Dear Johan,

If we had not an Universe in expansion, even with one small acceleration all our nowadays cosmological knowledge would almost change or disappear. Friedmann in 1922 using Einstein general relativity could find solutions for one Universe in expansion which was corraborated by Hubble in 1929 with redshift measurements. It is true that this seems to be a small amount of measurements for studying a so huge body as the whole Universe, but there are nothing against it. The theory and the measurements are in agreement clearly. Why are we thinking in one static or stationary Universe which couldn't explain the redshift expansion?

Perhaps thera are predictions with difficulties as that Guth inflactionary expansion which had to be accompanied by a scalar field or the acceleration which needs to introduce concepts as the dark energy which are out of the experimental confirmation, but I think that such difficulties are very far of needing a stationary Universe.

"Why are we thinking in one static or stationary Universe which couldn't explain the redshift expansion?"

Dear Daniel,

redshift apparently may as well be explained by alternative mechanisms, see references below. In particular, strong equidistance of Karlsson peaks as observed in distant quasar spectra seems to rule out the assumption of an expanding universe.

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

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.08516.pdf

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

"cosmology must ultimately furnish a mechanism for the cosmological redshift"

Dear Ali,

I agree. Please have a look at the references given in my previous post.

Dear Johan,

Thank you for the references but i think that they are not enough relevant for changing our present point of view given by the Big Bang theory.

Your first reference says explicitally:

Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times. Although there are a handful of published articles in the last decade in support of quantization, those views are rejected by the rest of the field.

and the other two only says that it is possible to add some contributions to the cosmological redshift due to other objects.

"Although there are a handful of published articles in the last decade in support of quantization, those views are rejected by the rest of the field."

Dear Daniel,

observation of periodicy obviously cannot be denied. Do you know any clear reason for rejection of the proposed mechanism on basis of photon interaction with intergalactic hydrogen? See also:

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

Dear Johan,

One simple mechanism for periodicity is just rotation of quasistars or other light emitter sources

"One simple mechanism ..."

Dear Daniel,

do you know what we are talking about? Karlsson peaks reflect highly precise periodicity in redshift of spectra from distant quasars which definitely shouldn't occur within an expanding universe.

Dear Johan,

Sorry, perhaps I don't understand it properly but for me both things are independent. Please, could you explain a little bit where is the difficulty of doing it? .Thanks.

Dear Daniel,

strong equidistance of observed Karlsson redshift peaks suggests that within similar periods of time light from distant quasars must have traveled over similar distances. When assuming an expanding universe the distances should have been significantly smaller at earlier stages of the universe.

Dear Johan,

Frankly I don't understand that the Karlsson's redshift quantization formula with their periodicity can give any information about the expansion of the Universe. For me that is mistery that is perhaps due to the statistical treating of data or due to receive electromagnetic radiation which was selected by absorption and emittion by means of a interstellar gas (for instance, a Lyman series for hydrogen). But I don't see how this periodicity is related with a constant distance and also that means an static Universe.

"selected by absorption and emittion by means of a interstellar gas"

Dear Daniel,

such mechanism has been treated in detail by the literature quoted above. The spatial distance between successive emissions of similar Lyman wavelengths is assumed to depend on some essentially constant density of intergalactic hydrogen.

It is difficult for me to accept the limited requirement in universal scales.

The only limited demand in a material world is that of the limited amplitude of vibrations, nothing else (due to demand for stability).

So any other constraint can not be justified.

( Article A new cosmological paradigm: universal locality

Dear Johan,

That is OK. I understand that the spectrum can depend of a constant density but that is not related with the expansion because the data of Karlsson's periodicity are assumed to be taken simoultaneously in all that I know.

"the data of Karlsson's periodicity are assumed to be taken simoultaneously"

Dear Daniel,

yes, of course, but light signals have been received from different distances as expressed in terms of redshift z.

Dear Johan,

At different distances, of course, but without distinguishing the time of emittion. I don't know how are treated the data but it seems to me difficult to associate these periodicities with distances (or emittion times). Thus I don't know how you can associate this with a stationary Universe. For me this only shows that vacuum is with some kind of material elements.

"difficult to associate these periodicities with distances"

Dear Daniel,

please note that periodicities have in fact been visualized and discussed as dependent on distance in terms of redshift z, see Fig.1.2 and Tab.1 of reference below. - P.S. - I just became aware of another article, see below, the discussion of which appears worthwhile reading in the present context.

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

Article The energy loss of photons and cosmological redshift*

"It is difficult for me to accept the limited requirement in universal scales."

Dear Demetris,

thanks for drawing our attention to your intriguing pilosophical essay on "universal locality". I think the imagination of some certain origin of time might result from our christian education with reference to the Book of Genesis. Apart from Doomsday we would more easily accept infinity into the future than in backward direction.

Dear all,

I have some comments concerning the paper

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

The possibility of a tired light due to a continuous weakening of photons has been made very difficult by the observation that the increasing values of redshift include an increasing fuzziness of the redshift data.

Instead, Lyndon Ashmore and Alexander Chepik independently have found two tired light theories that includes the fuzziness of the redshift data.

These tired light theories are based upon the approach to, and the leaving of light from hydrogen (probably hydrogen atoms).

This occurs either by a "recoil" (Ashmore) or just by the change of potential (Chepik).

Both theories are totally consistent with observation, and include the fuzziness with greater distance, due to the rareness of the "collision" events.

The observation of the Karlsson peaks in the redshift of quasars, when associated with these tired light theories, indicate distances obtained by the calculus of the average number of "contacts" of light with hydrogen. The equation of occurrences include Hubble's constant, and is the same equation as Zwicky's.

The observation by Karlsson of the peaks give a group of 5 perfectly equidistant redshifts, to a statistical precision of more than 5 digits. The number of quasars is exactly the same in the 5 groups.

Such perfectly equidistant groups can very well be explained when considering the quasars as being 5 times the same ones at different times, seen by light that is circling in our part of the universe.

It would completely comply with observation. No other possibility would get such identical redshift steps.

Consequently, it would be difficult to interpret such data in a non-static universe.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

"The number of quasars is exactly the same in the 5 groups."

Dear Thierry,

do you regard this result as essentially supporting your circling light theory? Do the evaluated quasars appear in localized groups or evenly spread over the whole sky?

Dear Johan,

I wrote: "The number of quasars is exactly the same in the 5 groups."

Remember that is about 5 groups of redshifts.

We are precisely in the line of sight of these quasars, showing the circling as follows: the most recent light of the quasars has been circling one time and has the smallest redshift. The second most recent light has been circling twice, for the same quasars. And so on, five times for the same quasars.

There are even a few quasars that started the circling a sixth time, the most recent one.

It is possible that the circling happened more than 5 (or 6) times, but that the circling wasn't at that time in our line of sight.

Millions of quasars will be in other lines of sight, and will also be grouped by the circling of light, seen at other places in the universe.

It is a rare phenomenon and there are a limited number of quasars that we see with circling light, because the light must exactly reach our line of sight.

Annexed, I added a schematic view of the circling of light.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

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

"Millions of quasars will be in other lines of sight, and will also be grouped by the circling of light, seen at other places in the universe."

Dear Thierry,

so I imagine all those lines of sight form a spherical shell with some well defined local center embedded in a much larger if not infnite universe. Based upon supposed circling light observations from our position right at the spherical shell, shoudn't we be able to find the direction of the related center? Shouldn't the observations be confined within some distinct plane instead of being spread over the whole sky?

Dear Thierry and Johan

Another possibility to explain the redshift phenomenon is to consider "space" being filled with some chaotically fluctuating electric massless dioples which can interact with light (photons or other/similar forms of e.m. "radiation"), provided that some special conditions are satisfied concerning the degree of 'chaoticity' of fluctuations of these alleged dipoles.

In such regions of "space" where huge massive objects (black holes, quasars, etc.) are located, it is assumed that the degree of 'chaoticity' is much smaller than in regions of "space" where such huge massive objects are not present. Whenever the degree of 'chaoticity' of the fluctuations goes below a critical level, a photon can interact with these fluctuations, thereby causing a tiny energy loss the photon. The amount of accumulated energy loss of photons ever passed the considered region of space should be related to the (tiny) increase of energy content of the physical objects contained in the considered region of "space".

A mathematical model which corresponds to these ideas (and to an idea concerning the ultimate building blocks of "matter" and "radiation" ) is under construction in my project "Hypotron Theory" (HT).

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Hypotron-Theory

In HT the possible dynamical behavior of chaotically fluctuating dipoles is analyzed in a manner which opens up a way to tackle the questions of ""what is "time" and "space" at all"" in a mathematical manner, which shows step by step what assumptions/approximations/generalizations finally can lead to a math. description of "time" and "space" by a "continuum" of numbers, i.e. to the traditional phys. theories based on the vague physical notion of an "event" and on the math. concept of manifolds.

Concerning Johan's initial question my vague answer is NO ( basically because there is no need to believe in any respect blindly the traditional phys. theories concerning "time" and "space" or "spacetime" ) . However, I think that it should be more clearly specified what 'limited age' should mean at all. If all of the universe would develop or merge into one single gigantic object which passes a finite number of states in a periodic manner, then a corresponding notion of (metrical?) "time" which reflects this process and this structure of the universe has the character of a bounded (i.e. 'limited') as well as an infinte (i.e. 'cyclic'/'periodic') character. And furthermore, a corresponding notion of "space" which reflects this process might be quite different to what is "space" imagined by physicists of the 20-th or 21-th century. It might turn out that there are some other and quite different reasons which either favor or object the idea of a non-static concept of "space" in which resides universe.

Dear Johan,

You wrote: "so I imagine all those lines of sight form a spherical shell with some well defined local center embedded in a much larger if not infinite universe."

Well, I would say that it is not needed to get a well defined local center. When one takes a nebula, even a very vague one, it will still have a mass, and make light bend, but not have a well-defined center.

It suffices to have a "regionally" higher density in a part of the universe, and that "region" may extend to gigantic proportions.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

"It suffices to have a "regionally" higher density in a part of the universe, and that "region" may extend to gigantic proportions."

Dear Thierry,

but even so, shouldn't that region be located essentially at right angles with respect to the circling light lines of sight? When lines of sight are equally distributes over the whole sky then I don't see any neccessity to assume such location of mass concentration.

Dear Johan,

The region of higher density should be at right angles, that seems to be correct.

However, light might describe elliptic paths as well. Also, maybe there are several places in the universe with a higher density. Difficult to say. Light can also be bent at other places without a complete circling.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

"Light can also be bent at other places without a complete circling."

Dear Thierry,

so complete circling might be regarded as a cumulative effect, even though over large distances one would rather expect statistical balancing of local effects. Difficult to say, indeed.

"Hypotron Theory" (HT)

Dear Karl,

thanks for drawing our attention to your HT project. I think understanding of complex physical systems preferably benefits from clear observations and comprehensible reasoning rather than from abstract mathematical formalism and associated claim of simultaneously covering as many basic phenomena as possible. Your theory apparently belongs to the latter category. I feel unable, in fact, to adequately comment on such complex matter and, in particular, I cannot draw any helpful conclusions in view of our present discussion.

Dear Johan,

It is indeed difficult to grasp, but if we would use the naive analogy for gravity: masses put on a large rubber sheet, but not evenly spread, one can easily see that when a small marble is rolling between them, it can become orbital, but will not always.

The masses on the sheet represent zones with higher average densities.

Indeed, in order to get a static universe, these densities should not change remarkably over very long times, but since we speak of large scales, this seems not impossible: denser zones will not spontaneously release matter to other dense zones.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

"Such perfectly equidistant groups can very well be explained when considering the quasars as being 5 times the same ones at different times, seen by light that is circling in our part of the universe."

Dear Thierry,

In a parallel session* I just came across annexed paper** explaining periodic appearance of remote sources by hyperbolic (Lobachevskian) deviation from Euclidean space geometry at large scales.

* https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_cosmic_microwave_background_CMB_radiation_profile_simply_result_from_superposition_of_redshifted_starlight?

** http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier.php?paper=0303271