Hello I sharing a work in process for to debate. Carlos. PD: I do not checked the English.
Towards a Radical Change in Fundamental Physics The expansion of space is a fundamental property of the current cosmological model known as Lambda CDM. In this framework, the space is integrated within a space-time continuum to which is attributed the characteristic of stretching or curving based on the presence of matter and energy. Both properties of this continuum are represented by the FLRW metric, that is one of the solved instances of curved configurations within the Theory of General Relativity. The Lambda CDM model is also referred to as the concordance model due to its aim of reaching optimal agreement with astronomical observations. Essentially, this theoretical model seeks to provide a physical explanation for phenomena like astronomical redshift, the cosmic microwave background, and the excess rotational velocity of galaxies, including our own Milky Way. The launch of the JW telescope has enabled us to extend our observational scope to distances previously unexplored, revealing galaxies even with redshift values above z=20. Within the timeline of the Lambda CDM model, this corresponds to objects less than 500 million years from the initial event. These observations of mature stars, galaxies, and astronomical structures at this distance do not align with the predictions of the current model. This evidence has led to the subjecting of standard cosmology to a process of critique and revision [Ref]. The growing evidence from new astronomical surveys, spanning an increasingly remote horizon, does not support the hypothesis of an initial event in the 20-billion-year range. This poses a significant challenge to the scenario outlined by the Lambda CDM model. This new evidence adds to previously known data that cast doubt on the “agreement” between this scenario and the characteristics of stars, galaxies, and clusters. Additionally, the improvements of stimulated emission beam technology (such as lasers) and the observation of interaction phenomena between electromagnetic radiation and matter, which were unknown half a century ago, in conjunction with the theoretical progress of optics and interferometry, now allow for a more precise description of various interaction phenomena between radiation and matter, which were unknown when the hypothesis of the expansion of space as an explanation for astronomical redshift was consolidated. In essence, we now understand that radiation-matter interaction processes like Compton scattering or ponderomotive scattering are more complex and varied than what was assumed in the mid-20th century. This lends support to the hypothesis that astronomical redshift is an optical phenomenon, or more generally, an electromagnetic phenomenon. We now possess laboratory-scale experimental evidence of phenomena like the Kapitza-Dirac effect, used to diffract a high-energy electron beam through a “grid” of laser beams. In this experiment, a transfer of energy from the laser radiation fields to electrons is observed, with no deviations in the original trajectories of the interacting photons. Thereby, due to their interaction with the electrons, the photons are “transferred” from the higher frequency beam to the lower frequency beam. Regarding the representation of the space-time continuum, the concepts of curvature and stretching of space, which are highly appreciated by theorists, exhibit some significant inconsistencies in relation to well-established principles across all natural domains. I am referring to the conservation of energy and momentum. Both principles indicate that certain fundamental regularities of the actual world are independent of the spatial and temporal location of natural phenomena. Instead, in “curved” spaces or spaces with intrinsic motion (as in the case of expansion), neither energy nor momentum are conserved, which contradicts our descriptions of nature. This inconsistency is addressed within the framework of General Relativity by postulating that conservation principles would only be applicable at scales where continuum curvature is not appreciable, when the space-time tends to be flat.
Dark energy and the cosmological constant. Perhaps the concepts of dark energy and the cosmological constant are the most disruptive notions in Cosmology. Both concepts propose different fields, omnipresent in all space whose existence is not associated with any source. Both ideas clash with the experimental evidence that proves that the known non-radiant fields (such as the electro-magnetic or the gravitational) exist associated with a source. The cosmological constant is a parameter of the model associated with the energy density of the vacuum, resulting from different quantum fields (among which the Higgs field would be found) and its theoretical representation presents practically irresolvable drawbacks. On the other hand, dark energy has the peculiarity that its value does not change with expansion, which is a flagrant violation of the Principle of Conservation of Energy. Furthermore, the model assumes another type of field to explain the inflationary expansion phase of the initial stage. Additionally, a quantum field associated with dark matter has also been proposed, in order to incorporate this type of matter into the evolutionary process described by Lambda CDM.
The flaws of the Theory of General Relativity. The Theory of Special Relativity describes the space-time continuum as a 4-dimensional (pseudo-Euclidean) flat space. This variety of space-time has the peculiarity that it is consistent with conservation principles and physical laws. At the beginning of the 20th century it was not possible to incorporate the effects of the gravitational field on the relative motion of bodies in the framework of pseudo-Euclidean space-time. Einstein resorted to an interpretation of the Equivalence Principle to equiparate accelerated systems with systems immersed in a gravitational field and, using the equality between inertial and gravitational mass, he argued that the gravitational force is in fact an inertial force operating on massive objects moving in a curved space. This postulate is the starting point of the Theory of General Relativity. According to this theory, a charge in free fall in a space curved by a gravitational field should not emit electromagnetic radiation, but if the charge falls in a Minkowski space-time, it should emit radiation. In fact, the Equivalence Principle could be verified experimentally by tests with accelerated charges in a strong gravitational field, but in the absence of experimental evidence, this point has opened an intense theoretical debate that has not yet been settled. The Theory of General Relativity is a theory of gravitation that represents the gravitational interaction as a force mediated by a space-time curved by its matter and energy content. Despite its great achievements, including the mathematical description of expanding space, and having anticipated phenomena such as black holes, gravitational radiation, the lensing effect of massive bodies and the gravito-magnetic effect (twisting of space-time by a rotating massive body) it still has unresolved fundamental inconsistencies. There is the problem of the violation of conservation principles and the consequences this entails. The curvature of space has given rise to misconceptions such as, for example, the possibility of the existence of hyperspaces of more than 3 dimensions and even the existence of parallel universes. It is clear that these speculative approaches in which new degrees of freedom of motion are attributed to matter lead to scenarios in which the known laws of physics are not fulfilled. On the other hand, attempts to integrate General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into the same conceptual framework have not produced consistent physics. It is very difficult to generate a coherent idea of a quantized curved space-time. The various String Theories and similars approaches are evidence of these problems.
The need for a new Theory of Gravitation. At the end of the 20th century, the Soviet physicist Anatoly Logunov proposed a way of integrating gravitation into the Theory of Special Relativity. From the resolution of the Principle of Minimum Action he was able to derive the field equations, understanding the gravitational field as a physical field similar to the electromagnetic one, in the sense that both are fields produced by sources emitting and absorbing carrier particles (virtual photons and gravitons) moving in a Minkowski space-time. This approach gave origin to the Relativistic Theory of Gravitation. In this theory the distortions produced in the relative motion of bodies, due to the presence of a gravitational field, can be represented by Riemannian metrics, but in this case, it is only a mathematical tool. In this framework, the problem of the violation of conservation principles and the antagonism between quantum mechanics and gravitation is solved. Space-time and matter in motion regain their complementary nature, as space-time is stripped of the characteristics of matter, such as motion, expansion or energy. The quantum nature of gravity, now verified, acquires a theoretical representation in some respects similar to that of the electromagnetic field, and the need to quantize the curvature of space can be dispensed with. In this framework, the gravitational lensing effect, gravitational radiation and the existence of black holes can also be described. The RTG allows to derive relations between gravitational and gravito-magnetic aspects similar to Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism. In spite of these advantages, Anatoly Logunov could not complete a comprehensive and consistent theory of gravitation, due, in my opinion, to the adherence to the Big Bang model, so that, at the moment, it is an incomplete theory. Nevertheless, it is my purpose to propose that the foundations of RTG are correct, in the sense that Minkowski space-time is a representation consistent with physical laws and that the Newtonian concept of the gravitational field can be recovered as a physical field that does not bends space. These arguments provide us a way of solving the major theoretical problems of contemporary fundamental physics.
Alternative cosmology and fundamental physics. The JW observations deepen the questioning of the current cosmological model and open up the possibility of a consistent perspective on the origin and evolution of stars, galaxies and chemical elements. A concordance model based on the available experimental evidence without the need for unsupported speculative extrapolations. At the moment, this concordance model is the Alfven-Lerner plasma model. Once the evidence supporting the optical (electromagnetic) nature of the astronomical redshift is consolidated and the notion of expanding space is discarded, a reformulation of the theory of gravitation (i.e. General Relativity) and the standard particle model is predictable. In the field of cosmology the notion of dark energy would lose its raison d’être in the same way as the cosmological constant. Einstein’s original question of why matter has not collapsed under the action of gravity has another answer, it is simply that inertia stops the collapse and the resulting effect of the combination of the different interactions and the inertia of astronomical objects generates the observed dynamical structures. These structures are the product of a long but finite evolution time. A separate paragraph deserves the question of the excess rotation observed in galaxies and clusters and even in our own galaxy. At the moment there are proposals that support a modification of the current theories of gravity. On the other hand, the Alfven-Lerner model posits that certain astronomical structures require on the order of 100 Gy to form from an initial state of cold and dilute plasma. In the particular case of the Milky Way, the possibility remains open that the stellar matter aggregations that form it (precursor structures of the galaxy such as globular clusters, dwarf galaxies or pre-existing galaxies) are older than 20 Gy. This possibility alters the population profile of possible astronomical objects, multiplying the population of old and archaic objects, such as black holes, black, white and brown stars, planets, debris, and dark and inert bodies with weak and basically undetectable signatures. Most likely, the phenomenon now attributed to dark matter has multiple causes, given the complexity of galaxy dynamics. The Lambda CDM scenario, the standard particle model and General Relativity are integrated approaches that support each other. The Big Bang theory describes an evolutionary process of fundamental particles starting from an initial event, a state with an incalculable energy density and minimum entropy. Each family of particles, including the Higgs boson, is the product of a phase transition in which, below a certain energy density limit, the condensation of a precursor quantum field occurs. This picture, in which omnipresent fields precede matter, is contrary to the evidence. The confusion here lies in the logic of attributing to our theoretical models, which are limited approximations of physical phenomena, the role of concrete reality.
There exists a theory, derived from findings by G. de Vaucouleurs; a maximum possible observable redshift of z=28.5 is predicted with it. So let Karl Popper keep us awake !
What is Energy? Is Energy Conserved? Sabine’s presentation is quite to the point. Emmy Noether proved a few things about Conservation laws as fundamental laws of nature:
Human technology would be unthinkable without experiments which are not repeatable in the first place. And it is expected that outcomes must be the same at any spatial orientation and at any position in space. So the conservation laws cannot be questioned for the physics that is technologically useful for us.
But the world is not only physics. In religion for example we have miracles, at least that’s what some people think. A miracle would be a typical example of an “experiment” that is not repeatable and not feasible at some other place. Strictly speaking, Emmy Noether’s theorems do not say anything about unique events in evolution and in history.
The same story holds more or less for cosmology. If there is evolution in the universe, with or without a Big Bang, then events may be not repeatable and not replaceable. But, if such is the case, then there is also no physical necessity for the common conservation laws to hold.
General Relativity, blessing or curse?
That’s correct, but his Equivalence Principle is nothing new. It has always been present in Newtonian mechanics. It is kind of silly, for example, that the first version of Einstein’s light bending theory has given exactly the same result as could have been obtained far more easily with Newtonian mechanics.
It is not at all for sure that black holes do indeed exist; it’s easy to fake a supermassive black hole. (Half of) gravitational lensing is predicted by Newtonian gravitation as well. Twisting of space-time can only be there if space-time does exist überhaupt.
I have a much simpler proposal. Let gravitation be completely separated from all other forces in nature; e.g. distinct from quantum mechanics and electrodynamics. Let it be that Grand Unified Theories of the sort are beyond the scope of any future research. Then we are finally finished with this.
Newton’s gravitation, combined with the Variable Mass Theory, works fine for me.
Yes, we know that it has given rise to MOND( = UAC).
Hello Hans. Thank you for the response.
I do not like to mix religion with science because science does not show some restraint. Most scientist are not aware of the limited scope of their science.
Elements of religion will be needed more than ever in the future, let it be in a more rational / less dogmatic form.
Take a look at the thread Lerner discussed on the Joe Rogan podcast, especially the second video at 12:00: Science wants you to believe that it’s all about measurement and reason, if you allow them one miracle, one miracle: the Big Bang. The creation of everything from nothing. Is there someone who still dares to talk about about dogmas and miracles in religion ?
In science, someone is guilty until the contrary has been proven. Verified by who? I haven’t seen anything yet but empty claims.
@carlosbelcech, I do not believe this to be factual. Can you provide references?
“The presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with other matter and with electromagnetic radiation such as visible light. Any matter that falls onto a black hole can form an external accretion disk heated by friction, forming quasars, some of the brightest objects in the universe. Stars passing too close to a supermassive black hole can be shredded into streamers that shine very brightly before being “swallowed.”[11] If other stars are orbiting a black hole, their orbits can be used to determine the black hole’s mass and location. Such observations can be used to exclude possible alternatives such as neutron stars. In this way, astronomers have identified numerous stellar black hole candidates in binary systems and established that the radio source known as Sagittarius A*, at the core of the Milky Way galaxy, contains a supermassive black hole of about 4.3 million solar masses.“ “Though only a couple dozen black holes have been found so far in the Milky Way, there are thought to be hundreds of millions, most of which are solitary and do not cause emission of radiation.[61] Therefore, they would only be detectable by gravitational lensing.”
To the previous paragraph I cutted from Wikipedia. Perhaps the best hint is in the attachment. rivinius2020.pdf What can be a supermassive object of millions of solar masses that we can not see?
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2007/
Just as I thought, nowhere is there a measurement of an observed radius for the “unseen object”. The article says:
I.E., the “black hole” is inferred from theory, not from observation. Now, they may call “black hole” anything unseen all they want, there remains that a “black hole”, from its exact definition, is a mass with a size smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. Period. And such an object has never been observed.
Black holes do not exist.
@HanDeBruijn I’m sure Joe Rogan made a mistake, he meant to say “Religion wants you to believe in one miracle: the Big Bang” since Big Bang cosmology is not science.
A few more references are needed to support all the statements you make. However this is good, I hope you will consider publishing this or posting it on the ACG Essays webpage.
Specify that this is a photometric redshift.
In other words, gravity is compensated by the ponderomotive force generated by the momentum lost during redshifting (or @sahil5d’s Hubble-force), so the cosmological constant is superfluous.
For references and footnotes, you can type
Which would appear as: … a process of critique and revision 1.
A. Author, Example Journal p. 1 (2023)
Hello Louis. Do you can explain to me what is photometric redshift?
In relation to the role of ponderomotive effect as the brake of gravity, I think that this hypothesis it is unnecessary. In my opinion, a precursor nebula can condensate in many stars, like is inferring from observations. Starting from inhomogeneities, is form something like condensation nucleus, whose gravity have certain range beyond of which the accretion will dissapear. The nebula will fragmentate, like the vapour clouds in the sky, in different centers of condensation that are competitive among themselves. Plasma model offer a good picture about how can be this process. The aggregation of matter in supermassive objects like black holes seem to be a long and complex process. Orbital dynamics among massive objects is complex too, only a reduced set of initial conditions leads to the absorption of one object by another. I do not want seem an arrogant but the Einstein’s problem with gravity seems silly to me. Sorry. Thank you.
What if there is no Hubble-force and gravity is compensated instead by the Cosmic Microwave Background ?
About references, I will do what you say. Thanks again.
@carlosbelcech Here is an example of photometric redshift and spectroscopic redshift measurements.
The cartoon below shows a galaxy (left), its colour spectrum (middle), and its high-resolution spectrum (right).
When the light is redshifted (bottom) the galaxy appears red, its colour spectrum and high-resolution spectrum are shifted toward longer wavelengths. However, it is very difficult to tell by how much only based on colour and photometric redshift measurements. Since we don’t know the non-shifted spectrum of a specific galaxy, a galaxy that looks red may just be behind dust that has absorbed the blue part of the spectrum.
However, because the spectrum resolves atomic absorption lines, the spectroscopic redshift is measured accurately. (Dust does not have sharp absorption lines!)
Up to now most JWST photos only have colour measurements, and the redshift z = 20 measurements are very unreliable. That’s why it is necessary to mention photometric redshift in your writeup. A much longer exposure time is required to obtain a spectrum and confirmation that the redshift is actually that large.
@RedshiftDrift thanks, Louis. Can you refresh on what is the farthest out mature galaxy seen by Webb according to its spectroscopic redshift?
I agree with you @carlosbelcech , but the processes you describe are for objects that are “small”, that is, smaller than one megaparsec. For large structures, beyond 1 gigaparsec in size, plasma currents cancel the electrical forces. At those scales, gravity and ponderomotive force from light are the only forces that are left.
If you are talking about “the Einstein equation for the stability of the universe with a cosmological $\Lambda$ constant”, I agree this is silly.
However, the problem is that Newtonian gravity makes Gpc-large structures unstable over time scales exceeding 100s of Gyr. The large structures we observe cannot exist in a static universe unless another force prevents them from collapsing due to gravity. This is provided by the ponderomotive force which keeps the intergalactic plasma hot (via the energy lost by redshifted photons) and maintains the size of large structures (via the momentum lost by photons c.f. @sahil5d’s Hubble force, a repulsive force, not attractive). The structures change shape with time but do not collapse in a giant blob of ultra-dense matter.
It’s not a hypothesis, it is a result of momentum conservation in the ponderomotive-redshift process. Since light travels away from stellar masses, photon momentum is transferred to the Intergalactic Medium as a Hubble force opposed to gravity.
@ExpEarth z = 13.2 as listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects#Most_distant_spectroscopically-confirmed_objects
Ok, thank you @RedshiftDrift for the clarification about photometric redshift, I will bare in mind. In relation to the great astronomical structures, caught my attention the issue of the organization at higher scales of the matter in filaments and voids. Or for example, the organization of Laniakea. From what I understood, this dynamic can not be of gravitatory origin. I think that these data are very preliminar but the things not seem are linked by gravitation. By other hand, I understand that the things are out of equilibrium to scales higher than Via Lactea size. For example, the Via Lactea and Andromeda will crash in the future and seems that the galaxies tend to fusion and to generate growing structures with growing central black holes. This seem to be a trend. If is so, then a past picture of the local universe will be different of a future picture, that is, everything is out of equilibrium, yes. At first sight, I agree with the effects on plasma of the ponderomotive force, is to say heating and something like a “negative pressure” but I don not believe that this has a appreciable effect on the higher scale structures. This pressure must be neglectable in relation other interactions. It occurs to me that at these scales, another thing is happen.
We don’t understand the physics of many processes, especially those that last long periods of time. So it’s difficult to predict what will happen to the dense galactic cores, or if there is a “trend” in galactic evolution.
However, there is currently a much bigger problem in astronomy that must resolved before we try to understand processes that take 100s of Gyr.
We know there are plasmas everywhere from the signal dispersion of Fast Radio Bursts. We know there are large plasma currents between galaxies, and we know there are magnetic fields in galaxies. Since the ponderomotive redshift is tightly linked to the motion of the plasma, it modifies the spectrum of light on its way to us. The problem is that all our knowledge about dynamics is obtained through the redshift of astronomical objects and interpreted as a Doppler/expansion effect. But the ponderomotive redshift changes all that and until data is re-analyzed in that context, the dynamics we know must completely be reconsidered.
Perhaps then we will be able to learn if there is a “trend” in galactic evolution.
Hello Louis. I tell you how I see this. In the frame of LamdaCDM model the redshift from cosmic expansion is appreciable beyond distances of the Local Group size range. I say, roughsly. Below this range the gravity dominate the expansion and thereby there are no expansion nor cosmological redshift (with the pardon of cosmologists, this is silly idea). As the expansion brokes the physical laws, it is necessary to search another explanation. For me, the ponderomotive hypothesis is good and wortwhile exploring. But, by the moment, all are hypothesis without experimental evidence. Just replace in the whole picture the expansion by the ponderomotive effect, not more, not extrapole this assumption until to put in doubts all the building and question the whole scientific method. I think that if you start from phenomenon (astronomical redshift), the cross sections of the ponderomotive scattering are very small and the freepaths (for all wavelengths) are of the order of Via Lactea size. Is say, like the redshift from expansion, there are no redshift by ponderomotive scattering below distances of the order of Local Group size. Much better. You can not to scape of evolution, in some things, the thermodynamics have reason.
There is no going away of the galaxies, no expansion of the space, no acceleration. We must begin with that in the physics of cosmology. Then we are free to make the right physics of the galaxies, their ages and developments and distribution.
Then we know what the redshift means.
Hello Olli. Louis and me think that the ponderomotive scattering can be an acceptable explanation but must than probe it.
Well, I just remind to keep in mind the fundamentals, you know very well that I don’t know the higher mathematics or physics. We know there is no expansion and no beginning for the whole universe, so let’s not be shy in that in scientific community. And we know what is the scientific method: the reality is like it is, the theories are changing. We make theories and test them, rational knowledge is as important as the empirical science. The cosmology is always philosophy and astronomy together etc. We know the photos of the deep sky, we know the maps of the galaxies. The redshift goes to that context, not to to the context of BB. Or the context of the GR only.
So I like your changes in the fundamental physics.
Thank you @OlliSant
Cosmology is not only physics. It is always philosophy and astronomy together. Otherwise it goes to a wrong direction as has happened now, and this continues, if we think that cosmology is an empirical science only and if the philosophy in cosmology is empiricism and naturalism and positivism.
Hi, Carlos and everyone.
Let me suggest giving a glance at Hills’ “Gravito-Electomagnetism & Mass Induction”, as well as Jefimenko’s “Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation”, “Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity” and “Gravitation and Cogravitation”.
It seems there are evidences that Einstein’s Relativity is just a wrong piece in the puzzle. It leads you some place ahead, but prevents you from completing.
Quoting Hills: “It is therefore the intention of this book to explore to what extent Gravito-electromagnetism provides a self-consistent theory of gravitation. But this raises the question as to its relationship to General Relativity and whether Gravito-electromagnetism and General Relativity are just two limiting representations of a yet more fundamental theory of gravity? There are hints throughout this book that this may be the case. For example, if space-time is assumed to be flat then gravitational mass becomes a dynamical variable and we have Gravito-electromagnetism. On the other hand, if gravitational mass is assumed to be constant then space-time becomes a dynamical variable and we have General Relativity. If this line of reasoning has any merit then the search for this more fundamental theory of gravity should be a high priority for future research.”
So,is it time to consider a flat space-time with mass induction? What about the possibility of merging Gravitation with Quantum Mechanics? Same framework for Eletromagnetism, Gravitation and Fluid Dynamics? It sounds good for me … Let’s go to the Math …
Ok. do you have the books?
Hi, Carlos. Yes, I do. I am starting to read them and to translate them into portuguese.
These are the sites where I found them: Amazon (~.com, ~.co.uk, ~.com.br) or bookfinder.com Books marked with (*) are a “must see”.
Jefimenko: () Electricity and Magnetism: An Introduction to the Theory of Electric and Magnetic Fields, 2nd edition () Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields, 2nd edition Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity: New Chapters in the Classical Theory of Fields, Second Edition Gravitation and Cogravitation: Developing Newton’s Theory of Gravitation to its Physical and Mathematical Conclusion
Hills (*) Gravito-Electromagnetism & Mass Induction
Tipikin: THE QUEST FOR NEW PHYSICS An experimentalist approach: Where to find new physics?
Ratcliffe: (*) The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer, Second Edition, Revised and Updated
I hope you get them. It would be nice to have someone to discuss about!
Emphasis by me: >For example, if space-time is assumed to be flat then gravitational mass becomes a dynamical variable and we have Gravito-electromagnetism. On the other hand, if gravitational mass is assumed to be constant then space-time becomes a dynamical variable and we have General Relativity.
Isn’t that precisely the Variable Mass Theory as it has been formulated by Halton Arp & Jayant Narlikar ??
Yes !! I’ve been fascinated by the VMT for about ten years now. And I’ve spent a lot of time to work it out mathematically. At this discussion forum too there can be found many comments and replies by me (@HanDeBruijn) that are related to the subject.
I don’t think so.
I recently started studying gravito-electromagnetism (GEM) and I’m still not completely familiar with the expansion of the concept to both gravitation and hydrodynamics. According to the video, Arp & Narlikar defined mass as a function of time, but implicitly adopt the change of position (I do prefer thinking about 2 variables here). I found the video interesting because it points out the variation of mass itself, but also because it addresses the difficult concept of “relative mass”, where it seems that mass is defined based on the interaction of the body with the existing gravitational field caused by other masses.
I remember that Jefimenko developed the retarded field equations (from the Helmholtz/Poisson Theorem) for gravitation, based on a possible analogy with electromagnetism and inserting the concept of co-gravitational field necessary to write equations analogous to Maxwell’s. It is in the books “Casuality…” and “Gravitation and Cogravitation…” In these books he discusses the interaction between a mass and the field in which it is inserted.
On the other hand, Hills starts from the deduction of Maxwell’s equations from the continuity equation (made by Heras)
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=VbbaWJYAAAAJ&citation_for_view=VbbaWJYAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C
In this case, it is necessary to think about the possible unification of the 3 areas within a common mathematical framework: electromagnetism, gravitation and hydrodynamics. He dedicates a large part of the book to this - in particular to show how Einstein’s postulates arise as mathematical conclusions of GEM and to show THeory of Relativity is a mathematical model - but there are others. I think that chapter 13 of his book may be of great interest to you because it deals with hydrodynamics (Maxwellian hydrodynamics and cosmic plasmas).
For now, I am inclined to think of a “reference frame” with 3 dimensions: time, space (or position) and mass. In this case the Theory of Relativity would be restricted to the space-time plane (mass = constant). All the stopgap theories that have arisen from this simplification (dark mass, dark energy, black holes, superstrings and so on) would be attempts to explain a 3D “frame of reference” within a 2D “frame of reference”. I think the 3rd dimension (mass) would be the frontier to be explored.
In that case, you might be interested in another video named Newton’s Laws, Gravitation and Inertia Some New Ideas, and the accompanying book named Origin of Inertia. The work by Amitabha Ghosh has been discussed recently (again) in thread 250. Oh yes, and thanks for the reference !
There are only two “parties”, the one that proves that Matter is inexhaustible, infinite and eternal and the one that always postulates a Beginning of the Whole. There is no third way. They are self-exclusive, opposite and antagonistic, irreconcilable. This “news” is not new, it is at least about 2518 years old. So you choose, one path leads to light and the other to darkness.
Are you completely sure that you have chosen the right path?. If you had chosen the right path, you would not have encountered any of the alleged “problems” you mention. The Matter is knowable and everything has an easy and logical explanation. Ockham’s Razor works. If you want to know more about the right way and the solutions, just ask.
Good luck.
There are actually multiple possible permutations, a universe can have a start via a big bang and be future eternal via the same mechanism than a past eternal universe (matter recycling via energy to matter conversion (in stars?) or spontaneous ad-hoc matter generation (non directly conserving energy) Actually not all universe starts are big bang like, one can imagine a big bang like energy/matter singularity but without the accompanying inflation and expansion, it’s unclear if this model works I’m sure it might by giving an initial spread of the matter generation (Eg ~homogenous over the whole already semi infinite static universe) A universe can also be eternal yet spatially finite or cyclic.
You probably know what a logical aberration is. Yours statement contains two self-exclusive opposites and antagonists. It’s simply impossible.
None of this is new. Absolutely everything was duly proved by the great genius of Parmenides about 2518 years ago or so. The inexhaustible, is by definition infinite and eternal, it can neither be created nor destroyed. I demonstrate this by three methods in this paper: «The Physical Mathematics and Geometry of Dialectical Materialism Versus the Euclidean “Mathematics” and “Geometry” of Philosophical Idealism» Spanish, Russian and English versions. 14 pages each. 14 drawings. https://vixra.org/abs/2402.0116 and https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/253#discussion-6983433
Moreover, surely you, like the vast majority, ignore the very essence of our infinite and immobile phenomenological and therefore sensitive and not exact Reality, as well as the essence of the Absolute that creates it. The Aporia «The Arrow» of the great genius of Zeno about 2486 years ago or so, will give you the key to understanding this Absolute Truth.
I do not operate with the concept of “energy”, because I always keep in mind the definition given by R. Feynman. Motion is the method and the form of existence of inexhaustible, infinite and eternal Matter and contains nothing that can be defined as ”energy“.
There is not a single valid argument that justifies a Beginning of the Whole as the Big Bang type, at all. Give me any one you think, and I will prove to you his falsehood. The empirical fact already verified of the permanent growth and expansion of our observable Universe confirms it. It is a unique and exclusive attribute of the infinite, of the inexhaustible, of eternity.
And as I said in my comment, it is a decision that everyone must make - which path to choose.