase & a Magnetic permeability phase. The Impedance phase (376.73 Ω) accommodates the absorption of a photon (h*c)/sqrt(α), whenever any, so called "particle's" wavefunction absorbs the energy of that photon in the form of electric charge, e. This happens within 11.706... (1/sqrt(α)) time-quanta. Then, during the Magnetic permeability phase (4πx10^-7 [N/A2]), EM energy is emitted as a photon. It is BECAUSE the so called "vacuum" of space has these properties that the speed of light c = l_P/t_P = Z_0 / μ_0 = 299,792,458 [m/s].

All observers in all galaxies are on this Event Horizon -- all light that is in-transit towards all observers is propagating along the outer-most edge of this Space~Time manifold. From this higher perspective you'll see that propagation is NOT "travelling", but rather it is the leading edge of the light wave extending its "waviness" onto the surface that, just now, expanded to accommodate that leading edge. More at: TrueCosmology.info

P.S. The further out into space we "think" we are looking -- the further into the depths of times past we are seeing. There is a cosmological lensing effect of light magnifying the distant past making objects appear "dimmer" than one might expect. This creates the "illusion" that space is flat. The notion of "Flat Spacetime" (where FLRW-metric is stuck with the duration of a second and the length of a meter being constant throughout time). Lay that notion to rest in favor of the realization that our emergent metrics [seconds], [meters] expand with time -- each passing second increases by 4.27x10^25 Planck seconds more than the previous second. Part of this realization must include the realization that our metrics [kilogram] & [Coulomb] are gauged by the duration of our ever~expanding second. Even more here: Preprint Resolve Dark Energy & Proposed CODATA 2022 Values

You assume there is an edge. The closest thing to it is looking back along the past light cone to the beginning of time. Strange things happen as see back to half the age of the universe (z=~1). Galaxies actually start to become magnified. The past light cone has lost its 45-degree angles and looks more like a cylinder before turning back on itself. Weird stuff.

John Kastl , I agree, though the galaxy mass growth function is well know, if not rationally explained by doctrine are there are way to few mergers. The apparent 'source' and underlying CMBR helicity (which we're off centre' to) require a finite universe, so some 'limit' condition/s. Analysing ALL the data best supports a particular cyclic model, as presented to the AAS last yr. Unchallenged so far. Do comment; Research A CYCLIC MODEL OF GALAXY EVOLUTION WITH BARS (Published HJ 2014)

The question of what happens at the edge of the Universe is a difficult one to answer, as the concept of an "edge" to the universe is not well-defined within current models of cosmology. In fact, the current understanding is that the universe does not have an edge, but rather it is infinite and unbounded.

One way to think about this is to imagine a two-dimensional surface, like the surface of a sphere. On a sphere, there is no edge or boundary, but it is still finite in size. Similarly, the Universe could be thought of as a four-dimensional hypersurface, with no edge or boundary, but still finite in size.

It's also worth noting that the universe is expanding, meaning that the distances between galaxies are increasing over time. This expansion occurs uniformly throughout the Universe, and there is no preferred "centre" or "edge" of the expansion.

I've got no idea what a 'four-dimensional hypersurface' is-- I'm guessing this is some kind hyper-abstract "ball version" of a "mobius strip." Quite handy, in that no one can possibly imagine what on earth it is, and therefore, you can pretty much say anything you like about it. Its hypothetical properties abound.

Another example of a brilliant but fallacious argument (not quite an brilliant as the above) is the invented "multi-verse".

Literally a oxymoron.

When asked what is outside the Universe, they reply... another Universe!-- well then, it's not outside is it!----it's part of the Universe. It has to be!

Literally a contradiction in terms.

Am I wrong?

Gary Stephens, I find the only problem is the parochial conception of the word 'Universe' as meaning 'Everything'. As an observational cosmologist, so analysing only data, logical analysis and patterns. Using that method I find the most consistent answer by far is that our universe is like a cyclic galaxy morphology at the larger scale. Beyond a halo is then mostly just the condensate, until the next one.

In my model, the speed of light is inversely proportional to the density of the gravitational potential field. Thus, near a large mass, light’s speed slows along with the rate of time (gravitational Time Dilation); but out at the edges of the expanding Universe, the gravitational potential gets less and kess and eventually tends to zero density. So, the speed of light would increase towards infonite. This has the effect of curving everything back ineards. So,?the outside edge of the Universe would look like the center.

Declan Traill Hi Declan. How would you measure or calculate the “density of the gravitational potential field”. For example at a distance r from a mass m we have the Newton formula for acceleration which is Gm/r^2.

What would be your formula for the density measure in terms of m and r in this case?

Richard

The field is Gm/r Joules/kg (approximately as GR defines it more precisely.

Declan Traill So does that mean that the speed of light increases in proportion to r In your model?

Richard

J/kg is not a density as such but it correlates to a vacuum energy density that is proportional to the gravitational potential

Dear Professor Jackson,

It must be quite an eye opener peeping through the eye-glass at the cosmos. I heard there were some quite remarkable discoveries by the late Sir John Herschel, L.L.D. F.R.S. &c. and published in the Sun, New York, 25 Aug. 1835

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

Dear Professor Jackson,

"cyclic galaxy morphology at the larger scale. Beyond a halo is then mostly just the condensate, until the next one."

I suppose the whole observable Universe, that we can see to-day, could just turn out to be a dot, in a billion more dots...

However, I like the description given by Poe in his masterwork "Eureka." I think I'm right in saying he predicted black holes at the centre of each galaxy, and presaged Special Relativity.

Richard,

yes, but the rate of time also changes in the same proportion as the speed of light such that all observers still measure the speed of light to be c

Richard,

the thing to remember about light speed is that the light always passes through the same quantity of gravitational potential field per second. So when the value of the gravitational potential changes, so too does the speed of light.

Declan Traill Hi Declan. It seems that we have a completely different understanding of the nature of light. In my world view, light is a wave in the medium of space that always travels at the wave speed c determined by the medium.

https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I

The matter particles of the electron proton and neutron are looped waves in the medium of space travelling at speed c in the loop. The presence of these looped waves of Spacetime curvature have an effect on the medium which we detect as gravitational acceleration.

However, although Spacetime is curved, this does not affect the velocity of the waves in the medium.

I am not saying that your world view is wrong. I am just clarifying my world view.

Richard

Richard Lewis, The 'Aether' was abandoned for 1 good reason; the case of 2 observers at different speeds BOTH finding c. It can't then dictate local speed c. However there CAN be a medium, in which EM propagates at c. But when meeting the lenses of those 2 observers it's modulated to THEIR local 'c' (c/n in each the lens). The medium is then a fluid, and BOUNDED by the shear plane kinetic state boundaries, which are the two-fluid plasmas found at ALL such 'shear planes' as 2-fluid 'astrophysical shocks'.

It's then the ELECTRONS that dictate c each side of shear planes; c in each ones 'centre of mass' frame.

So your theory was ALMOST correct, but just needed 'fine tuning' to be consistent. 'Looped wave' fermions are then really just Majorana vortex pairs. You're also correct that gravity emerges, as Bernoulli's vortex model!

Most have old beliefs too embedded to assess other ways to look. I hope you're not one!

PS. Nice video, and I agree the dipole, which can be 'flipped' as a Majorana fermion!

Richard,

Not so different. I too assert that light always travels at the (local) speed of light c in the Aether medium, but I also say that the medium’s density can change too - this affects the local speed of light and rate of time in equal measure.

I model particles as 3D spherical standing waves (which involves Electromagnetic waves which travel in loops at speed c).

gravitational acceleration is just refraction of. EM waves due to the differing rate of time/speed of light in changing gravitational potential environment.

Declan Traill You are right. Not so different. We agree on the existence of a medium for the waves and this seems to be a minority view.

Richard

Peter Jackson Hi Peter. I know that the Ether was abandoned because of the development of Special Relativity by Einstein. That leaves us with the problem of defining the transport medium for light.

The LIGO observations show that gravitational waves and light have the same transport medium so light must be a wave in the medium of space.

This paper shows how to reconcile this conclusion with experiments:

Preprint Space Rest Frame (March 2022)

Richard

Richard Lewis , That otherwise commendable paper falls straight back into the problem causing ethers demise. The case I cited, which you ignore so far. Please do address it! The assignment of an 'absolute' rest frame for the medium is the key problem overcome by the hierarchical "spaces in motion within spaces" (AE's words) of a fluid medium. Once you analyse it you'll have a Eureka moment. Why should all electrons re-emit absorbed EM fluctuations at DIFFERENT speeds!"!?? That's the nonsense.

Peter Jackson Hi Peter. I am not clear about which part I need to address so I will start here and take it step by step so we understand each other’s point of view:

“The 'Aether' was abandoned for 1 good reason; the case of 2 observers at different speeds BOTH finding c. It can't then dictate local speed c.”

My viewpoint on this is that two observers at different speeds would measure a different speed of light. For example if observer A were at rest in the space rest frame K0 he would measure the exact speed c as he is at rest in the medium. Observer B is moving with velocity v relative to K0 so when the light pulse is released into the medium in the direction of v (say) then the relative velocity of B and the light pulse is c-v.

I am not sure if this has answered your point?

Richard

Richard Lewis, Thanks, yes, that addresses it well, and as I surmised. The only problem is that's not what actually happens, so that's the problem. Even observers receding from the source find 'c' !! Only the wavelength changes. But the solution DOES exist. Fact is no observer has any access to light BEFORE arrival & interaction. What's being measured is the POST interaction speed, which is of course always c/n in the lens (lens rest frame)

So what MUST happen to explain the data is that light CHANGES SPEED (by v) on re-emission by the lens surface fine structure electrons. That exactly matches Einstein's '52 re-interpretation of 'constancy' in SR, ignored or dismissed by all, and ALL empirical data. i.e. Lena Hau's BEC at Harvard, and why & how light changes speed from 3mph to c at the refractive plane surface on leaving the case of BEC.

To disagree you must then think hard and answer the question; why would all free surface electrons re-emit absorbed EM at anything other than c in their own centre of mass rest frame!??

"So what MUST happen to explain the data is that light CHANGES SPEED (by v) on re-emission by the lens surface fine structure electrons."

This is a very interesting sentence. Not a million miles away from my viewpoint to do with the observers conditioning the reality, or determining the "actualities." This would also fit in with the objections (valid objections in my view) by Dingle, Barter, and now we find Bergson.

Peter Jackson You say "Why should all electrons re-emit absorbed EM fluctuations at DIFFERENT speeds!"!??".

You misunderstand what the light does upon emission. The electrons themselves can emit light in all directions at the same speed they usually do (apart for the time dilation that exists in their own IRF which might slightly slow the process). The process is the jump in electron orbitals involving emission of Electromagnetic radiation.

However, upon emission, the EM radiation is emitted into the Aether medium, which may well be moving relative to the electrons. So, the wave pulses are 'layed down' into that moving medium and then travel at c in that medium. Once emitted by the electron, this may well involve an instant Doppler shift of their wavelength and for those pulses to be carried away from the emitting electrons at c-v or c+v (depending on direction of emission). This is the same process that occurs for sound waves (but of course it is the speed of sound rather than c), where a sound emitter introduces the sound signal to the air and then the signal travels at the sped of sound though that air

It is the Aether medium that determines the propagation speed of the EM radiation, not the electrons.

Peter Jackson

Declan Traill

Hi Peter. I agree with Declan’s statement on the effect of the medium of space (aether).

I would just like to challenge your statement:

“The only problem is that's not what actually happens, so that's the problem. Even observers receding from the source find 'c' !! Only the wavelength changes.“

I read an interesting book titled “Relativity “ by David Bohm published in 1964. It is a clear description of Special Relativity and within the book tries to find proof of the postulates of SR. There seems to be no experimental proof of the postulates as of 1964. I am not aware of any subsequent experimental proof.

So your claim that all observers see the same speed c is based on the SR postulates not on experimental evidence.

Anyway, I have devised an experiment to settle the question and it uses GPS type satellites to measure time dilation relative to the space rest frame. See at the end of the space rest frame paper:

Preprint Space Rest Frame (March 2022)

Richard

Richard Lewis One further point to realize, however, is that because length contraction occurs, the optical path length of light signals in the transverse and longitudinal directions (relative to the direction of motion of a moving IRF) do actually have the same length (in a vacuum) - hence light signals take the same period of time to traverse a distance and come back to their starting point (jn the moving IRF). This gives the moving observer the sense that light is still traveling at c (isotropically) in his own IRF, despite the anisotropy in light speed that exists in his IRF.

There is a way around this illusion, though. If an optical medium with a refractive index great that 1 (glass, water, air etc) is used for the light's medium, then it IS possible to detect a small timing difference between light traveling in the transverse and longitudinal directions. See the proof of this in my paper here, where the exact results of the Michelson-Morley and Miller (Mt Wilson) experiments are predicted by my model:

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=115944

Declan Traill Hi Declan. I don’t quite see it that way. In my world view, length contraction only applies to objects moving with velocity v relative to the space rest frame.

Distance is not contracted when considering different inertial frames. This is demonstrated in this thought experiment:

Experiment Findings Special Relativity thought experiment

The length contraction of objects is a real physical effect which is due to the nature of electrons protons and neutrons as looped waves in the medium of space. Since these waves are travelling at speed c in the loop and the waves are waves in the space rest frame K0 then it makes sense that objects moving with velocity v relative to K0 experience length contraction and time dilation.

Richard

Declan Traill, "The Aether medium determines the propagation speed of the EM radiation, not the electrons." Yes I know that's long been assumed but it was the downfall of the Aether. The DFM hypothesizes is that the electrons the aether condenses at shear planes between moving systems which modulate c. These are 'two-fluid' plasma's, so at rest EACH side. Richard Lewis , That solves Aether's fatal flaw. And there's overwhelming evidence all moving observers find c! including ALL NASA telemetry!! I challenge you to find ANY case or experiment where interaction with EM signals (i.e. light) finds anything different.!!

What I DO agree with is that it's a misinterpretation, due to not allowing for the speed change v on entering a lens moving at v. Think hard! The "approach speed" is always c+/-v of course, but that's NOT ACCESSIBLE to the brain or processor calculating 'speed'.

Following long discussions at fqXi and an AAS presentation I've just done an invited talk to the CMPS on the DFM (on you tube). Nobody can disprove the new hypothesis. I know your beliefs differ, but the ability to suspend them and test new physics objectively is the test of a good physicist!

See & consider this top 10 finalist 2012 essay; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1330

The image is a cross section through Earth's bow shock.

Richard Lewis Yes - the length contraction only occurs to objects moving at speed v through the (stationary) preferred frame.

Peter Jackson The Aether theory doesn't not have any fatal flaw. All the supposed 'valid' reasons for discarding the Aether are themselves fatally flawed. Take the supposed NULL result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) for example. First of all, it was not NULL - just a much smaller effect than was predicted. This resulted in the Lorentz length contraction being devised. This, far from disproving the Aether, provided the explanation that SAVED the Aether theory - as the theory still works if length contraction occurs.

You said "The "approach speed" is always c+/-v of course, but that's NOT ACCESSIBLE to the brain or processor calculating 'speed'."

That is not true! One-way speed of light measurements have been made in long ultra-stable, underground optic fibers that DO reveal the c-v & c+v nature of the light propagation (Krisher et al).

Declan Traill, I'd specified the key issue that killed 'Aether' above. It was the fact that multiple Observers at v, v', v" etc. of the same source ALL find 'c'! We'll never exhume it without the solution! Free fermions have the highest EM 'coupling co-efficient' of any particle. Did you never wonder why these are so dense each side of fluid motion shear planes? ('astrophysical shocks') and the surface of moving refractive planes. You understood this 5yrs ago, as did most at the time top scoring the fqXi essay proof, but have forgotten! The 'shocks' are the 'discrete field' boundary transition zones TZ's, always between the (Maxwell) 'Near' and 'Far' fields.

No 'Length contraction' needed, except for wavelenghts. (so Doppler).

Peter Jackson I have explained this numerous times in these message forums - all observers measure the speed of light to be c because of the length contraction that accompanies the light speed anisotropy. This causes the optical path length down longitudinal and transverse interferometer arms to be precisely the same, despite light actually traveling at c-v and c+v through the observer's reference frame. I proved this mathematically since 1998 in my first paper.

Article Relatively Simple? An Introduction to Energy Field Theory

This is true in a vacuum, but if the light signals travel through the interferometer in a medium with refractive index > 1, then it is possible to detect the light speed anisotropy that exists, as the transverse optical path length is then slightly different from the longitudinal one. It is this that MMX and Miller (Mt Wilson) found all those years ago. It is a much smaller effect than was originally looked for, and for a different reason - but still due to the existence of an Aether. Read my paper from last year here that fully explains this:

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=115944

Declan Traill , "I've explained this numerous times in these message forums - all observers measure the speed of light to be c because of the length contraction that accompanies the light speed anisotropy." Yes. I understand your view well, but using theoretical 'length contraction' means it's not a 'proof', but a different theory. I found the evidence for CSL from fermion interaction far wider, is 'physical' & consistent with Einstein's '52 correction (no length contraction!) & ALL NASA telemetry data, where frame transition zones ('TZ's') exactly coincide with astrophysical shocks & coma. We also find light 'carried' by fast moving electron clouds, i.e. see this VLBA finding;

Article VLBA observations of a rare multiple quasar imaging event ca...

also vast other data, i.e.; Article Coherent forward scattering of starlight by a cloud of atomic hydrogen

However, the Doppler shifts of wavelength between moving media ARE somewhat equivalent to the old 'length contraction' idea, as shown in the fig I posted above.

We can't advance our understanding unless we're prepared to study and analyse new physics objectively. Publishing an idea and adhering to it thick or thin is a common mistake in academia, anchoring advancement. We need to do better.

Peter Jackson Length contraction is real - otherwise the MMX would have found what they originally were looking for (i.e. a much larger timing difference between orthogonal arms of their interferometer). There has also been actual measurement of the length contraction - see the attached paper.

Declan Traill , "Length contraction is real" I know that's your interpretation, but (most of the multiple) MMX results & also Miller's also supported Stokes 'Aether drag'. All NASA telemetry agrees the DFM mechanism alone, as top analyst Dowdye's 'Extinction Shift' model and other evidence including AE '52 which you don't cite. See his intro paper below, also avoiding the fatal flaw of the old 'Aether'. No theory can falsify another so all should be posited, but nature does nothing for nothing, and two-fluid plasma shocks at shear planes have no other identified purpose! If your model allows 'contraction' as Doppler wavelength shift then I agree it's not wrong, just incomplete physically. https://quantumrealism.net/

Peter Jackson You said "but (most of the multiple) MMX results & also Miller's also supported Stokes 'Aether drag'"

The basics of Stokes 'Aether drag' is this:

"The aether drag hypothesis proposed that the luminiferous aether is dragged by or entrained within moving matter. According to one version of this hypothesis, no relative motion exists between Earth and aether. According to another version, the Earth does move relative to the aether, and the measured speed of light should depend on the speed of this motion ("aether wind"), which should be measurable by instruments at rest on Earth's surface."

The Aether wind (and the associated anisotropic light speed) IS measurable on Earth and has been measured by numerous researchers (including myself). So, the first version of the hypothesis - that "no relative motion exists between Earth and aether" is clearly wrong. The alternate version (partial entrainment of the Aether) is possibly correct, but the amount of the entrainment would only be very small and is due to the same effect as Frame Dragging (i.e. the fraction of the total gravitational potential in space due to the Earth would move and cause the Aether (preferred frame) to move with it slightly).

Even so, if there is partial entrainment, there must be length contraction accompanying the Aether wind through the Earth's frame, otherwise experiments such as MMX would have detected a much larger timing difference down the orthogonal arms of their interferometer (which is what they were originally expecting to see). They did not, and the explanation as to why they did not was that length contraction in the direction of motion was occurring.

"Who call tell what happens at the edge of the universe?"

In order to answer this question, we have been discussing the anisotropy in the universe, Doppler effect, etc.

Why not take into consideration also the following commonsense but rationally acceptable (true) points to ponder?

There are gravitational coalescences within the universe, between a star and its planets, between stars, between galaxies, between clusters of galaxies, etc. In that case, we have the following commonsense-wise acceptable scenario:

1. SUPPOSE THE UNIVERSE IS OF FINITE CONTENT:

Then there will be only a finite number of local universes in it; and each will form gravitational coalescence with some others in the vicinity, and finally, all of them will be seen to be together in one gravitational conglomeration.

Could you please try and conclude anything further about this sort of a universe: of its origin, evolution, end, etc? Please do not accuse me of being of any conclusion. I am asking you all....

2. IF THE COSMOS IS OF INFINITE CONTENT:

Then, at any given moment, there will be an infinite number of finite-content universes. Each of these will naturally coalesce gravitationally with a finite number of others, and this effect will only widen in the course of time into the future. Here, each such coalescence can be deemed to possess a proper time scale of its own. That is, causal connection between universes can give temporal connection too.

This time scale will widen as the content of each such local universe of universes widens its content by furthering the breadth of its proper gravitational coalescence formation by attracting and being attracted to other universes.

(I admit that gravitation may be taken mathematically as spacetime curvature. But what exist out there are not the curvature but the curving matter-energy formations, in which gravitation too should form part. After all, gravitation is not a vacuous magical power! Hence, spacetime curvature is not a vacuous mathematical effect; it is a physical effect in actual existents.)

But at any given time there can only be finite-content gravitational coalescences. And, by assumption under 2, there is an infinite number of universes within the cosmos. In this case, will there be further cosmological questions to answer?

I am just asking, I do not posit solutions here about the origin, evolution, and end of the gravitational coalescences of local universes. IF ANYONE OF YOU HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS, PLEASE SUGGEST.

I BELIEVE THIS IS THE STATE OF AFFAIRS AT THE EDGES OF THE LOCAL UNIVERSES IN ANY GIVEN FINITE VICINITY OF EACH UNIVERSE.

But if you insist that we have no proofs for the existence of an infinite number of universes, then choose a finite number of them and be happy about it!

But please note: I did not say here anything irrational, and hence, I said nothing prospectively unscientific. For some this too may be unscientific -- in which case, what is prospectively scientific is for them unscientific, and their definition of science would naturally be: "The rational study of whatever we can experiment with".

I believe it to be too poor a definition. All of you have all the rights to hold the other definition or any other!

Declan Traill, Interesting view of simple Stokes 'drag' options. I agree 'partial' drag, but only between the orbiting ECI frame & rotating ECRF. The one that consistently works physically AND quantitatively is the 'Ewald-Oseen' type 'extinction' of c in the ECI frame with progressive interactions re-emitting at c in the ECRF (air). That's as J.D. Jackson & precisely as Miller & ALL NASA radio telemetry data! To get fully 'up to speed' on these you need to READ Dowdye's analysis of those, also Young, A.T., Understanding astronomical refraction. NASA Observatory 126,82-115 (2006) http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2006Obs...126...82Y&db_key=AST&page_ind=1&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

('Frame drag' is indeed a related but different effect of condensate vortex motion).

To accurately trace the 'outline of an elephant' we need to use ALL the data points available.

Dear colleagues,

Universe has no edge, as Agnieszka correctly described on March 3.

Eugene F Kislyakov The problem with assuming that the universe is infinite and unbounded is that the Big Bang is supposed to be the event when space and time came into existence.

How then did space come into existence and immediately become infinite?

Richard

Richard Lewis, thanks for re-positing this question. In my opinion, the "infinite yet unbounded universe" is a merely mathematical and physically paradoxical notion. How could general relativists lap up such a notion for more than a century till today! Even as a schoolboy, I have been surprised about this notion, whatever version of non-Euclidean, Riemannian geometry may be cited in support. I think this was a manipulation by E....

Peter Jackson "The Ewald–Oseen extinction theorem says that the light emitted by the atoms has a component traveling at the speed of light in vacuum, which exactly cancels out ("extinguishes") the original light wave. Additionally, the light emitted by the atoms has a component which looks like a wave traveling at the slower speed of light in glass. Altogether, the only wave in the glass is the slow wave"

That is not correct - light travels through a dense optical medium at the full speed of light c between molecules of the medium, but is absorbed/re-emitted by the medium molecules when it encounters them. This causes a small delay which introduces a phase delay in the transmitted light and makes it appear that the light is traveling through the medium at c/n. However, it is never actually traveling at c/n, that is a macroscopic result of the stop/start transmission of light through the medium. If this was not the case then Fresnel Dragging would not exist - light would just travel through the medium at (c/n -v) and (c/n +v). It does not doe this, so Ewald–Oseen extinction theorem is proven to be wrong!

Dear Richard Lewis,

Universe is finite, but has no edge in three dimensions, as two-dimensional sphere (see Agnieszka).

Eugene F Kislyakov Yes. The idea of a universe which is finite with no edge is another common assumption. The problem is that this requires there to be significant space curvature so that a light path will eventually close back on itself.

The observation of the cosmic microwave background radiation suggests that on the largest scales there is no curvature.

The reason why these two possibilities have been given priority is that the absence of a space boundary allows the cosmological principle to hold which in turn simplifies the mathematical models.

If you follow what I believe to be the correct conclusion which is a finite universe with a boundary then you have an explanation for the cause of the expansion of space.

Richard

Declan Traill, We disucced this before, but it seems you didn't check the references I gave. I agree all except you jump to a false conclusion at the very end. As in J.D. Jackson, Ewald Oseen extinction ALLOWS FOR the 'Fresnel Drag' effect over the given initial 'extinction distance' for any medium (so a few nm up to parsecs, & 10-15m in water). After that all is c/n+/-v, as IS then always found! i.e. we just drop the v once completed.

Peter Jackson Explain to me how light's method of propagation (the basic underlying physical process) would change depending on how far into a medium it had propagated. Say we had a light-year of glass - light will continue to propagate at c in the space (vacuum) between glass molecules and be absorbed/re-emitted by the glass molecules (which will introduce a phase delay) each time the glass molecules are encountered. This process will occur regardless of how thick the optical medium is. The light won't suddenly travel at c/n through both the glass molecules and the vacuum between them - that is an absurd suggestion!

Declan Traill, "Explain..how light's method of propagation..would change depending on how far into a medium it had propagated.." Yes. That's the hard part to first grasp; Electrons have high EM 'coupling' for a reason. Data support the hypothesis that electron spin speed dominates each wave interaction, so EACH ONE re-emits EM fluctuations at 'c' in it's own centre-of-mass rest frame. So you're right that all speeds between them are c, but, as Raman showed, the birefringence found during 'extinction' is due to the 'datum' for speed c changing progressively to that of the new co-moving medium. So the more dense the medium the higher the interaction rate so lower the 'extinction distance'. It's not then the 'method' of propagation that changes, just the speed of the 're-emitter' medium particles.

Fizeau needed a greater distance in the water to entirely extinguish the 'approach' speed. (Most forget ALL 'speed' is relative, requiring some LOCAL datum, i.e. the rotating ECRF of Earth's surface.) So your glass example is correct, but the datum for c quickly becomes the rest frame of the glass.

It takes some thought and visualization skill to embed.

J.D. Jackson wasn't called the 'EM Bible' for nothing!

This simple video of such a dense moving medium may help; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9KIzLuJlR0

Peter,

So, from what I gather from your ‘explanation’ you are saying that light effectively speeds up in the direction of motion of the medium’s molecules such that what started out as being c-v and c+v relative to the medium’s molecules ends up being c in both directions. is that what you mean?

if so, then the first thing I would point out is that even in that scenario the light is never actually traveling at c/n it only appears to over a macroscopic measurement.

What distance do you suggest this change in the speed of light happens in glass? Because Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (FOGs) use kilometers of coiled optic fiber and rely on Fresnel Dragging in their calculations for the change in inertia of the gyroscope when it is moved/rotated.

Peter,

Also, if what you assert was true then there would be the same propagation times down optical fibers in any direction in space as you say that it is just the electrons in the fiber that set the speed of light c. However, there is experimental evidence such as that done by De Witte (using coaxial cables) and Krisher (using optic fiber) who accurately measured the one way speed of light in different directions in space. They both found different propagation times in different directions. This disproves your assertion.

Declan Traill, Not just 'speeds up', also 'slows down' to PROPER speed c if the approach speed is c+v. & yes, we agree light does c between electrons. Kirsher et al. found limits on the anisotropies I described, i.e. the velocity of Earth with respect to a preferred 'background' IRF due to partial 'extinction'. Not quite as you interpret. Dowdy's decades better data also agreed DFM analysis. Finding one-way speed in space still isn't possible.

The Gale link below on De Witts results to show there's "no 1st or 2nd order anisotropy in the two-way speed of light." But my round-the-world trip confirmed H&K's finding that atom oscillation rates increase when travelling West & decrease travelling East! I also spoke to BA. Signals in Concord solid fibre optics front/rear all do c/n in the local jet IRF whichever way they're flying! But fibre optic 'wave-guides' are hollow. If used in a Sagnac ring gyro with signals emitted in the NON-rotating frame, there's a long extinction distance within the tube.

The very best 'Sagnac' experiments are those of Ruyong Wang. Properly interpreted they agree entirely with the DFM analysis. In water and i.e. Article Test of the one-way speed of light and the first-order exper...

So you're correct WITHIN the 'extinction distance' but don't forget that the delay there will still 'show up' after many miles of propagation at c AFTER extinction, so is easily wrongly attributed.

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A463400592&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=4fe7ed33

Peter Jackson The fact remains that with your suggestion the speed of light anisotropy would not be detectable in different directions (such as was found by Miller in this graph from 1925). With your suggestion, the speed of light is set by the electrons in the optical medium, not by the galactic space through which the Earth is moving, so such a graph would not occur!

Declan Traill Hi Declan. Very interesting reference to the work of Miller. It got me thinking about one way light measurements over distance. Going back to the original speed of light measurements based on Io and Jupiter would be useful using up to date measurements.

I like the idea of trying to detect the velocity of the solar system relative to the space rest frame. The problem with measurements on a local fixed apparatus is that the apparatus itself would experience length contraction depending on the velocity relative to the space rest frame. This length contraction does not apply to the distance between Earth and Jupiter.

So the prediction would be that the Milky Way galaxy is moving relative to the space rest frame at approximately 55km/s in the direction of Andromeda and the solar system is moving at around 250 km/s around the centre of the Milky Way. This all should resolve to a net velocity v which should affect the measurement of the speed of light and give different results depending on the direction between Earth and Jupiter.

I am not sure how accurately we know positions of planets but in principle this seems to be a good way of showing that the postulates of Special Relativity are wrong.

Richard

Richard Lewis , It's an error to assume an 'absolute' rest frame for space except for a point of origin. All system motions are within the 'next system up' hierarchically. Earths rotating ECRF speed is in our orbiting ECI frame (ionosphere), which 29.8kps speed is in the Suns Barycentric (IPM) frame, doing 250kps in the local arm (ISM) frame, which speed is in the Galaxy IRF, with a speed in the Local Group (IGM), which does ~500kps within the Cluster, which orbits the Supercluster, part our our local rotating Filament with it's own motion in the 'axis of evil' flow towards the 'great attractor'.

We can then only determine each PROPER (Propagation) speed as being in the 'Local Background' state.

The best latest telemetry data analysis in the solar system is by ex top NASA analyst E.H. Dowdye. It confirmed light propagates at c locally in EACH of those systems; i.e. Jupiter etc also have local rotating JCRF and orbiting JCI systems. The clear logic shines through the confusion. EM radiation propagates at c where is IS at any time, not where it ISN'T. Einstein already corrected SR to this in 1952 but is so far ignored!; ("Infinitely many (bounded) spaces in motion within spaces").

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html

Declan Traill, "..with your suggestion the speed of light anisotropy would not be detectable in different directions." It certainly would, and IS, but only when the light has entered the moving medium (i.e. atmosphere) from the background IRF i.e. Sun or (orbiting only) ECI frame. So the DFM predicts Millers findings, including his varying altitude data. Light from a source at rest in the propagating medium would NOT be anisotropic, also exactly as found.

And don't forget that once the initial delay is 'in there' it remains there!

(The other point to remember is that if using 'atomic clocks' at different speeds and altitudes data is confused as oscillation rates change, as found by Hafele & Keating and confirmed by others including me).

Peter Jackson Wrong again!

You said "Light from a source at rest in the propagating medium would NOT be anisotropic".

See this paper that describes an experiment using optic fiber moving on a conveyor, with the source and detector co-moving with the fiber. It still causes light to propagate consistent with an anisotropy in that moving frame. The light source is in the moving IRF but the light itself is moving at c in the background frame, not the moving fiber's frame.

file:///C:/Users/decla/AppData/Local/Temp/0609222.pdf

Peter Jackson Also, according to your assertion, light would propagate forward from a moving source at c+v, so for light in a synchrotron, for example, where the electrons are circulating at almost c, the light beam emerging from the synchrotron would be moving at 2c in the lab frame - this definitely DOES NOT HAPPEN!!

Richard Lewis It IS possible to detect the Aether wind via the light speed anisotropy that exists in the Earth's reference frame as a number of experimenters have done, using coaxial cables, optic fibers and even NASA's own spacecraft fly-by Doppler anomalies. See this paper here:

Article Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data wi...

I have even build an Aether wind detector for just a few hundred dollars that detect it. See my preliminary result paper here:

Preprint Detection of light speed anisotropy and Aether wind speed us...

I have worked out the precise theory that explains how/why this detection method works and why it has the magnitude it does. See my paper from last year here:

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=115944

BTW The orbital mechanics of planets orbiting the Sun would still be subject the length contraction effects due to the whole solar system's motion through space.

Declan Traill Thank you for the links, I will take a look. We are in agreement about the existence of a medium for light wave propagation. We are also in agreement that this means that the postulates of special relativity have to be discarded.

I think we are in agreement that objects moving relative to the medium experience length contraction and time dilation.

However, I have demonstrated in this thought experiment that distances are not length contracted:

Preprint Special Relativity thought experiment

Richard

Richard Lewis I read your short thought experiment. I think the main point you are missing is that the golf balls are made from fundamental particles, which are all 3D Electromagnetic standing waves. The EM waves from which these particles are made are subject to exactly the same propagation anisotropy as the light which moves through the preferred Aether frame of space. Thus, as the golf balls are accelerated into motion in the x direction, their EM waves are Doppler shifted into higher frequency upstream waves and lower frequency downstream waves. Both of these wave components still travel at speed c in the preferred Aether frame. The result of these two Doppler shifted components is that when these waves are summed to form the moving standing-waves of the particles in the golf balls, the nodes within these standing waves (which are also a unit measure of distance within the moving reference frame) with be closer together (when viewed from the stationary frame) by precisely the Lorentz factor. So, the space in-between the golf balls may not appear contracted, but the golf balls themselves would be.

You can see all of these effects modeled in animations from some of my computer modeling on by website demos page, here (scroll down to see the first two animated demos):

https://www.energyfieldtheory.com/demos

Declan Traill Hi Declan. I agree with your analysis of the golf ball thought experiment that the golf balls themselves would be length contracted.

However, the important point is that the distance between them is not length contracted. The golf balls of row B represent the inertial frame of row B and the thought experiment shows that the coordinate transformation must be given by x-vt and not the Lorentz transformation.

Hence my conclusion that the postulates of SR have to be discarded.

Richard

Richard Lewis The interesting thing about this is that an observer moving with the golf balls would measure the length of the moving golf balls to be normal (i.e. not length contracted. This is because of the light speed anisotropy in his IRF combined with the length contraction makes light signals appear be traveling isotropically at c in his own moving IRF), so does this mean he would measure the distance between the golf balls to have increased when in motion?

Please read and comment on this reply of mine in the discussion on (https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation#view=64332e9a87b7637f3609a791/1)

Karl Sipfle, let me first answer the 4 questions you asked. And on another day I will speak of a fifth, more important, question, which you did not ask me. I have written down as my thoughts proceeded. I did not take a second look at these paragraphs I wrote. Merely due to lack of time.

YOU:

My FIRST question is this:

CAN WE ASK THE PERENNIAL QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE COSMOS?

=== As long as we first ask whether there needs to be an origin. The question contains an assumption, leading the witness.

MY REPLY:

Why should there be anything wrong in asking the perennial question? The assumption could be conceived slightly differently too: If the inner-universe processes are all in Extension and Change and if such an existence of all existents may straightaway be termed Universal Causality, then we may ask whether the whole universe has (I) only finite content or (II) infinite content.

Then, in each case, the following inductions (not presuppositions) could be placed as queries.

Under (I), whether the finite-content universe is created or existent from eternity.

Under case (II), the following would be the sub-cases: the universe could have been (1) existent eternally from the past, (2) created wholly at one go, (3) been created partly at any given time with respect to the time of the universes that neighbour the one being created, (4) been created as matter or energy or matter-energy everywhere but finitely at every finite spacetime region, and so on.

SECONDLY, another question is imaginable:

If there is no creative Source in both the above cases of finite and infinite content, WHAT WOULD MEAN BY ETERNAL EXISTENCE?

=== No such thing in that case. And it would cease to exist to a spawned cosmos once the latter left the nest.

MY REPLY:

I do not understand what you mean by “a spawned cosmos” and “once the latter left the nest”. These are strange for me.

In case the finite-content universe or the infinite-content cosmos were existent from eternity, they would simply continue to exist! This is the apparent conclusion. But if further questions are asked?

For example, in any case, merely because we have formulated a few laws of thermodynamics on earth, the finite-content universe need not obey the second law by bring back all that energy at the outermost fringes of such a universe. What has been propagated is propagated and goes farther away.

If a later intensification of gravitation at the centre of the universe could have brought all those gravitational and non-gravitational propagations back into the body of the universe, it would be a miracle.

That is, most probably the energy at the fringes is lost forever. IF THIS IS TRUE, there is energy loss from the universe. If the universe had been uncreated, then the (by assumption above) finite-content universe would have exteriorized all its content in a finite time, and this is not the case as we know. In this scenario, in my opinion, a sole, finite-content, universe should have had a one-time creation. (I do not elaborate on this because of space crunch. If sensible questions from the readers appear further, I can try answering.)

NOW, A REQUEST TO THE READERS: (not only to Karl Sipfle; but I know Karl respects me enough as a human person who cannot answer everything in the world) PLEASE DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF HOLDING ANTIQUATED IDEAS. BEFORE ACCUSING, PLEASE READ MY BOOK OF 2018.

In place here one more suggestion to all the readers here: Just reading something there and making all sorts of claims and criticisms is not acceptable, because that work is the result of more than 30 years of study and reflection. (It is a new theory, for which I have undergone inexplicable sorts of misunderstanding from hundreds of friends, and as a result, I had to decide to do such a work as a doctoral work, and suffer poverty and penury for more than a decade, in Europe, i.e., away from my motherland. I hope, time will show the worth of that work.)

THIRDLY:

Can this question be avoided permanently by claiming that TIME AND ETERNITY EXIST ONLY WITH THE COSMOS, as if time were a thing that exists, or were an ontological predicate of the cosmos?

=== Arising quickly is recognizing other possibility spheres, a set of interrelated consents no with relationships to other spheres. Time appears to be local to and exist within one or more of these.

MY REPLY:

This question has been in vogue in philosophy at least from the time of Augustine. Of course, before Augustine too. But his refutation of the question by saying time did not exist before creation was motivated also by his concept of a timeless God which in turn was motivated by Platonic concepts of Ideas existing as timeless out there and most probably in the human mind, and hence permitting the conclusion that the human soul too is immortally existent…!

First of all, the ontological predicate / Category of time is Change. Time is only the measuremental, i.e., epistemic and cognitive category based on measurements. But Change is there as one of the most important two physical-ontological attributes of all existents. Extension is yet another. Without some extension and change, nothing can be. That is, without being causal, nothing can exist. Time is not a thing in which the universe exists. It is not even a physical-ontological attribute. It is merely epistemic. Similarly also space: it is the measuremental, epistemic, cognitive category of the physical-ontological Category, Extension.

Hence, TO CLAIM THAT PHYSICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY THERE ARE ONLY SPACETIME CURVATURES AND NOT EXISTENT PHYSICAL PROCESSES IS A NONSENSE PERPETUATED BY EINSTEIN AND CO. BY THEIR QUICK-FIX ATTEMPTS TO MAKE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CONVINCED OF THE VALUE OF RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY.

Time is local only measurementally. Change is local and universal in all physical-ontological senses.

NOW, YOU HAVE LEFT OUT ANOTHER CASE: IF THE UNIVERSE IS A VAST INFINITE OCEAN OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FINITE-CONTENT UNIVERSES? You did not ask this question. But my lead question includes that. Hence, I will treat of it later, after dealing with your next question.

FOURTHLY:

Suppose there is a Source. What would be the modalities by which such a Being could be thought to exist?

=== The simplest two options are a peer universe from which one under discussion was born, or a common background birthing all and wisper than any of them.

MY REPLY:

The simplest answer does not seem to be a peer universe creating ours. It will muddle the whole thought in paradoxes. Universes have only finite activity, and finite stability in the state of its finite activity. They cannot, in my opinion, create another or others from themselves and render them of as much or less or more matter-energy content than itself. And if this were possible each universe has already created an infinite number of such, which is creation out of nothing by the same finite-content and finite-activity-and-stability universes. This is at least rationally unacceptable.

If anyone wants to go on with this belief, it is like the faith in a god who just created once and is sitting idle “watching” the fun. It is against such a god that greats like Russell, Wittgenstein, Hawking, Dawkins, etc. have been ranting. Take any of their writings and you will find the background knowledge of such a god in them.

Declan Traill The observer in row B does not do any measurements of the distance between golf balls in the thought experiment. Instead the invariance of distance is shown by the fact that the balls in row A and row B pass simultaneously.

The problem with B trying to measure the distance between golf balls is as follows. He could use a measuring stick but this would be length contracted so would give a wrong result. He could try to use the speed of light but light travels in the space rest frame.

I agree with you that an observer moving in the frame of row B would measure the diameter of the golf balls as unchanged using a ruler. If the frame of row B is moving with velocity V relative to the space rest frame then the length contraction for the golf ball and the ruler would be sqrt(1-V^2/c^2).

Richard

Declan Traill , False conclusions arise from poor understanding. Here you miss the key speed change at the TZ, explained in arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163 Synchrotron light reverts to c at the TZ, explaining the severe blue shift and solving the B&B anomaly. If measured IN the moving IRF we also find c! So ALL those findings emerge from and are explained by the DFM. Remember c+v is only apparent or 'co-ordinate' speed, NOT 'Proper' (propagation) speed. If you're still unclear on those I'll repeat the full definitions and distinctions.

Your 1st link wasn't live. I'm familiar with the 2nd, Cahills early paper (partly rescinded/corrected later), already resolved by Einstein's '52 SR correction.

Richard,

Yes, but he could send out a light pulse and reflect it off the next golf ball along and carefully time how long it takes for the pulse to come back. There will be light speed anisotropy in his frame so the light will travel quicker in one direction than the other, but if the gap between balls is also length contracted then the timing will indicate the same distance between balls as when he was stationary, otherwise if not contracted then the timing will indicate a greater distance.

Peter,

How is it that in one case (the Fresnel Dragging example) you have the light traveling at c+v taking kilometers to change to c/n, yet in the other case (synchrotron radiation) you have the c+v light changing to c almost instantaneously upon emission. It seems like complete BS! You are just changing the rules in each situation to suit your incorrect assertions.

Declan Traill Here is what I think would happen. For simplicity I will assume that the golf balls in row A are at rest in the space rest frame and separated by one metre. The golf balls in row B are moving with velocity v relative to the space rest frame.

The distance between the golf balls in row B remains at one metre as demonstrated by the thought experiment. If the observer in row B tries to measure the separation with a one metre measuring rod he will find that the rod has length contracted by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). The distance appears to have increased but it has not.

If he tries to measure the distance with a light pulse the light pulse will travel in the space rest frame. Looked at from the perspective of frame B the speed of the light pulse is c+v out and c-v back. The round trip time will be 1/(c+v) + 1/(c-v) which is 2c/(c^2-v^2). This is greater than 2c so you are right, the observer will think that the distance of separation has increased.

This illustrates the importance of the thought experiment which indicates that distance is not affected and the only assumption of the thought experiment is that of translational invariance.

Richard

Richard Lewis Yes - that is my assessment of the situation too...

Reverting back to the main topic of this discussion, I do think that the existence of a space rest frame fits well with the idea of a finite universe with a space boundary. The boundary then defines the centre of the universe and the expanding space rest frame.

As to what happens at the boundary, any radiation or matter particles (neutrons protons and electrons) being wave disturbances of the medium would simply dissipate at the boundary.

Richard

Richard Lewis In a sense - yes - but getting back to my original answer too: The speed of light of EM waves (both light and the waves that comprise matter particles) will increase when the gravitational potential level diminishes (i.e. near the edges of the Universe). This will have the effect of curving back inwards any waves that move out the those regions on the periphery. Points on the outside edge of the Universe will be connected closely in time despite their great separation (i.e. going around the outside edge of the Universe from one side of the other would be quick and would tend to the limit of being instantaneous where the gravitational potential tends to zero).

This would have the effect of making the outside edge of the Universe indistinguishable (to a moving observer) to the center of the Universe. Thus a 'Hypersphere' Universe results where the outside is the inside.

They seem particles, but mathematically and in some sense where time is totally ignored, and then one alleges the time back to it. This need not EXACTLY be the case, since the wave-form could better be defined mathematically as (1) at certain points elongated to almost the purely mathematical wave-form and (2) at certain other points almost completely bottle-necked as to seem like a mathematical particle.

In this case, the mathematical points defined between the two would be between mathematical wave and mathematical particle.

But this need not mean that the whole physical wave is an absolutely continuously defined propagation. Only mathematically can it be defined as absolutely continuous. There is some mathematically spatiotemporal discreteness between the states / stages of pure wave and pure particle. This is then the real wavicle.

Please note, hence, that the question of zero rest mass is a mathematical creation not met exactly at any moment in the physical wavicle. Moreover, the wavicle is not two-dimensional but three-dimensional in its statically mathematical diagram.

From Occam's Razor, our observable universe should just keep going. Otherwise, there would be space followed by no space -- two things, which are more complex that one thing. That would make our universe a "ripple in an otherwise infinite calm pond" -- among other ripples?

Warren Frisina Hi Warren, I am all in favour of adopting the simplest theory but we should consider the theory in its entirety.

Consider the expansion of space as described by the Big Bang model. The expansion starts off at some unknown rate. Then the expansion accelerates extremely rapidly (inflation). Then it slows down again. Then it accelerates again ( dark energy). All this without explaining the cause of the expansion of space or the cause of the variation.

The Big Bang model is tied to the absence of a space boundary by the cosmological principle.

The alternative in which the rate of expansion of the universe is constant over time and distance is much simpler.

https://youtu.be/muCa08hlIDc

Richard

Also, doesn't Olber's Paradox preclude the possibility of an infinite Universe? Otherwise the night sky would be bright not black.

Declan Traill, "..in one case (the Fresnel Dragging example) you have light traveling at c+v taking kilometers to change to c/n, yet in the other case (synchrotron radiation) ..c+v changes to c almost instantaneously". Correct, as medium density, so 'extinction distance' varies infinitely. Indeed not km but parsecs in deep space! If you'd studied it more, i.e. J.D.Jackson it'd have been clear. (Maxwell guessed at 1 micron for dense plasma).

Study 'graded index lenses'. varying electron density appears to 'curve' light. As NASA found & Dowdye resolved at galaxy edges.

The model also solves the problem of how light can go from c/n, =3mph in BEC, to at the surface fine structure on exiting glass etc. Also the 'anomaly' of light speed from fast moving mirrors. I've often posted this but you seem to avoid objective research; arXiv.org/abs/1307.7163

If you do some you'll find ALL phenomena are coherently causally resolved in the DFM, even 'QM' data, as you know!

Declan Traill "Olber's Paradox" is a naïve artifact. Light is redshifted beyond the visible band at modest z. Richard Lewis , An even simpler and better evidenced model is Einsteins final one; 'All Physics is Local, and 'Space' is a HEIRARCHY of finite kinetic states, always with a LOCAL background. That matches the best astrophysical data, including 'surfaces last scattered', as does the implied 'cyclic universe' model, resolving issues such as the 'great attractor', very old galaxies too close to be possible, and many others in the link I posted.

Peter Jackson

The energy from distant stars doesn’t disappear even if it gets red shifted. There is no blinding source of Electromagnetic radiation at ANY frequency - neither in the visible nor radio waves, so there must be a finite number of sources out there and/or for a finite time.

Peter Jackson Your theory of light emission based of being at c relative to the emitter (actually Babcock and Bergman’s theory) has been proven to be wrong: allow me to quote:

”Although there are still proponents of this theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to be conclusively discredited by most scientists.”

And…

“Numerous terrestrial experiments have been performed, over very short distances, where no "light dragging" or extinction effects could come into play, and again the results confirm that light speed is independent of the speed of the source, conclusively ruling out emission theories”

Peter Jackson BECs are special cases and the propagation of light through them does not follow the same process of absorption/re-emission, but does actually propagate at c/n throughout.

Peter Jackson More evidence against emission theory…

• What part of "inside-out" are so many people not understanding?

This superb logarithmic scale illustration shows our Earthbound PERSPECTIVE looking out in all directions.

CIRCULAR MAP OF THE UNIVERSE ALL VERSIONS - Pablo Carlos Budassi

https://www.PabloCarlosBudassi.com/2021/02/the-infographic-and-artistic-work-named.html

The further from our center perspective the more distant, smaller, dimmer and more redshifted those objects "appear" to be. Beyond the most distant galaxies around the outer most edge is the CMB.

But you must ask yourself, "But the CMB was at a time when the universe was only 380,000 years! How can it "seem as if" the whole universe is contained within it! If you really engage your brain here you've got to say, "But that does not make sense!"

Just like when we view Mars' orbit from our moving reference frame of Earth we see the illusion of "retrograde motion." Here, the illusion is caused by not realizing that we & observers in all galaxies are expanding away from the Singularity where time is the radial coordinate in a polar coordinate system. therefore, we and all observers are always on the outer most edge.

Please understand that as we look further out into the universe, we are seeing back into the depths of times past when the universe and everything in it was smaller. All light arriving here & now has been traversing ever-expanding Space~Time.

For detailed explanations, please see TrueCosmology.info

Declan Traill , "energy from distant stars doesn’t disappear even if red shifted." You need to study astrophysics. It 'dissipates' until undetectable. You're right; the universe IS none the less 'finite'. But you've got B&B wrong; they falsified Kantors emission theory, but left a paradox. The HJ/ arXiv link above solved it using the DFM, & Maxwell's TZ's as the two-fluid plasmas actually found. Light leaving the moving mirror first does c in the near field mirror IRF, then at the 'far field' is changed to c in the background IRF. As found. Electrons have exceptional EM absorption for good reason!

BEC simply slows propagation more than glass due to low temp. My point stands for light leaving a lens. It changes speed from c/n glass to c in the ambient medium. How did YOU think it did that!?

All your 'emission theory' comments are then 'straw man' argument. The DFM doesn't use it, but what it DOES do is resolve all the paradox and anomaly around SR, exactly as Einstein's '52 re-interpretation & NASA data analysis. You can't challenged either.

Carefully considering GRADEX INDEX (GRIN) LENSES should leave no doubt in your mind; Most use changing electron density through the medium (as in a galaxy halo) so small rotations at each re-emission event gives the effect of a CURVED light path!

Richard Lewis. Hello Richard, I saw your video, and appreciated the conservation of energy part (positive matter, negative space curvature). But zero net energy might also be explained by an infinite space with regions of positive curvature adjacent to regions of negative curvature. Also, what starts the process? And if space expands at a constant rate as you suggest, this can imply infinite energy is available to drive the process against an assumed attractive gravity with no slowing down. Generally, though, I appreciate this fresh thinking. You might like my explanation for dark matter and dark energy here: (1) An explanation of dark matter and dark energy from unmodified Newtonian gravity* | LinkedIn

Peter Jackson You still don't seem to understand - in an infinite Universe, there would be an INFINITE amount of energy arriving at our location, so no matter what 'dissipation' occurs it would still be an infinite amount!

Everything you describe about DFM is the same as emission theory - and there is a load of data that completely discredits that and proves it to be incorrect. Why do you persist with this nonsense?

Incidentally, light leaving a lens does not transition from c/n to c, it transitions from being absorbed by the last glass molecule it encounters to free emission at c - just like it does in between the glass molecules. What is difficult to understand about that?

Warren Frisina I think the importance of proposing an edge to the universe is that it gives a whole new perspective on observations. If we think of the universe as a spherical region of space with a space boundary then it has a centre.

Using the CMB anisotropy and Hubble's law we can locate the Milky Way galaxy at a distance of around 26 million light years from the centre.

The cosmological principle which assumes that there is no preferred place in the universe has constrained our thinking so that when we look out at distant galaxies we think we are looking back to the beginning of time but instead we are looking out towards the observation horizon (at around 14 billion light years) which exists because of the expansion of space.

When we consider the recession velocity of distant galaxies we used to think that the expansion of space must be accelerating by interpreting the observations as a variation over time but actually it is a variation over distance. The more distant galaxies are affected by gravitational acceleration in a particular direction namely towards the centre of the universe because that is where the centre of mass of the galaxies is located.

Furthermore the CMB itself can be better explained as an effect due to there being sufficient mass in the galaxies to create an event horizon at the Schwarzschild radius which was located at a distance of 8.77 billion light years at a time 13.8 billion years ago. Radiating matter is held at the event horizon and cannot escape and this is the cause of the CMB.

I have shown elsewhere that galaxy mergers take typically 20 billion years and the Andromeda problem mentioned elsewhere shows that the universe is at least 53.9 billion years old. The analysis of the formation of the solar system starts from the formation of the Milky Way at a time 100 billion years ago.

So the change in perspective has profound implications for solving the most difficult questions.

Your point about alternative explanations using positive curvature against regions of negative curvature would have to be explained in terms of the underlying cause.

There is a tendency in physics and cosmology to forget to ask the question "what causes the . . . ?". What causes the expansion of space?. What causes the rotation of galaxies? What is the cause of electric charge? What is the cause of the quantisation of the electron? What is the cause of the ability of matter to curve spacetime? A complete model has to get down to fundamental causes.

As regards the start of the process - that is a difficult one. I have only been able to describe the evolution of the universe from a spherical region of empty space which expands due to the presence of the space boundary. Whether there was a beginning or not I cannot tell you.

Richard

A central notion of mine is that gravity is fundamentally repulsive, and only apparently attractive below the galactic supercluster scale. So there is really no compromising here. Why don't you comment on my article?

Declan Traill , Our instruments are only able to detect a certain amplitude of EM fluctuation. Deep field images show the dark areas ARE INDEED full of light at the highest resolutions! But also our universe CAN'T be 'infinite' (as galaxies aren't). I understand your views well, you reveal you don't similarly understand the DFM; It's NOT an 'emission theory'. We rarely 'measure' light speed AT positions within the extinction distance.

When we do we find birefringence, a badly interpreted effect, from BOTH light speeds being present (Raman first did so, also Miller). That's exactly as JDJ's 'EM Bible' which to you refuse to read!

I note you couldn't refute the logic on GRIN lenses, which prove my model. By limiting your research base so much you're bound to end up with flawed conclusions. That's an important lesson we all learn as undergrads.

Peter Jackson I didn't refute the GRIN lenses because I didn't understand what you were talking about or what your point was, not because I agreed with it.

BTW I am not an undergrad - I graduated in 1994!

I'm glad you agree that the Universe CANT be infinite - that is the only point I was making there.

Birefringence is due to mechanical properties of the medium through which light is propagating. For most media this involves the oscillation of charges in the material as the light is absorbed/re-emitted being different in character depending on polarization direction. This is nothing to do with light's propagation in the vacuum. There is also known birefringence in space due to very strong magnetic fields. Here the medium is the vacuum energy, but the effect comes down to Classical Electromagnetic theory due to changes in Permittivity and Permeability - not emission theory type transmission.

You say we rarely measure light within the extinction distance, but there have been numerous experiments to do just that and they all found the emission theory of light (the speed of light being c relative to the emitter) to be wrong!

That puts a conclusive and terminal end to your DFM theory. You claim it is not an emission theory, but you are saying that light is being emitted at c relative to the last emitter (electrons) of the light (within the extinction distance). That IS the definition of an emission theory of light.

Warren Frisina Hi Warren. I didn’t comment on your article because I didn’t find a link in your most recent post.

Richard

Warren Frisina Now I have found the paper through your profile. I have read the abstract but not the paper because it is in rtf format and not pdf so not viewable on ResearchGate.

I think we are going to disagree because of a fundamental difference in worldview. I take general relativity to be a correct description of the properties of the medium of space at all scales.

I prefer an approach which considers the laws of physics to be universally applied consistently over time and distance.

Richard

Declan Traill, Once the importance of research rigour is learned at Uni we should remember it. Your misunderstandings, of that comment, of GRIN lenses, bi-refringence AND the DFM, are indicative of forgetting that, or perhaps never being taught it. A deeper study of birefringence shows it can have more than one cause, as my top 10 finalist 2012 fqXi essay showed. It's perfectly produced by TWO 'speeds of light' being present for a reducing 'extinction distance' on entering new diffuse media, i.e. as Millers data and other findings. Raman's 1927 Nobel Prize work was based largely on that but most have ignored it! Poor research again.

Your interpretation that it falsifies the DFM is completely wrong due to that poor interpretation due to incomplete understanding Declan. ALL experimental data are as predicted by the DFM. Raise any one and I'll explain or point you to right paper. The problem is, as usual, mainly about inconsistent doctrinal 'interpretation'.