a-cosmology-group/acg#256

Thanks @RedshiftDrift . I’m sure I would not be as far along without AGC. It’s not just the huge amount of new information but also the energy and interest of all the members.

Regarding the connection with Gupta’s model, it was not so much that I was trying to rescue his model. I don’t really like it that much and don’t give it much chance. But Gupta’s approach of using TL in a hybrid model with LCDM is golden. It allows alternative ideas to be communicated to the mainstream. Probably 95% of cosmologists favour LCDM to the extent that they can’t even understand attempts to replace it.

The problems of TL models we have discussed often here. The main ones that come to mind are the blurriness problem (there was a discussion with that title), the problem of supernova time dilation and of course the temperature-redshift relation in the CMB. In my model, the Hubble redshift is a gravitational redshift and so the time dilation arises naturally. The CMB temperature distribution if consistent with a shell configuration with energy loss.

Now I should point out that my model is also a TL model in this unusual sense: the gravitational redshift is actually a TL redshift. How? The energy that is lost in the gravitational redshift is what goes into driving masses together in gravitation. That connection did not make it into the published version.

Thanks for having a look at my paper, Han, and for your interesting comments. I’m not following you on your first comment related to the possibility of a somewhat geocentric universe.

But what you said about the Pioneer acceleration could be quite relevant. I’m aware of that old idea that the Pioneer acceleration and the Hubble redshift might be caused by the gravitational effect of a universal half sphere. Of course this has been a hard idea to like because in an endless universe we would expect the gravitational forces to cancel out at any given point in space. This also appeared to hold true in the case that the universe has a shell configuration, as I had proposed. Whether you look at it in Newtonian gravity or GR, the gravitational forces at any point inside the spherical shell, arising from the shell itself, should be zero. I had supposed this was a merit of the shell approach, but it turned out I was likely wrong on that. The relativistic Ni solutions in GR rule out a flat Minkowski space inside. The gravitational forces inside do not cancel out and so a mass at a point inside the sphere will be attracted to the section of the shell nearest to it. DeLyra describes this effect as a repulsive gravitational field centred on the origin. Neslusan tells me that it is better to describe it as just an extra attraction of the nearby shell section. The math is all heavy Einstein field equations.

The net result of all this is that the idea that the Pioneer anomaly and the Hubble redshift are due to attraction of the cosmic half sphere becomes plausible. Using the thin-shell (‘eggshell’) approximation, and supposing we are near the centre of the shell, then the mass of the section of shell closest to us might be something like M/4. So the gravitational force of this section at our position is F = GMm/4R^2 , where R is the Hubble radius = c/H . Now since we are supposing the universe to be in the form of a black hole, we can express the mass in terms of the radius by the black hole mass-radius relationship M = Rc^2/2G . So the force then becomes F = mc^2/8R = mcH/8 (since R = c/H ). The quantity cH has the units of acceleration and its numerical value, similar to G , is close to the Pioneer and MOND accelerations.

It makes me wonder about the other spacecraft and their anomalous accelerations. They did not all show the Pioneer one and maybe this could reflect the different directions they were moving in.

the mass of the section of shell closest to us might be something like M/4.

If instead of your M/4 twice that amount of mass or even the whole mass is assumed then we get for the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer roughly the same result as in my comment.

$$ a_P = \frac{F}{m} = \kappa Hc \quad \mbox{with} \quad 0.25 \le \kappa\le 0.5 \quad \mbox{instead of} \quad 0.375\le \kappa\le 2 $$

But your calculation has the advantage that it is much simpler !!

Quite in general I was asking myself last night (again) how comes that our seemingly very different models nevertheless lead to similar results. And I think I found sort of an explanation. Sketched in the graph below.

The Shell universe has a sharp boundary, it simply ends at a distance $R=c/H$ . The Variable Mass universe has a “smooth boundary”, extending to infinity, but with the same decay distance $R=c/H$ . Thus Matt’s step function in red can be looked upon as if it were a crude model for Han’s function in blue $= \exp(H/c.r)$ . By the way, the volume of the “blue” universe can be calculated too, as actually has been done below. That volume turns out to be approximately half the volume of the “red” universe. Oops, that outcome is for the “blue” universe when limited to a radius of $(c/H)$ . For the whole VM uiverse we have a finite volume

$$ V = 4\pi\left[-e^{-\xi}(\xi^2+2\xi+2)\right]_0^\infty \left(\frac{c}{H}\right)^3 = 8\pi \left(\frac{c}{H}\right)^3 $$

which is $8/(4/3)=$ six times the volume of the “red” universe. Or is it not the volume but only the mass that is finite?

@HanDeBruijn I would have expected quite different math for the thick shell universe as compared with the thin (egg)shell universe.

Bingo! You’re quite right that one would expect a lot of math to move from the thin-shell to thick-shell models. To do that properly would have required a deep dive into the Einstein field equations of liquid or gas spherical masses, something that I would have to seriously retool for. The extensions of the Ni-Neslusan-deLyra solutions to an actual thick-shell universe still need to be done! The future problem is that those who may attempt this will be tempted to do it in the expanding universe model. This will lead to an unrecognizable universe, I’m afraid. So my approach was to use Gupta’s idea of a hybrid model and use my eggshell model as an extreme version of the Ni shell model. The math in the eggshell model is a lot simpler. I called it a toy model. The idea is that the features of this toy model can then be blended with LCDM model features in different combinations to attain suitable results. This is why the math is all the same. Of course the LCDM contribution would be small or nonexistent, but by expressing it this way it became possible to communicate my findings to very skeptical reviewers. There were only one or two reviewers over many journals who were intrigued with my original eggshell model (hmmm, similar as here in ACG!)

Thanks Francois @Francois-Zinserling ! I think our models or model styles are very similar. Your comments helped me to think about how gravity works with the paired-photon model. I didn’t really talk about gravity much in the paper, as there was already too much for reviewers/readers to digest.

Let’s go over your points. The way you describe things is similar to what I would have said prior to the point I made the universe into a black hole universe. Of course the idea that the universe and black holes have similar structures seems fantastical, but once you appreciate the functions they do it all becomes straightforward. The black hole structure in all cases locks in matter and radiation, apart from jets, inside the structures. They thus become semi-autonomous entities, doing their own metabolic thing. Without this sequestering, the universe and black holes would not be able to do the things they do. Most important is the CMB cycle (Figure 3).

It’s important to recognize that in rotating black holes, a spherical shell would likely become unstable. It would collapse to a toroid-like structure, similar to the dark energy star model. The photos of the supermassive black holes in our galaxy and Andromeda - looking like The One Ring - suggest this is what happened.

The picture I have is slightly different from Arto Annila’s. He calls it the “paired-photon vacuum” (Fig. 2). For many years I had suggested that particles must be linked by photonic filaments. I thought the photonic elements might be similar to virtual photons. The reason why it has to be photonic filaments relates to gravity and the Hubble luminosity. The Hubble luminosity L = UH is central (Fig. 4). It seems to hold in all cases where other energy sources do not dominate. No one has shown me I’m wrong about it, after almost two decades. It is simply the easiest way I can image how gravitational potential energy degrades to photons - to have all masses connected by these fine filaments of photons whose energy matches U . Now you argue that interconnecting all the universe’s particles this way is unimaginably complex, but keep in mind that photons have ways of interacting to reduce this complexity. Think of each particle as being like the heart of a circulatory system. The tiny photonic ‘vessels’ all eventually converge into large flows entering and leaving the particles. The particles themselves are photonic in nature. This is what Arto Annila preaches: everything is made of photons. I term the paired-photon filaments as spacetime, for simplicity. I don’t think Arto is yet saying the filaments are linked directly to particles as I do.

So the shell structure allows CMB photons to be locked inside, giving rise to a cycle. The hottest at are in the shell, the coolest near us. The shell is at the same time supported by the Hubble luminosity, which acts as a cosmological constant.

Your points 1-3, hey I was there, except that I would not limit the photon-pair emission to quasars. The photon filaments emerge from and reenter all particles. What you say about an effective wall that seems to exist, with us at the centre, is what I thought too, before. Here’s the problem though. Supposing we are not at the centre of a real shell, but rather a pseudo-shell, it becomes hard to explain the CMB temperature structure. Are you saying that the CMB temperature would be higher in the pseudo-shell region? Then, since our location is not special, there should be a matching region of hotter CMB at our position, radiation that must cool to form a cooler CMB at the pseudo-shell. But where is the local hot CMB? And did we not just say the pseudo-shell has a hotter rather than cooler CMB? It becomes impossible to fix. And the measurements of CMB temperature suggest that the actual temperatures of the CMB do increase with distance (though many/most in ACG continue to question this). The pattern of CMB temperatures point to a real shell, not a pseudo-shell.

To all: as long as one holds on to the idea that the CMB is 2.7 K everywhere, the advantages of the shell structure can’t be appreciated. I would suggest that everyone try to read up on the papers making those measurements and try to debunk them.

Now getting back to gravity, the paired-photon model leads to a simple mechanism. Looking at Fig. 2, you can see that where filaments have unpaired (real) photons, the filaments are extended slightly. Where the photons are paired up, the filaments are more compact. What I suggest is that when photon energy undergoes the Hubble redshift, a portion of the photon pairs up with a portion of a photon moving the other way. This allows the filament to shorten. And since the filament is connected to particles, those particles will be drawn together in gravity. My optical gravity model of a few years ago is not enough. We need absorption of photon energy. The CMB is driving gravity.

On that front, the key points in my paper, concerning the Ni shell structure, the Hubble luminosity, the CMB temperature distribution, etc., are all scientifically testable.

Thanks, Han. The idea of nested shells could be relevant. The gravitational condensate star, or gravastar, is quite a speculative notion, however. It’s one of the alternative solutions that have been proposed for black holes. They have an exterior shell, usually thin (but in this paper thin or thick) and the shell is supported by a hypothetical entity called a Bose-Einstein condensate. That’s the problem with the alternate models. They all rely on special assumptions. That’s where the Ni-Neslusan-deLyra solutions are different. They are based on ordinary baryonic matter exclusively. They are new solutions in GR just found recently.

Thanks Roy. I hope you don’t find me in the fluid mechanics pool, though, as I would likely need to be resuscitated!

On the electron structure, your brief description reminds me of Arto Annila’s model. He thinks that everything is made ultimately of photons, including the vacuum (or spacetime). You might want to check his video chapter from his book Back to Reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SPKrfWMsM0 The part on the electron starts around the 23 minute mark, but the whole video is interesting.

@ExpEarth .

Sabine [ .. ] missed the main points

No she didn’t.

on how the universe actually functions.

As if you know how? All that you have is a theory Matt, as so many people have. It is not at all certain that anybody’s theory here has anything to do with reality.

She goes nuts!

No, she is teaching you a lesson, take it or leave it!

I do know, Han. This was a low point for Sabine. She has zero lessons for me, at least in her video.

10 points for getting on Sabine’s radar, minus some few many lots of points for getting your ideas shredded! Or maybe any publicity is good publicity? How did you manage to get it on her desk?

Thanks, Francois. I didn’t send it to her. Someone must have brought it to her attention or maybe she saw my short piece on it in phys.org. While I had hoped she would do a video on my paper, obviously the result was not what I had hoped for! Quite a shock actually. I can’t say whether the net result is bad or good for my theory. I know a lot more people have looked at my paper now.

The strange thing is she never actually got to the main parts of my theory. She didn’t even make it past the introduction. She got stuck on the point about why we don’t see a blueshift in photons from stars closer to the centre than we are. The whole paper dealt with that! I’m thinking of doing a video response to it in Youtube, but would enough people see it?

she never actually got to the main parts of my theory.

No, because Sabine - just like me - does not know where to find those main parts.

we don’t see a blueshift in photons from stars closer to the centre than we are.

Of course not. Because there is NO closer to the centre than we are.

I’m thinking of doing a video response to it in Youtube

Take my advice, Matt: don’t make it worse than it already is.

would enough people see it?

Is being (in)famous the only thing you care about?

“It’s unstable” is what ruins everything. Unstable things need another explanation to happen, so the new model augmented with another explanation is already too many epicycles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwOERPO7xT4&t=236s

Negative point mass, really? Photonic space-time? The problem with contemporary cosmology is that too many epicycles are used to make it work. This is the main criticism used by the “Cosmology Group”. Why propose a solution that’s just as bad?

I’m surprised, but impressed, that Sabine spent three hours trying to understand the paper, she is very thorough!

Too many epicycles?? Give me a break!! You say she was thorough and she was indeed thorough when she looked at and discussed the papers on the Ni solutions. But even on those she was wrong. DeLyra never said anything about a point negative mass. That was her concoction. I introduced the Ni solutions as a way to solve the cosmological ‘tensions’, but then pointed out that there was an issue that needed to be resolved for that to work. This was completely normal science. Once she saw my mention of photonics spacetime she just stopped. She didn’t get to the main ideas of my paper at all! Thorough you say??

From the general relativity side, the Ni solutions alone would give black holes and the shell universe stability. But on the quantum gravity side there is stability also. It all relates to the Hubble luminosity, which I have described here many times. The repulsive forces generated by the Hubble luminosity inside a shell black hole exactly balance the inward gravitational forces. Sabine never got to the sections on the black hole universe, black holes or the Hubble luminosity at all! She totally missed my model.

Thanks @RedshiftDrift and good idea to move the discussion. I have moved the arrows inside.

(edited)

On your question, it does seem that baryons would pile up at the shell, but the baryons are all connected to the photon filaments. Since those are being pushed towards the centre, the baryons have this equalizing push as well. Conversely, the filaments don’t pile up at the centre for the same reason. Since the shell baryons are pushed outwards, the filaments attached to them are too.

On the other hand, there is actually some evidence that matter is moving away from us, if we assume that we are at the centre of the KBC Void: https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/the-milky-way-may-reside-at-the-center-of-a-2-billion-light-year-wide-cosmic-void/ This pattern is similar to what I said in my shell paper. I did not focus on the bulk motions as much as I should have. I only have a hunch as to what the process is to return the matter from the shell to the interior. It involves the cosmic filaments.

recoil from the reemission gives the baryons a push towards the exterior CMB photons … impart some of their momentum to the spacetime filaments, pushing them towards the centre baryons are all connected to the photon filaments

It not clear to me: do (baryons connected to photon filaments) move toward the exterior or toward the centre? Or do they move at all?

The answer would be a little long. You would kind of need to go back to my optical gravity model: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402622004284 https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02776 The photon filaments connect all particles and it is the motions of the filaments which drives gravity. The early papers did not have a black hole framework and the picture changes when you add a shell black hole. Since most of the rest energy of a mass is associated with distant gravitational attractions (in this model), it means the filaments are essentially anchored in the shell. Basically, the energy released in filaments due to the Hubble luminosity that is moving towards the centre of the universe pushes masses together, in gravity, while energy moving back towards the shell pushes the shell outwards. It’s at the shell that the forces of gravity and repulsion are balanced.

“Filaments”, “baryons”, “black hole”, “shells”, “Hubble luminosity”, “refractive-like light bending”, “screening by masses”, “gravitons”, “attractive gravity for masses”, “repulsive energy for shells”, etc.

Is there any independent evidence for any of these elements?

A good model explains several phenomena with few elements. The “Shell Universe” seem to be a collection of dei ex machina introduced ad hoc to resolve different aspects of the universe.

A good model explains several phenomena with few elements.

Precisely ! In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister ( Goethe ). Jumping on my hobby horse. In (my version of) the Variable Mass theory the only “new physics” is - guess what: Variable Mass.

add in that they have photonic filaments connecting them all

Picture from Exact Quantum Electrodynamics of Radiative Photonic Environments.

Via NU.NL : Wetenschappers weten eindelijk hoe lichtdeeltjes eruitzien = Scientists finally know what photons look like. They are cyan spheres ! 😁

Edited…

Not ultra simple…

they have photonic filaments connecting them all…

Except for “nylon optical fibres”, the term “photonic filaments” is not standard optics but your creation.

everything is made of photons…

Photons do not have a charge. Protons and electrons cannot be made of photons.

Even gravitons are photons

There is no evidence for gravitons.

the Ni solutions…

The Ni solutions are unstable unless new assumptions are made to make them work.

Hubble luminosity

Also a ad hoc element only seen in your papers.

the ejection of paired photons from spacetime filaments to form ‘real photons’ that we can see.

So the ejected photons are not real! Another ad hoc construction.

There is no evidence for gravitons.

Gravitons are also present in Origin of Inertia by Amitabha Ghosh (11 occurrences). A second occurrence is where Laplace himself had suggested the following form of gravitational force.

$$ F = G_0 e^{-\lambda r}.\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2} \qquad (4.4) $$

Another detail in Amitabha’s book: gravitons move with the speed of light. (Oh well, I think they move much faster, iff they exist) Taking notice of the Standard gravitational parameter formula (4.4) can be interpreted in two ways. Amitabha and others (@ExpEarth ?) are using the first, I am using the second one (with VM).

$$ F = G\frac{Mm}{r^2} \quad \mbox{with} \quad G = G_0 e^{-\lambda r} \quad \mbox{OR} \quad M = M_0 e^{-\lambda r} $$

In the end it turns out that $\lambda = (H/c)$ where $H=$ Hubble parameter and $c=$ lightspeed. I only had to copy and paste this result into Variable Mass theory.

@RedshiftDrift Except for "nylon optical fibres", the term "photonic filaments" is not standard optics but your creation. Of course it’s not standard optics, but I am not the only one saying this. Annila and others are saying it too. From one of their papers: Those authors are not saying the filaments are connecting masses, but simple logic dictates it must be so, if the filaments are to be involved in forces. Their energy is also needed for the Hubble luminosity.

Photons do not have a charge. Protons and electrons cannot be made of photons. We have hardly any idea at all of what charge is, but that could soon change. The photons themselves do not have charge, true, but their actions on electrons could cause charge. It would relate to electron spin. This is all speculation, but I can see electron spin as producing the polarization of photons (within filaments) which can be connected to charge. It will involve concepts similar to what @Francois-Zinserling talks about.

There is no evidence for gravitons. True again, and we can actually dispense with this term. I’m using it just to mean the overlapping pairs of photons in filaments, which renders them invisible. Annila does the same.

The Ni solutions are unstable unless new assumptions are made to make them work. On this point you are possibly accepting Sabine’s argument. She was wrong though. The structures are indeed stable. Where she was right is that the Ni solutions don’t explain how the shell structures can arise in the first place. You need the Hubble luminosity for that. Sabine totally neglected that key part of my paper.

Hubble luminosity. Also a ad hoc element only seen in your papers. It may only be appearing in my papers, but can I help it if the scientific community is so *^%$$#**!! on this? I’ve only been saying it for nearly two decades now. And it is hardly ad hoc. I have a ton of evidence for it. If it’s not true, you need to explain this graph: Figure 3. Λ luminosity at many scales. On the horizontal axis are plotted the bolometric lumi-nosities of representative white dwarfs (WD); neutron stars (NS); supermassive black holes (SMBH); the observable universe (U); and the excess heat emissions of Earth and Jupiter. Their respective Λ luminosities are on the vertical axis. The solid line is the 1:1 correspondence. The range of luminosities covers 35 orders of magnitude.

I have had such little success with the term Hubble luminosity that I am thinking of changing it to the Λ luminosity, as in this graph. Can people let me know if they think this would be a good change?

@HanDeBruijn Another detail in Amitabha's book: gravitons move with the speed of light. (Oh well, I think they move much faster, iff they exist) Taking notice of the [Standard gravitational parameter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravitational_parameter) formula (4.4) can be interpreted in two ways. Amitabha and others (@ExpEarth ?) are using the first, I am using the second one (VM). If we were to say that that gravitons are pairs of overlapping photons in optical filaments, then I could possibly agree that they have to move faster than light. This relates to the speed of light in a ‘vacuum’, which is c.

If we take gravitational light reflection to indicate refraction in a gravitational medium, and set the value n = 1 for the vacuum, then we see that if we take pieces of matter out of the universe, the speed of light would increase. Now think about the gravitons (paired photons) in filaments. As they move through space do they have to cross over filaments themselves, as free photons would, or do they all form a sort of crystal structure? If the latter, they would not have to cross filaments and so they would not be slowed. In theory they could travel at infinite speed, but they could be slowed by ordinary photons crossing them.

So I would say that there is the possibility that gravitons could travel at infinite speeds, and this would explain quantum entanglement, but that the presence of photons limits the range of this. Generally, however, the universe would function as a single quantum object.

See ? As I’ve said. Photons are little cyan spheres ! 😂 (Sorry, can’t resist ..)

@ExpEarth . The way you react makes me think of something that happened long ago in my own career. The internet was booming at that time. There were many discussions about it at the Computing Centre where I was working. And of course I took part in those discussions, thinking that I could join the party as much as the others. But once upon a day, my boss took me apart and said: “Han, you are a good guy, but I think it’s better for the both of us to send you to a course about computer networks. Because I expect that you can learn a few real things there”.

@ExpEarth . On a double logarithmic scale like the above, it seems not so difficult to manage that anything appears linear. But okay, in any theory there are some good points. The definition of your celebrated Hubble Luminosity is

$$ L_H = - U.H_0 \sim - U/A $$

where $U=$ kind of energy, $A=$ Age / long time ago. As such, $L_H$ could make sense as radiant power over a long period. This might be an explanation of the linear trend in your graph.

On your first point, yes, I would have been so much better off if I had a stronger background in physics and geophysics. I still might do that. But it turns out that a background in physics was not so key to finding the solutions in cosmology as my background in biology was. For me it was easy to see that the universe functions as a sort of cosmic ecosystem (there was even a book with that title, “The Cosmic Ecosystem”, written in the 80s.). I could see easily that star birth rates and death rates follow a recycling pattern similar to the trees in a forest. For some reason, if I have it right, there is no one here in ACG who accepts that simple idea, even though everyone claims to be for static universe!

As such, LH could make sense as radiant power over a long period. This might be an explanation of the linear trend in your graph. This is absolutely correct. The radiation in the universe, the rest mass of particles, photonics spacetime, etc. are all being recycled a rate inversely proportional to the Hubble time. The Hubble time is just the recycling time in a static universe. It is a shorter time in other kinds of black holes.

Hi Matt,

The first part of your reply explains a lot !! Clearly it’s your way of thinking and one cannot say beforehand that thinking about Living nature (biology) is worse than thinking about Dead nature (physics). By the way, biology has been my favorite discipline for quite a long time, way before I decided to study physics (more or less by coincidence). Interesting to discover how other people’s mind is working.

Thanks, Han, I love it!

If it’s not true, you need to explain this graph

The “Hubble luminosity” is explained with [standard physics]. The matter-energy cycle is

1. Stars heat up and emit light and eject heavy elements, [gravity, thermodynamics, nuclear physics]
2. Light loses energy due to redshift at the rate determined by the Hubble constant, [observation, conservation of energy, quantum mechanics]
3. The energy lost by light contributes to heating the IGM, [conservation of energy]
4. The extremely hot IGM produces fission of the heavy elements back into helium and hydrogen, [nuclear physics]
5. Helium and hydrogen collapse gravitationally to form stars, [gravity]
6. The cycle starts again.

Step 2 is the bottleneck in the cycle because $H_0 = 1/14 \ Gyr$, so stars are limited to a power $H_0 \ U$.

The graph is explained without any new physics, that is, ‘zero’ new elements. “Occam’s razor” recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It’s difficult to beat ‘zero’!

@RedshiftDrift . >without any new physics

Really? A few caveats:

• It is supposed that cosmic redshift is caused by Tired Light. Otherwise the mechanism does not work.
• Contrary to nuclear fusion, nuclear fission is not triggered at all by heat. On earth, nuclear fission takes place in a moderately hot environment (for example a light water reactor). I’ve been working on Fast Breeder Reactors. Even there the coolant (liquid sodium) is “only” a few hundred degrees Celcius, which cannot be labeled as extremely hot.

It’s difficult to beat ‘zero’!

Sure. That’s why I still prefer $n_e=0/m^3$ = zero = nothing = nil = nichts = rien = nada = niente in $H_{TL} \sim n_e$ .

• Calculations based on a reliable theory, laboratory measurements, and astrophysical observations, all support that photons are red-shifted by energy transfer to the electrons of the IGM.
• $n_e \approx 0.3/m^3 \ne 0$ is demonstrated observationally from the dispersion of FRB pulses.
• Nuclear fission of elements lighter than $^{56}Fe$ requires high energy particles to go back up to the energy of the proton. Breeder reactors produce energy with elements above the iron minimum. Fission of light nuclei is studied experimentally, although not as much as it deserves because it absorbs energy (instead of giving us useful applications that produce energy as in a reactor.)

@RedshiftDrift 3. The energy lost by light contributes to heating the IGM, [conservation of energy] 4. The extremely hot IGM produces fission of the heavy elements back into helium and hydrogen, [nuclear physics] These two steps seem a bit off. It’s more common in tired light models that the lost light is thermalized as CMB radiation. The hot photons end up as a background of cooler photons, conserving energy. In your model the energy lost from photons seems to go into even hotter photons, which seems to run against entropy considerations, but maybe is not impossible. Others might prefer to convert heavier elements back to light elements in quasars, but I think I can see why you need to do it your way to form an energy cycle built on your Stz mechanism.

There is a great difference in our approaches. You are trying to create the energy/matter cycle without venturing into other realms, just using the physics we are sure about, or at least testable in the lab. But you are leaving whole parts of the puzzle aside. What is causing gravity in your model? Where is Einstein’s cosmological constant, the pressure needed to keep a static universe from collapsing inwards on itself due to gravity? Where does the CMB come from, if the redshift makes the hot IGM rather than CMB energy? Just a few questions one could ask.

@RedshiftDrift .

all support that photons are red-shifted [ .. ]

Not exactly. What is happening in the IGM cannot be seen, for the simple reason that it’s not in your laboratory. The only thing observed empirically is that photons are redshifted e.g. in the dense medium of an electron laser. It seems to me that environments like that are not comparable with the almost zero electron density in the IGM.

[ .. ] by energy transfer to the electrons of the IGM.

And heating it up to $10^{11}$ Kelvin? Can you show a decent calculation supporting this claim? ( I even have trouble with defining the bare notion of “temperature” for a medium with less than 1/3 of a particle per $m^3$ )

the dispersion of FRB pulses

Dispersion (optics). An FRB pulse is an electromagnetic wave packet, right? Does it show STz redshift? If yes, how can there be dispersion then - i.e. different shifts for different wavelengths in the packet?

Fission of light nuclei is studied experimentally

The article of interest is behind a paywall (at least for me). That does not really help.

It’s more common in tired light models that the lost light is thermalized as CMB radiation.

More common doesn’t mean it’s right! And this thermalization argument does not work because there is no absorption in the microwaves, a requirement for thermalization of radiation.

In your model the energy lost from photons seems to go into even hotter photons, which seems to run against entropy considerations, but maybe is not impossible.

The system is not at equilibrium, so ‘entropy considerations’ do not apply. Hot-to-Cold is seen in laser cooling experiments which routinely cool atoms to microKelvin temperatures with laser beams that have a brightness temperature in the thousands of Kelvins.

convert heavier elements back to light elements in quasars

Quasars are galaxies with stars that convert light elements into heavier ones. Their temperatures are not high enough to convert iron back to light elements.

What is causing gravity in your model?

That’s an unrelated question. The model works based on the phenomenology of Newton’s equation.

Where is Einstein’s cosmological constant, the pressure needed to keep a static universe from collapsing inwards on itself due to gravity?

STz implies a momentum transfer that produces pressure. That’s answered here, point VI and on my poster.

Where does the CMB come from, if the redshift makes the hot IGM rather than CMB energy?

The hot IGM heats the CMB (blue-shift) via the S-Z effect, which is in turned cooled via redshift. This is answered in my poster and discussed here, with you.

Just a few questions one could ask.

Questions that have already been answered on this forum, in my publications, and from “physics we are sure about”.

heating it up to $10^{11} Kelvin? Can you show a decent calculation supporting this claim?

Sure I can, and I will in a future paper. I can send you a draft of that one too if you are interested!

how can there be dispersion then - i.e. different shifts for different wavelengths in the packet?

Dispersion and STz are two different phenomena caused by electrons. One does not exclude the other.

The article of interest is behind a paywall (at least for me). That does not really help.

I posted an image from the article showing that fission occurs in elements lighter than iron with high energy collisions. That’s all I need to show to support point 4.

And heating it up to $10^{11}$ Kelvin?

You can theoretize as much as you want, Louis, but as everybody knows: Baby, it’s cold outside the earth’s atmosphere. Further confirmation is found in the abstract of Recoil Between Photons and Electrons Leading to the Hubble Constant and CMB by Lyndon Ashmore: The small amount of energy transferred to the electron by recoil is radiated as bremsstrahlung with a wavelength in the microwave region. Thus making 2.726 K a more likely candidate than $10^{11}$ K. Or, as @ExpEarth says - I repeat:

It’s more common in tired light models that the lost light is thermalized as CMB radiation.

Another possibility is that I am completely at lost about the meaning of “temperature” in the almost vacuum.

@RedshiftDrift More common doesn't mean it's right! And this thermalization argument does not work because there is no absorption in the microwaves, a requirement [for thermalization of radiation.

I would agree that the CMB is not produced by thermalization of starlight (sorry, Hans!), but would say that is instead thermalization of gravitational energy released and then trapped when the shell universe was formed.

The system is not at equilibrium, so 'entropy considerations' do not apply. Hot-to-Cold is seen in laser cooling experiments which routinely cool atoms to microKelvin temperatures with laser beams that have a brightness temperature in the thousands of Kelvins.

This seems hard to translate to the space setting, but perhaps not totally implausible.

Quasars are galaxies with stars that [convert light elements into heavier ones. Their temperatures are not high enough to convert iron back to light elements.

On this one, I think you are paddling too hard upstream. Go with the flow! In these ventures, sometimes one can be the only one saying something, but sometimes you have to look around and see whether the astrophysics community could be right. Is this step key to your argument?

What is causing gravity in your model? That's an unrelated question. The model works based on the phenomenology of Newton's equation.

Hardly a red herring! How did it end up that my shell model, with its photonic spacetime and gravity based on photons, ended up more electromagnetic than your all-EM model? It’s because you left gravity on the cutting room floor! Where does the CMB come from, if the redshift makes the hot IGM rather than CMB energy?

The hot IGM heats the CMB (blue-shift) via the S-Z effect, which is in turned cooled via redshift. This is answered in [my poster and discussed here, with you

I remember that discussion! I think you’re saying that CMB photons heat up the IGM and that the IGM then heats up CMB photons. This sounds a bit like my model, if you were to replace IGM with photonic spacetime. Except I think there needs to be some mechanism to separate these flows, as I have, or they will just cancel each other.

Hot-to-Cold is seen in laser cooling experiments which routinely cool atoms to microKelvin temperatures with laser beams that have a brightness temperature in the thousands of Kelvins.

Likewise. It’s cold (-270 Celcius) in outer space, but with unprotected skin it’s easy to get a sunburn by ExtraVehicular Activity.

“The carbon in our bodies probably left the galaxy and came back on cosmic ‘conveyer belt’” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/01/250103150922.htm

This could be part of the energy-matter cycle described above and the circulation of matter on this image…

So a Nova gives enough energy for most of the atoms to escape the star, but much less will have enough to escape the galaxy. Makes sense, and it turns the galaxy into a concrete mixer of leftovers from all the novae. We’re living inside an incredible machine!

I feel a bit odd now knowing that my body contains ‘foreign’ carbon. It was bad enough acknowledging that I might have some dinosaur carbon in me. Eeeuwww. Just kidding, of course.

Hi @Francois-Zinserling . I’m not sure if our views are getting closer or not. There are different kinds of event horizons. In the Big Bang theory, the Hubble radius is an event horizon, as we can’t see anything beyond it, nor be affected gravitationally by things beyond it. That seems to be the kind you are talking about. Another event horizon is defined by the Schwarzshild radius of black holes. Looking at a black hole from the outside, there is a gravitational event horizon near Rs, the Schwarzschild radius. Light cannot escape outwards from that. We can make an analogy between the two kinds of event horizon, as you have done. We can suppose the black hole is a shell of matter surrounding us and the radius of this shell defines an event horizon also, as Hubble distance c/H. Light emitted from near the surface is redshifted almost to nothing by the time it gets to us. Taking this line, the interior redshift is like a mirror image of the exterior one for a black hole. The expression for the redshift is not the same, due to the different geometry. The expression is inverted. I’m still working on that. If you are trying to say that an event horizon is what we have ‘inside’ the universe, but you don’t like the shell black hole universe, then something else needs to cause the horizon. It can be just tired light redshift. So you still need to define your redshift/horizon mechanism if you want to take it in a different direction than shell universe. I should add that in my model the gravitational redshift is also a tired light redshift. This probably does not help!

No, I think I might have misunderstood your shell universe as if we were inside the black hole .. looking from the inside out …, which I couldn’t comprehend of course. It is now making more sense.

Olber proposed that we should see the entire night sky as if it is filled with stars, yet it is not so. We now know there is a certain distance beyond which we cannot ‘see’. Yet with a bigger iris and bigger lens/mirror and voila we ‘see’ a bit further each time, which is perfectly how optics work, aka JWST.

In my model it appears that it is not the light that is directly tired, but the aether is diluted. Between the horizon and here, interacting with mass weakens the aether (vector pointed at us, from there) and we measure locally lower photon energy. What threw me into the cosmology ring is when I applied the gravity model to cosmic distances it showed that there would be a horizon that is opaque. Lining this up with your model would imply that there is a thick shell, which is basically the rest of the universe beyond, since primordial aether (photon-pairs) still needs a source. I think in this thick shell part your paper may be different.

I’ll read your paper again now that I have got my mind in the correct gear. If I understand it correctly now, then we are a lot more aligned than I realised.

@ExpEarth @Francois-Zinserling

… something else needs to cause the horizon

What horizon? There has never been any observation of such horizon. And:

with a bigger iris and bigger lens/mirror and voila we ‘see’ a bit further each time

indicating that we still don’t see a horizon.