a-cosmology-group/acg#273

Hi @Francois-Zinserling, yes that is my blog/web site. I’m glad you find it interesting but in all honesty I don’t think of the ESW model as being related to push gravity. Why do you think there is a connection?

@budrap00 I am unapologetically a proponent of push-gravity(PG). After having studied aspects of all other attempts to define gravity, this is in my opinion the only one with a chance of being proven or falsified. Yes, GR gets the maths right, but it leaves more questions than answers as to the mechanics of gravity.

Admittedly, I had not been actively looking for a cosmology link to a push-gravity solution, although I thought it might appear at some stage, given my conviction on PG.

Here’s my take on the cosmology link, and I will refer to ‘Fatio and Le Sage’s corpuscles’ as aether for simplicity. For aether to be all-pervasive, it cannot just be a remnant of some original process, or some long-gone artifact e.g. Big Bang. Hence my leaning toward e.g. quasars as the recyclers of matter to aether. See aether here as the coupled/paired photons as proposed by Annila et al, and also loosely by Rueda and Haisch’s ZPF. With coupled photons it is possible to combine photons into a particle with a net zero E and B fields, yet with the full energies of the combined photons. Somewhat like destructive waves, not just incidentally but perfectly coupled on their paths. This allows these photon pairs to penetrate matter and ordinary matter would seem transparent to it, except for direct collisions with particles.

In previous versions of my PG hypothesis (and of Fatio and Le Sage and many others since) there had to be absorption to result in gravity. Aether IN > Aether OUT results in an inward push onto all matter. There is a huge problem with the energy of absorbed aether though, as Poincare and others have pointed out that the absorbed energy should instantly incinerate earth. (Admittedly it takes great energy to cause gravity, but this massive energy btw also casually ignored in all other models of gravity .. let’s pick on Fatio and Le Sage, shall we?). This same energy problem haunts ‘growing earth’ models.

We could propose a solution for the aether (photons) to change mode and exit unhindered instead of being absorbed. <- I am days away from submitting a paper on this but not sure yet if journals will bite.

Enough selling .. onto cosmology. Picture the aether as approaching from infinitely far (and let’s say there are discrete points of origin), then from that point the aether spreads out spherical and dissipates over r^2 as to the Gaussian surface (or your ESW), while the mass it encounters inside this bubble increases over r^3 (as you also point out). Here is where I need to read your ESW again, but the result is effectively a linear dissipation of aether strength from that point toward me. And the weakening happens because of the gravity conversion. This might seem to imply that someone downstream from me would see an even weaker aether, but not so, since that point would have its own ’ isotropic bubble’, and so it would be for anyone and everyone else, no matter where they are, with some obvious exceptions.

This linear ‘weakening’ (over distance, not over time) could be what appears to be the Hubble effect, but it does not mean the ‘old universe’ was any different to what it is now. They would see us also as ’redshifted since their ‘bubble’ is essentially the same as ours, only in a different place.

How does redshifting work then? And apologies as some of this seem ad-hoc, since I haven’t actively pursued thinking about it. We know that redshifting occurs in movement of separation but that is not what is happeneing here. We know that redshifting occurs in a gravitational well but that is also not the cosmology solution. What does occur in both these cases is time dilation, which in my opinion is originally caused by an asymmetry of the aether which slows down clocks. Maximum aether strength (intensity) and symmetry for fastest clocks, but any asymmetry slows down clocks, whether you are in motion or in a gravity well. In other words it might also be said that aether intensity detemines clock speeds. From the PG model a gravity clock is slowed due to the asymmetry Aether IN > Aether OUT.

Bringing this back to the cosmology connection, if there is a gradual linear dissipation of aether from our universe’s surface bubble to here by us, it makes the photon to appear weaker than it is. The energy is not in the photon, it’s in the aether (and so btw for potential energy too), so a weaker aether means weaker photon. I’m not yet totally sold on the ‘weaker photon’ but this is then effectively a tired-light mechanism.

oh my word apologies for this long post.

This same energy problem haunts ‘growing earth’ models.

Why then adhere to those models? Especially for the latter there is an alternative. NO energy problem at all !!

If you argue for “push gravity” (Fatio, Le Sage) because you don’t like a 1/r^2 force without some great number of pushing corpuscles, then you’re going to have a big problem with charge having a 1/r^2 force for attraction and repulsion. How do you explain charge attraction and charge repulsion… with more corpuscles??

I strongly feel that “push gravity” (Fatio, Le Sage) is so wrong that it has to be stamped out in ACG discussions. ACG is presenting itself as an authority to refute the big bang theory, and we can’t have half the group advocating unparsimonious, never-observable, pushing corpuscles.

@sahil5d

That would include Bud’s model too. As I pointed out below, his mechanism is a prescription for a pushing gravity model. The mainstream does not like Le Sage models, but they don’t like tired light models either. Would you like to cancel tired light as well? Where does it end?

No, I would like to cancel receding-galaxies-expanding-space. The criterion is not [against mainstream], it’s [against stupid].

Hi, Matt. I shouldn’t have said ‘leaning’ so much as ‘just beginning to think’ since I don’t have a model for the quasars. I just pulled it out of thin air, seeing as quasars are known to be ejecting streams of ‘something’, and they’re pretty much found everywhere.

You’re also right that there needs to be a recycling source of ‘matter-to-hydrogen’ and not just photons or photon pairs. Photons (and pairs) would be the ultimate break-down in my opinion and the sources of the pairs remain elusive.

2 x photon pairs (with opposite circular polarisation for each pair) can be achieved when an electron pair (spin up and down) annihilates with a positron pair (spin up and down). No new or illegal physics here, but just an unusual environment needed to set this up.

The ‘hydrogen recycler’ is different as it has to shred atoms down to protons (+ electrons) and neutrons (which decay to proton+electron) which has all the ingredients for new hydrogen. Stars build up in the table of elements though and don’t break down the nuclei. So the recycler is somewhere else - not stars. Maybe in the quasars, more likely, like you suggest.

Pair production (from photons or pairs) is a possibility, but that would require photon pairs for electrons/positrons, and different energy photon pairs for protons/anti-protons, which immediately begs the question: “Where is the anti-matter?”. Other possibilities are possible if we can ditch that abomination called ‘quarks’.

As @budrap00 mentioned elsewhere, ordinary photons don’t have penetrating capacity and can thus not account for gravity. Same would be for disordered pairs - matter would no longer be transparent because their E and B fields are ‘visible’ to atoms. On the other hand ordered pairs would fly right through atoms as if it is emty space. A slight lapse in the phase of the 2 photons in the pair could decouple it within vicinity of a charged particle, or I am thinking it might need a direct collision to change the pair into something else.

It is a good suggestion that maybe we could find a different mechanism that re-orders the pairs, which would likely be happening within the surface area (of a special object). This will have me thinking for a while :)

@Francois-Zinserling

Pair production (from photons or pairs) is a possibility, but that would require photon pairs for electrons/positrons, and different energy photon pairs for protons/anti-protons, which immediately begs the question: "Where is the anti-matter?". Other possibilities are possible if we can ditch that abomination called 'quarks'.

Well, I’m not sure about that. You might want to check out Arto Annila’s video chapter 3 “What is Everything Made of” from his book “Back to Reality”. He’s pretty convincing that everything is made of photons, quarks included.

As @budrap00 mentioned elsewhere, ordinary photons don't have penetrating capacity and can thus not account for gravity. Same would be for disordered pairs - matter would no longer be transparent because their E and B fields are 'visible' to atoms.

This is why I have the absorption happening in filaments connecting to the particle centres. On the other hand, how can that square with the Allais effect? Yes, still much to think about!

I’ve noticed Arto’s stance on quarks. I believe he is playing to the audience and this is unfortunately where he and I part ways. Quarks will become known as one of the biggest obstacles ever to be thrown in the path of physics.

I still need your filaments to grow on me .. or in me … if I understand it correctly. It relates a lot to string-theory which broke my brain when I tried to study it. At least you haven’t invoked muliple new dimensions in your model.

I’m afraid I don’t see any connection between the demonstration, that a redshift-distance relation can be derived by applying a standard gravitational-redshift formalism to an expanding spherical wavefront, and pushing gravity. The purpose of the demonstration is to provide a standard physical account of the cosmological redshift that is independent of the recessional velocity interpretation.

The cause of the energy loss in the ESW model is the direct, incremental absorption of the ESW by the intervening galaxies encountered during the expansion. No invisible mechanism is required. Pushing gravity (or any other invisible gravitational mechanism) is superfluous to the ESW model. Gravity is not a “force”; it is an effect that arises when matter and energy (electromagnetic radiation) interact.

@budrap00

The cause of the energy loss in the ESW model is the direct, incremental absorption of the ESW by the intervening galaxies

Push-gravity is based on aether absorption (or energy conversion if you want to overcome the PG energy problem). An incremental absorption of a spherical wave (given there are near-infinite points of ESW emissions scattered around within the observer’s cosmic wall) is a perfect description of the action at play to create push-gravity. In your model it now opens (for me) a link from PG to cosmology.

An ordinary electromagnetic wave (light such as the glow of a galaxy) as an ESW does not (cannot) penetrate through matter. It is absorbed into the surface where matter exists, and passes where there is no matter, as you also say. Although this action may reduce the intensity of the wave, it cannot ‘weaken’ the individual photons. This action reduces the number of photons. At a distant point from the emitter you will either receive the photons, or you will receive nothing. Other emitters cannot help to strengthen the ESW signal (intensity) again, because photon directions would be wrong and observation would be a mess.

One can go one step further and say photons are weakened when they pass close to mass. Maybe even just a little bit when they pass far from mass. This is correct - their wavelengths lengthen - but they are also scattered (bent) off their original path. If this were the cause of all cosmo redshift, this would have made all distant objects unobservable, or at best the night-sky would be smeared out like Einstein Rings.

As to your last comment,

Gravity is not a “force”; it is an effect that arises when matter and energy (electromagnetic radiation) interact.

Normal electromagnetic radiation cannot penetrate matter and can thus not be the agent of gravity. I thought you had mentioned this before but seems I have my wires crossed. My apologies to you and the person who did mention this.

Although this action may reduce the intensity of the wave, it cannot ‘weaken’ the individual photons. This action reduces the number of photons. At a distant point from the emitter you will either receive the photons, or you will receive nothing.

If anything quantum theory/particle physics is an even bigger mess than ΛCDM. Invoking the badly misconstrued quantum-scale photon concept to assess the behavior of the cosmological scale phenomenon of an expanding spherical wavefront is a category error. It’s like trying to understand a forest by studying the cellular structure of a leaf. On the other hand the cellular structure of a leaf is on firm footing while the photon-as-particle concept has no basis in physics.

A photon is a wave quantum; it is the minimum energy for an electromagnetic wave of any given frequency. By definition that wave quantum is the energy of one complete wave cycle. If you doubt that I suggest you look up the definition of Planck’s constant. A photon is not a particle unless you redefine the meaning of “particle” to encompass something that does not share any characteristics with those objects that are normally considered particles - small objects that are three dimensionally localized and have rest mass.

Normal electromagnetic radiation cannot penetrate matter and can thus not be the agent of gravity.

I have no idea why you think some undefined “agent of gravity” has to penetrate matter. Is that a PG concept?

@ExpEarth writes: >That would create a blueshift that perfectly balances the redshift.

Quote from Wikipedia. Isaac Newton proved the Shell theorem and stated that:

• A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center.
• If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.

An elaborate theory is found in the Seeliger’s Paradox page at my website. For the ESW model by @budrap00 Newton’s second statement means that the force upon a “photon” inside a hollow sphere is exactly zero. There is only a force directed to the center of the spherical wave, as has been correctly assumed. Thus there is NO blueshift that perfectly balances the redshift.

we need also to invoke the Ni shell solutions that I mentioned in my shell model.

Using GR Ni shell solutions as a panacea for the problems in cosmology that are mainly caused by GR ??

@HanDeBruijn

Then we have for the Gravitational redshift of a Spherically symmetric gravitational field inside the wavefront…

Well, yes and no. The math is correct but your interpretation is not. I’m using the GR math to model the behavior of an ESW. In that model the only spherically symmetric element is the ESW itself. At the point at which an observation is made that ESW has some finite radius which defines the volume enclosed by the ESW. That volume in turn contains some average value of matter, all of which the ESW will have directly encountered over the course of its expansion.

The Hubble parameter H according to ΛCDM is recognized. Better take that instead of an average cosmological density.

Unfortunately the model I’m using doesn’t recognize ΛCDM and assumes it is not a valid cosmological model so introducing an ΛCDM term seems antithetical to that central assumption. The H formula also just conflates the existing terms (including the average cosmological density) of the model and obscures their connection to the underlying physics. I don’t see the purpose of the exercise.

And the redshift would become infinitely high at that place. But does it?

Infinity is not a valid physical concept whatever its mathematical uses. When a math model of a physical system produces a division by zero result it is a clear indication that the model has ventured beyond its range of relevance. In this case the Schwarzschild radius has increased to equal the Resw - producing an invalid division by zero in the math. Letting the Resw expand beyond that point in the math produces imaginary numbers and we are in the cosmological equivalent of black hole la-la-land. At that point science and physical reality are in the rearview mirror and the math is meaningless.

That volume in turn contains some average value of matter, all of which the ESW will have directly encountered over the course of its expansion.

Expansion? That sounds as if you have invented another Big Bang !!

The H formula also just conflates the existing terms (including the average cosmological density) of the model [ .. ]

How then did you determine the average cosmological density? Didn’t you secretly use the Hubble parameter for that purpose? However, other formulas for the $H$ parameter can be employed if you like, for example one as found in the book Origin of Inertia. Usually they give results that are even more restrictive:

$$ H^2 = \frac{4}{3}\pi G\rho \quad \Longrightarrow \quad z =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-2x^2}}-1 \quad \mbox{with} \quad 0 \le x \lt 1/\sqrt{2} $$

Update. There exists a Newtonian version $r_N$ of the Schwarzschild radius $r_S$ which is obtained as follows. Assuming that light can escape - (relativistic) kinetic energy > potential energy:

$$ mc^2 \gt \frac{GMm}{r} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad r \gt \frac{GM}{c^2} = r_N = \frac{1}{2} r_S $$

The alternative proposal is that

$$ \frac{G}{c^2}\rho\frac{4}{3}\pi R_{esw}^3 \lt R_{esw} \quad \mbox{where} \quad H^2 = \frac{4}{3}\pi G \rho $$

$$ \frac{r_N}{R_{esw}} = \frac{G}{c^2}\rho\frac{4}{3}\pi R_{esw}^3/R_{esw} = \frac{H^2}{c^2}R_{esw}^2 = x^2 $$

Resulting in the same as with ΛCDM and Schwarzschild radius.

$$ z = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-x^2}}-1 \quad \mbox{with} \quad 0 \le x \lt 1 $$

Edit. Still another combination is $r_N$ together with the ΛCDM Hubble parameter.

$$ \frac{r_N}{R_{esw}} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{8}{3}\pi\rho G\right)\left(\frac{R_{esw}}{c}\right)^2 = \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{H}{c}\right)^2 R_{esw}^2 = x^2/2 $$

Herewith follows that

$$ z = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-x^2/2}}-1 \quad \mbox{with} \quad 0 \le x \lt \sqrt{2} $$

hence a larger observable universe.

Expansion? That sounds as if you have invented another Big Bang !!

Are you surprised to learn that an expanding spherical wavefront - expands!!! I don’t know what to make of that. But since you brought it up, it was the mistaken recessional velocity interpretation of the cosmological redshift and its application to the misbegotten FLRW equations that produced the Big Bang creation myth.

That light emitted from a point source can be treated as an expanding spherical wavefront is standard physics. On cosmological scales >100Mly galaxies can be treated as point sources and therefore as sources of expanding spherical wavefronts. If you apply standard GR math for gravitational radiation to an ESW you get a redshift correlated with distance, as demonstrated.

As to where the average cosmological density used in the model comes from, it is, as I implied, imposed by the model itself. It’s what makes the model produce a realistic output. Since the implied value is not itself unrealistic that means the model is not unrealistic - at least to my way of thinking. And yes, that implies that the only thing that expands on cosmological scales are ESWs.

@budrap00

@Francois-Zinserling had it right when he says: Push-gravity is based on aether absorption (or energy conversion if you want to overcome the PG energy problem). An incremental absorption of a spherical wave (given there are near-infinite points of ESW emissions scattered around within the observer's cosmic wall) is a perfect description of the action at play to create push-gravity. In your model it now opens (for me) a link from PG to cosmology.

I didn’t realize it at first that you had a pushing gravity connection, because I saw all that gravitational redshift math. But you have indeed drawn out the classic pushing gravity mechanism (the wave version, actually). When your photon passes a mass it loses some energy and momentum to the mass. When it passes the next mass, it has less energy and momentum to transfer and so the second mass receives less energy and momentum than the first one. This results in the first one being pushed towards the second one. All you need to complete this is the absorption coefficient and the energy density of the radiation. It would actually be a challenge for you to show how your model does not lead to pushing gravity!

This does not mean your GR analogy is wrong. Actually, I think it is right. You will recall the debate we had with Doug Marett about whether energy is lost by photons in the gravitational redshift, or whether it’s just a frame-of-reference thing. I was the only one saying the photon loses energy. Well, if that’s true, then the gravitational redshift is itself a tired light redshift. From the PG elements just outlined, this redshift represents the work that photons do in driving gravity. This connects up with the Hubble redshift too. These things are all connected.

@ExpEarth The ESW model is a model of the behavior of electromagnetic radiation on cosmological scales; it does not have an aether, gravitons, or any other invisible gravitational agent - not even photons. It is a model of what we observe - matter and electromagnetic wave radiation; it does not have any imaginary elements. It is not a PG model.

@budrap00 .

According to many standard (Alternative) Cosmology models the distance-redshift relation is, with meaning of the symbols as before

$$ R_{esw} = \frac{c}{H}\ln(1+z) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad z = e^{c/H.R_{esw}}-1 = e^x-1 $$

The difference is seen in the graphs below: black = Bud’s model, red = common ACG models.

For the dimensionless distance $x$ in your model we calculate

$$ z = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-x^2}}-1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad x = \sqrt{1-\frac{1}{(1+z)^2}} $$

In thread 225 the following is read. We report the photometric detection of the most distant spectroscopically confirmed galaxy JADES-GS-z14-0 at z=14.32+0.08−0.20 [ .. ] Common ACG models give a distance $\ln(1+z) = 2.66$ times the Hubble length for that redshift. In your model the calculated distance cannot surpass the Hubble length (and is actually very close to it).

Bud: The ESW model is a model of the behavior of electromagnetic radiation on cosmological scales;

it does not have… not even photons.

It is a model of what we observe - matter and electromagnetic wave radiation;

A photon is a wave quantum; it is the minimum energy for an electromagnetic wave of any given frequency.

Gravity is… is an effect that arises when matter and energy (electromagnetic radiation) interact.

There is inconsistency in these statements.

@sahil5d I did use the term photon inconsistently. In the first instance I was referring to the common misinterpretation of a photon as a particle, in the second I was referring to its definition as a wave quanta which is by definition the energy of a single cycle (or wavelength) for any given frequency. The first statement about not having photons in the ESW model could have been better stated. What I should have said is that the ESW model does not have any need for quantum scale photonic analysis to produce a redshift.

Other than that I don’t see any inconsistencies. If you do please point them out and I will be glad to address them.

Ok, so the idea is photon-as-wave-quantum.

I still have a doubt about the ESW model. The electromagnetic radiation incident on the Earth has been measured, radio to gamma to everything in between.

All this energy (plus solar irradiance) cannot hold a planet together, so how does your hypothesis work?

As I understand @budrap00 ’s hypothesis, he is not asking his redshift to hold planets together. He’s only trying to explain the Hubble redshift. It’s a tired light model with non-specific mechanism.

Matter is held together by electromagnetic forces not gravity.

@ExpEarth >It’s a tired light model with non-specific mechanism.

On the contrary, the mechanism is quite specific. An expanding spherical wavefront is incrementally absorbed by the galaxies and any other non-luminous baryonic matter it encounters as it expands. That process gradually reduces to the total energy of the wavefront resulting in a redshift. (A redshift is an indicator of an energy loss.)

I still thank you that your writing has provided me with a valuable insight and idea for my own model, even if you think PG is bogus :)

The ESW model you propose can be compared to a ‘hand partially in front of a flashlight’ which reduces the intensity of the beam. You would need to specify a correlation between intensity and wavelength to make the Hubble connection to the ESW. At a point of measurement there is no way the ESW can know that is was weakened at some far-off point elsewhere. So you are still measuring a local reduced intensity, not a changed wavelength of the ESW. If you are seeing the entire ESW as a ‘single wavefront’ as some do in QM, collapsing to a single point at time of measurement violates causality (my opinion). Even if this is accepted as another quantum weirdness, then the first solid mass it encounters must collapse the entire wave and there’s no ‘reduced’ ESW to carry on from there.

What your model does offer, and @HanDeBruijn eluded to it too, is that your cosmic bubble (ESW) must have a range at which it goes dark, where it has encountered so much mass that none of the wave remains. Meaning at that distance nobody can ‘see’ you and you likely can’t see them. Given that the cosmos is not static, there would be exceptions where light just managed to run the gauntlet a bit further.

In an aether model, such as PG, most of aether must be able to pass right through mass, else gravity would end abruptly below the surface of a dense object. This would make an ‘aether ESW bubble’ much much larger than the normal electromagnetic ESW in your model. But there would still be a maximum bubble size at which - in any straight line from origin - all aether has been dissipated and gravity must cease to exist. We don’t observe such places, which means there must be ‘generators of aether’ within that maximum bubble. This is profound.

@budrap00

Sahil: All this energy (plus solar irradiance) cannot hold a planet together, so how does your hypothesis work?

Bud: Matter is held together by electromagnetic forces not gravity.

How? Can the ESW model physically explain how if one drops a hammer right above the surface of the Earth it accelerates at ~ 9.8 m/s^2 and above the surface of the Moon ~ 1.6 m/s^2 ?

@Francois-Zinserling

How do you explain 1/r^2 charge attraction and charge repulsion? Does it require 2 new sets of corpuscles?

@sahil5d The $1/r^2$ is the simple part. It would rather be $1/4πr^2$ and can be seen as a Gaussian Sphere around a charged particle. This means there is a field of photons flowing out of each particle, creating (and continuously updating) the (+) or (-) electric fields. Same method as you would calculate intensity of radiation coming out of the sun, and measuring at a distance r.

Instead of writing the Coulomnb field equation $E=kQ/r^2$ and not knowing where the $1/r^2$ comes from, or any of it really … we can rewrite it as $E=1/4πr^2$ * $μ_0$ * $c^2$ * $Q$ and it explains itself.

Charged particles are not static giant tumbleweeds like you have suggested before.

It’s unlikely that 2 different sets will be required since the strength of attraction exactly matches the repulsion. 1 set can do the trick.

This means there is a field of photons flowing out of each particle… Same method as you would calculate intensity of radiation coming out of the sun

I disagree. Two electrons repelling each other do not do so because “photons are flowing out of each particle”. What’s your definition of a photon?

The repulsion of the spheres in this video of a torsion balance experiment, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9R-0DN0NrI, is not due to “photons flowing out of each particle”. You can recreate the experiment in a dark room and place a photosensor between the spheres. The results will show that it’s not “photons that are flowing” to push the sphere.

since the strength of attraction exactly matches the repulsion. 1 set can do the trick.

So your model of physics has “pushing corpuscles” for gravity, and “flowing photons” for charge attraction and the same set of “flowing photons” for charge repulsion. That model is excessively elaborate, not observed, and unviable.

The story as told by @Francois-Zinserling is more in concordance with standard physics when “photons” are replaced by (invisible) “Virtual photons”, whatever that might mean.

@HanDeBruijn no virtual photons - we leave that for QM. Imaginary photons might provide an imaginary push, and that’s ok. I don’t care.

@sahil5d we didn’t offer a PG solution for attracting or repelling charges - you asked. Yes, flowing out is the right description. But for continuous flow out there must be something flowing in. But in this scenario one particle (photon pair) might do the whole job. This description is likely to have some holes in it ..

Step1. Original photon pairs strike all particles from all sides but gets converted by charged particles to …. Step2. The particle changes the pair based on its charge. For simplicity let’s say (+) positrons change pairs to (+) photons, thus creating a positive electric field around the particle, and (-) electron creates a negative field Step3. Rule: (+) field pushes on (+) particle and (-) field pushes on (-) particle <- this takes care of repulsion Step4. Rule: (+) field does not push on (-) particle and vice versa. Since there will be an asymmetry of (+) and (-) field between the particles, they are pushed together from outside the pairs.

Step5. The original pairs entering the system are diminished by the above activities. Looking at the whle system there will be Number_of_Pairs_IN > Number_of_Pairs_OUT, and there is my PG right there.

So we need an aether to make this work.

we didn’t offer a PG solution for attracting or repelling charges - you asked.

Yes I asked so that you might see how wildly unreasonable it would get.

Do you have an answer to the electrostatic experiment question? Will a photosensor detect what you’re claiming?

The force description alone is better than unparsimonious, never-observed fictions.

I actually thought my effort wasn’t too unreasonable. Given that an (agreed upon) mechanistic explanation for electrostatic effects still does not exist on this day. Just as it doesn’t for gravity.

That’s a video of a basic high-school experiment. And no, not all photons are visible, but every field in electromagnetics consists of photons. Real, not virtual. An electric or magnetic field is just as invisible, but its effect is real and visible. If you place an electron (or a small (-) charged sphere) in the middle of those spheres, it will immediately accelerate toward one of the spheres. What do you propose accelerates an electron in a field? Curved space maybe? No. Well, yes, if you can first define how to curve nothing. We know electrons can be pushed (not pulled - never pulled!) by a photon. What is so unreasonable about the proposal?

If we settle for the high-school explanation that ‘charge is emitted from the particle’ and that gravity ‘pulls on things’, then there’s no need for any more questions and we can all go home.

The force description alone is better. No nonsense, no failed predictions.

You still haven’t answered, Will a photosensor detect what you’re claiming?

What do you propose accelerates an electron in a field?

I don’t think there is a “thing” pushing it. I just know that the particles are in a volume, the particles have properties, and a force calculation on those properties accurately computes their acceleration, and I am content with that.

There are other adventures to be had in galactic-scale gravity and nuclear-scale charge. https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/122#discussioncomment-10455190

The force description alone is better.

Then you must be happy to define gravity as a pulling force too, with no knowledge needed of what causes the apparent force.

and I am content with that

You’re happy to accept that there are invisible fields that push or pull particles around, but not interested in what is actually doing the pushing. You accept the force calculation without understanding the underlying mechanism, just as you want to accept the MOND equations, which are completely ad-hoc.

The answer to your question is no.

PG offers naive solutions (not formalised nor published) for both of your adventures (galaxies and nuclei). We are working on it.

We are working on it.

For how many centuries to come? Sorry, can’t resist ..

@Francois-Zinserling

You raise some interesting points. Let’s start here:

The ESW model you propose can be compared to a ‘hand partially in front of a flashlight’ which reduces the intensity of the beam.

There are two problems with this analysis. First a beam of light emitted from an artificial device deployed in your laboratory or backyard is not analogous to an ESW with a 100Gly+ radius because the two systems are not the same. In terms of both scale and structure they are dissimilar even though they are both forms of electromagnetic radiation.

You also seem to be confusing intensity with energy. Redshift measures energy loss via E=hf (where h is Planck’s constant and f is frequency). In a cosmological redshift spectral lines are displaced toward increasingly lower frequencies (longer wavelengths) for light arriving from greater distances. In your hand in front of a flashlight example you are reducing the amount of light (intensity) that is arriving but not the energy of the light that does arrive.

In the case of an ESW both things happen. An ESW has a far field, large scale wave structure. At some sufficiently large radius, say 100Gly, the ESW will have some total energy and the intensity will be given by the total energy divided by the surface area. Ignoring for the moment absorption by intervening matter, as the ESW expands the intensity will decline as 1/r^2 while the total energy remains constant (there is no energy loss and thus no redshift).

Introducing galactic encounters into the ESW model does produce an energy loss. That is the energy lost, due to absorption by the galaxies, which produces a “redshift” of the ESW toward lower energies of the electromagnetic spectrum. Assuming some average cosmological value for matter density you can then apply standard gravitational-redshift math to the ESW over successive cosmological distances to generate a redshift-distance relationship - as demonstrated.

It is important to note that even though standard gravitational math is being employed here to calculate the redshift, the physical model does not have a gravitational field - it has a matter field. The matter field of the Cosmos is observed but no one has ever observed a gravitational field, only gravitational effects. That is the one of the underlying points of this demonstration and analysis - the gravitational field concept is not only superfluous, its prominence renders unlikely the possibility of understanding gravitational effects on physically realistic terms.

At a point of measurement there is no way the ESW can know that is was weakened at some far-off point elsewhere.

The answer to this is part of standard electromagnetic theory but the explication of a null geodesic is couched in so much conceptual gibberish it is difficult to grasp the central point. This quote from the linked article is about as reasonably coherent as theorists get on the subject:

A null geodesic is the path that a massless particle, such as a photon, follows. That’s why it’s called null, it’s interval (it’s “distance” in 4 D spacetime) is equal to zero and it does not have a proper time associated with it.

Throwing out the photon-as-particle fairy tale and substituting “electromagnetic wave” for “spacetime” you can say that in the 4D realm of an electromagnetic wave there exists no such thing as spatial or temporal separation. We human observers however, being 3D material bodies, can only perceive 4D structure in “time slices”. What in 4D is a timeless entity, is to a 3D observer, a time divided process that flows from emission to absorption.

Neither one of those perspectives, the 3D or 4D, is more “correct” than the other. Physical reality has two distinct frames, the 3D frame of matter and the 4D frame of electromagnetic radiation (which is the fundamental form of energy). It has those two distinct frames because they describe the relationship between the two distinct physical states - matter and energy - that comprise the fundamental states of the Cosmos.

It is in that context that it can be said that the surface of an ESW is an undifferentiated unit - what happens to the surface at any point from a 3D perspective happens to the entirety of the surface as a spatio-temporally undifferentiated unit in 4D.

@budrap00 . @ExpEarth writes: >The figures and equations to me seem more appropriate when applied to my shell model.

The main issue with Matt’s model is the fixed origin of the Ni shell, which must be deemed pre-Copernican. The ESW model is a Black Hole universe, just like the one by Han and Matt, but it does not have a fixed origin. This can be seen as follows. An ESW emitted from our MW (Milky Way) galaxy cannot reach an FA (Far Away) galaxy if it is farther away from us than the Hubble length. Conversely, an ESW emitted from an FA galaxy cannot reach our MW galaxy, because the same distance is greater than the Hubble length. An object from which no light can escape is commonly called a Black Hole. So the cosmos in Bud’s model is a spherical Black Hole universe with the Hubble length as its radius. But this BH universe is local, not global. To be more precise: every galaxy is the (movable) center of its own observable BH universe. This also solves Olbers’s paradox: light emitted by FA galaxies outside our MW observable universe cannot reach us, because we are at the center of it.

What are you complaining, Bud? Aren’t the two pictures below similar? The only difference between the two is that the first one is obtained “numerically” with greater distances between te wave crusts, while I have idealized that “analytically” to a smoother picture, using smaller steps. Infinitesimal steps if you (don’t) like. Do you think that your picture on the left represents “physics” and that mine on the right has reduced that to “mathematism”. Not at all! You have produced, indeed, a sensible mathematical model. I have only reformulated it into a more Han(d)some format :-)

@HanDeBruijn I don’t think @budrap00 is calling for a black hole universe. He just used the Schwarzschild formulation of the gravitational redshift to describe the redshift. Your suggestion that each galaxy sits at the centre of its own black hole universe does not make sense. A photon leaving the galaxy experiences a redshift from that galaxy, and others it passes, but it will experience a gravitational blueshift from the galaxies in front. Only the gravitational redshift of the galaxy producing the photon would remain.

@HanDeBruijn You have the right general idea but the ESW model is only a model of an expanding spherical wavefront - a physical thing that is part of empirical reality. Black holes are mathematical fictions; they are not part of empirical reality and they are not part of the ESW model or related in any way to the ESW model.

The ESW model is a subcomponent of the Island Universe model. In the IU model galaxies are fundamental components of the Cosmos - Island Universes - along with the omnidirectionally flowing electromagnetic radiation that the Island Universes are the source of and embedded in.

Gravity in the IU model is not a force. It is a varied effect that arises at the various interfaces between three dimensional matter and four dimensional electromagnetic radiation. Those interfaces may involve emission, absorption, or both. Gravitational effects do not require any “agents” other than matter and electromagnetic radiation.

All the galaxies we observe are, as the early astronomers intuited, Island Universes. The Cosmos is, by observation, a multiverse, a vast field of Island Universes the extent of which is unknown and in all likelihood unknowable. The IU model is a rough sketch of the Cosmos as it appears to human beings gazing out, from our unique vantage point, at the vast, chaotically vibrating Cosmos in which we find ourselves embedded. It is a foundational stipulation of the IU model that it only contains empirically verifiable elements.

@HanDeBruijn >Do you think that your picture on the left represents “physics” and that mine on the right has reduced that to “mathematism”.

Well yes that is exactly what you are demonstrating. The picture on the left is clearly labeled in physical terms of the system it refers to, while the one on the right is not labeled and on its own it refers to nothing whatsoever except maybe some unspecified mathematical function.

The labeled graph refers to a physical system. The right-hand picture, handsome though it may be, refers to no physical system in particular. It’s a nice mathematical abstraction but its relevance to physics is decremented and obscured by that abstraction.

@ExpEarth . >Your suggestion that each galaxy sits at the centre of its own black hole universe does not make sense.

Nope. Think about it. It does make sense. But your suggestion that our galaxy sits at the centre of a thick shell Ni universe does not make sense.

A photon [ .. ] will experience a gravitational blueshift from the galaxies in front.

Nope. The galaxies in front form a “hollow ball”. Hence, in Bud’s model, they produce a zero gravitational field and NO blueshift.

@budrap00 . >relevance to physics is decremented and obscured by that abstraction.

Sorry Bud. Care that I’m giving up after such bizarre replies?

@HanDeBruijn That’s fair I guess. I find the inability to distinguish between math and physics bizarre.

Most people understand what it means to be “the same”.

Most people understand that different things have different names because they are different, or not the same.