Expanding or Static Universe? The Former Is Too Absurd!
Add Reply
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-23 10:51:58 UTC
Raw Message
If there were expansion, it would be in competitive interaction with the gravitational attraction and the effects would be manifest wherever there is such an attraction. For instance, the expansion would dominate where the attraction is weak, and vice versa. No such effects have ever been observed. Cosmologists don't know how to model the local interaction between expansion and gravitational attraction (any such model would produce results incompatible with observations) and implicitly obey the following idiotic slogan:

Wherever there is gravitational attraction, forget about expansion!

The problem (for cosmologists) is that recently Sabine Hossenfelder made the implicit slogan explicit:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "If The Universe Is Expanding, Then Why Aren't We? The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/

The universe cannot be expanding in some places and static in others - it is static everywhere. Star light slows down as it travels through the space vacuum, an effect caused by a factor equivalent to vacuum friction. For not so distant stars this is expressed as Hubble redshift but beyond a certain distance the star light does not reach us at all (Olbers' paradox):

"This leads to the prediction of vacuum friction: The quantum vacuum can act in a manner reminiscent of a viscous fluid." http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVN

"...explains Liberati. "If spacetime is a kind of fluid, then we must also take into account its viscosity and other dissipative effects, which had never been considered in detail". Liberati and Maccione catalogued these effects and showed that viscosity tends to rapidly dissipate photons and other particles along their path, "And yet we can see photons travelling from astrophysical objects located millions of light years away!" he continues. "If spacetime is a fluid, then according to our calculations it must necessarily be a superfluid. This means that its viscosity value is extremely low, close to zero"." https://phys.org/news/2014-04-liquid-spacetime-slippery-superfluid.html

Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found." http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1

Vacuum friction slows down photons coming from distant stars - so the Hubble redshift is produced - but at the end of their journey photons redshift less vigorously than at the beginning. This has wrongly been interpreted as accelerating expansion:

"In the mid 1990s two teams of scientists, one led by Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess, and the other by Saul Perlmutter, independently measured distances to Type 1a supernovae in the distant universe, finding that they appeared to be further way than they should be if the universe's rate of expansion was constant. The observations led to the hypothesis that some kind of dark energy anti-gravitational force has caused the expansion of the universe to accelerate over the past six billion years." https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/dark-energy-may-not-exist

The redshifting occurs in a STATIC, not expanding, universe, and varies EXPONENTIALLY with time. The "finding that they appeared to be further way than they should be" is an illusion due to using an approximation to the exponential function.

Assume that, as the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), a factor equivalent to vacuum friction (see relevant references below) slows it down so that the photon loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air. On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the speed of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this effect, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:

f' = f(exp(-kt))

where f is the initial and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. For short distances the following approximations can be made:

f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/λ

where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and λ is the wavelength.

The approximate equation, f' = f - kd/λ, is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law.

The original equation, f' = f(exp(-kt)), shows that at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe) photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning of the journey. This means that photons coming from very distant objects have undergone some initial "vigorous" redshifting which is unaccounted for by the Hubble law. This explains why the very distant objects "appeared to be further way than they should be if the universe's rate of expansion was constant".

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-23 23:05:56 UTC
Raw Message
Not only vacuum friction slows down the light (in a STATIC universe) - the light source can also do so, at the start of the photons's journey:

"Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science 20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857

"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release." http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/

"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently." http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480

"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do." http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it

So the essence of the "intrinsic redshift" idea - that the effect can be produced by the source of the light - has been unequivocally proved by experiments:

"Arp argued that the redshift was not due to Hubble expansion or physical movement of the objects, but must have a non-cosmological or "intrinsic" origin." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

"Expanding Universe "red shift" Myth debunked by Halton Arp using Quasars"

Needless to say, Halton Arp is an unperson in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

"Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed." http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.4.html

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-24 14:11:27 UTC
Raw Message
Photons are slowed down by vacuum friction - this is the cause of the Hubble redshift, in a STATIC universe. In Einstein's schizophrenic world "slowed light" is never associated with the Hubble redshift. Discussions always move to a red herring - "energy-dependent speed of light":

Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-time might change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed of light." http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2017/01/what-burst-fresh-attempt-to-see-space.html

Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. This dampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime, the researchers found. Although the effect is small, high-energy photons traveling very long distances should lose a noticeable amount of energy, the researchers say. [...] If it is true that spacetime is a superfluid and that photons of different energies travel at different speeds or dissipate over time, that means relativity does not hold in all situations." http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437

Any thought transition from "slowed light" to "Hubble redshift" is prevented by crimestop:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-11-26 14:17:45 UTC
Raw Message
Prof. Edward L. (Ned) Wright, UCLA: "Tired light models invoke a gradual energy loss by photons as they travel through the cosmos to produce the redshift-distance law. This has three main problems:

1. There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed..." http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

I am not competent enough to comment on the other "main problems" but this particular objection of Ned Wright's is obviously idiotic. "Known" interactions are totally irrelevant. The photon loses energy as it travels through vacuum, and there the interactions are still unknown. "Known" interactions do produce blurring but there is no reason why unknown interactions, as well, should produce it.

Actually photons LOSE SPEED - there is vacuum friction that slows down light and causes the Hubble redshift thereby (in a STATIC universe):

"Indeed, Wilczek began his lecture by speaking of the profound analogy between materials and vacuum. What our naked senses perceive as empty space turns out to be a riotous environment of virtual particles fluorescing and dying away on extremely small scales of space and time, as well as fog-like fields and condensates, which permeate all space and dictate the properties of elementary particles. To give an analogy for this perplexing new picture of reality, Wilczek asks us to imagine intelligent fish in a world surrounded by water. Such creatures would perceive the water surrounding them as their version of empty space or a vacuum. "The big idea I want to convey is simply this: We're like those fish," he said. What our senses perceive as empty space is better understood as a substance, a material." https://asunow.asu.edu/20170208-finding-nothing-conversation-frank-wilczek

Paul Davies: "This leads to the prediction of vacuum friction: The quantum vacuum can act in a manner reminiscent of a viscous fluid."x http://philpapers.org/rec/DAVQVN

New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all

"So how can a vacuum carry force? One of the first things we learn in classical physics is that in a perfect vacuum - a place entirely devoid of matter - friction can't exist, because empty space can't exert a force on objects traveling through it. But, in recent years, quantum physicists have shown that vacuums are actually filled by tiny electromagnetic fluctuations that can interfere with the activity of photons - particles of light - and produce a measurable force on objects." http://www.businessinsider.com/casimir-effect-vacuum-space-nanoparticles-2017-4

Pentcho Valev