Hi dear @RedshiftDrift I would love if you could analyze this seemingly simple and unorthodox view on cosmological redshift
Since 1912, cosmologists strongly believe in the currently accepted definition of cosmic red shift as - ratio of increase in wavelength to the laboratory wavelength of photon. We would like to emphasize the point that, this definition is absolutely wrong with reference to photon energy. Clearly speaking, true cosmic red shift must be defined as the ratio of loss in energy of photon to the energy of photon at laboratory. In terms of wavelength, photon red shift must be defined as the ratio of increase in wavelength to the observed wavelength of photon. We have published this definition in our recent publications and sincerely appeal the science community and cosmologists to review the basics of Lambda cosmology, cosmic acceleration and dark energy in an unbiased approach. Regarding Tolman Surface Brightness test, we sincerely appeal the cosmologists to review and reanalyze the observations and calculations as per the corrected cosmic redshift definition with reference to cosmic expansion and cosmic rotation. Here we would like to emphasize the point that, (1+z) should be replaced by (1+znew). Upper limit of (1+znew) is 2 and upper limit of (1+znew)power4 is 16.
A very simple math formula is misleading modern cosmologists to develop and reinforce the accelerated model of cosmology. With reference to photon energy, true cosmic red shift must be defined as the ratio of loss in energy of photon to the energy of photon at laboratory. In terms of wavelength, photon red shift must be defined as the ratio of increase in wavelength to the observed wavelength of photon but not the laboratory wavelength. If one is willing to consider this point, in terms of traditional red shift (z), true cosmic red shift can be expressed as z_new = [z/(z+1)]. We are afraid, but sure to say that wrong definition and wrong formula of galactic red shift led cosmologists to wrongly introduce the cosmic acceleration and dark energy concepts.
Correction to the 100 years Old Definition of Cosmic Red Shift
This author reinterpret the redshift mathematical formalism in the first page of the paper. The maths seems reasonable and simple intuitively but I’m no sure of wether he is correct and of the full implications of his finding, especially regarding a reinterpretation of how we must perform/interpret the Tolman test, but this might be groundbreaking.
(there are only a few lines of equations (page 1 and 2) @HanDeBruijn ping since you’re the math nerd
I believe those authors have some merits, at the very least, they share my insight (never mentionned in the literature) that the cosmic realtime temperature drift has intrinsic merits and is more feasable than measuring the redshift drift, even though unlike me they don’t show how trivially feasable it is to measure via >100 times sensitivity improvement in upcoming cmb distortions balloons, they mention that measuring cosmic temperature as a distance marker allows to bypass many systematics associated with redshift since temperature is the only distance measure independent of light systematics.
following the rate of decrease in future cosmic temperature with reference to current cosmic temperature, true nature of cosmic expansion rate can be decided Thus, by following future cosmic temperature, there is 100% scope for understanding and deciding the true nature of cosmic expansion rate independent of galactic distances.
Moreover the hubble tension is it seems empirically proven to be an artefact since there is no temperature-distance tension as I previously mentionned:
BTW a unique probe of the hubble tension would be to compare the anomalous coma cluster distance with the CMB temperature redshift of the Coma cluster!! This might be historic and groundbreaking https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14546
Maybe this will end up being the best indirect contribution from Riess btw there is a variant more recent paper https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/PR2199.001121.v3
Considering the temperature associated with recombination period and current cosmic temperature, it seems that ≅ 135 Mpc . end of page 6, equations seems extremely insightful, I believe the whole cosmology community has missed extremely important insights by not leveraging temperature as a distance marker
we would like to emphasize the point that above 160 million solar masses, galactic baryon matter acquires super gravitational behaviour. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369204981_Light_Speed_Expanding_Hubble-Hawking_Universe https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308386482_Is_dark_energy_-_an_alias_of_cosmic_rotational_kinetic_energy https://www.preprints.org/frontend/manuscript/20b1836b61cdf0aed7b4b5b19ee4d6d2/download_pub https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2012/02/013 https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2013/03/aa20613-12/aa20613-12.html https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/386 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/20/7/109 https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14417 could be explained by deviation from the locally measured value of T0, if the adiabatic scaling of the temperature with redshift still holds [11, 12]. evertheless, near future surveys with e.g. the Simons Observatory are expected to detect thousands of clusters; this opens up the possibility of complementing CMB anisotropy with an independent probe that continuously samples T(z) up to z ≈ 2. Insight gained on the Hubble tension is that treating the CMB temperature as a free parameter considerably lowers the previous ∼ 5σ tension at a ‘cost’ of a moderately lower temperature, at the 2σ level, than would be expected if the locally measured T , extrapolated to z ≈ 1100, holds at the FIRAS-deduced precision level. Similarly reduced level of Hubble tension can also be achieved by a slightly positive value of Ωk, i.e., in a model with geometrically open spacetime. Without the local Hubble prior all dataset combinations considered in this work favor either a lower T at last scattering, or the FIRAS value, and either flat or closed universe. Therefore, it is possible that the deduced ‘closed’ space at the ∼ 2σ confidence level actually implies that space is flat, but that T at recombination is ∼ 2σ (i.e. a few percent) higher than inferred locally. According to this one might wonder wether the missing dust attenuation comes from higher initial cmb temp than expected
Instead of starting with reading the paper on top, I think it’s better to absorb at first the one titled Light Speed Expanding Hubble-Hawking Universe. Main ingredients of the author’s theory are the following.
$$ M_0 = V_0\rho_0 = \left(\frac{4\pi}{3}\right)\left(\frac{c}{H_0}\right)^3.\frac{3 H_0^2}{8\pi G}= \frac{c^3}{2 G H_0} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \frac{2 G M_0}{c^2} = \frac{c}{H_0} = R_0 $$
On re-arranging this mass expression, it clearly indicates something new about the current universe in terms of current cosmic black hole [ .. ] as has been motivated at ACG with postings by @HanDeBruijn and @ExpEarth.
But then physically unmotivated mathematism (@budrap00) sneaks in. Currently believed cosmic temperature $\Theta_{CMB}$ seems to be equal to the geometric mean of Hawking temperature of Planck mass, $m_P$ [ .. ] and Hawking temperature of current cosmic Hubble mass $M_0$ , where $\hbar=$ reduced Plank constant and $k_B=$ Boltzmann constant in
$$ \Theta_{CMB} = \frac{\hbar c^3}{8\pi k_B G \sqrt{m_p M_0}} \quad \mbox{with} \quad m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} $$
Yes of course, and then (approximately) consistent numbers come out for the Hubble parameter $H_0$ and the CMB temperature $\Theta_{CMB}$. But there are a myriad other ways to arrive at these results, as exemplified in writeups by @PatrGT and @sahil5d.
So far for the current paper. Let’s go now to the Wrong Definition and Wrong Implications of Cosmic Red Shift.
Essential is a quote from page 1 in the paper. If it is believed that, known physical laws of atomic and nuclear physics are applicable to other galaxies, then one can assume that, energy of photon at any galaxy is same as energy of photon coming from a laboratory resting in Milky Way. That belief is not shared by people (like me) who adhere to the Variable Mass Theory. But okay, putting this issue aside, let us take a look at formula (3). Exactly the same one is displayed in a thread by @mikehelland: Time Dilated Past hypothesis. With analogous consequences.
$$ d_G = \left(\frac{z}{1+z}\right)\left(\frac{c}{H_0}\right) \quad \mbox{vs.} \quad d = -c\tau = \frac{c}{H}.\frac{z}{1+z} $$
Conclusion. The “new” cosmic redshift $z_{new}$ is not really new for ACG members. It has been present in diguise for quite some time here.
Edit. Following the math in the paper a few more formulas for those who care.
$$ M_0 = \frac{c^3}{2 G H_0} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad H_0 = \frac{c^3}{2 G M_0} $$
Analogously they define sort of Hubble parameter $\eta_P$ for Planck mass:
$$ \eta_P = \frac{c^3}{2 G m_P} = \frac{c^3}{2 G \sqrt{\hbar c / G}} = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{c^5}{\hbar G}} $$
Calculating the (standard) Hubble parameter from standard CMB temperature:
$$ \Theta_{CMB} = \frac{\hbar c^3}{8\pi k_B G \sqrt{M_0 m_P}} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \left(\frac{4\pi k_B \Theta_{CMB}}{\hbar}\right)^2 = \frac{c^3}{2 G M_0}.\frac{c^3}{2 G m_P} = H_0.\eta_P $$
$$ H_0 = \frac{1}{\eta_P} \left(\frac{4\pi k_B \Theta_{CMB}}{\hbar}\right)^2 = 2\sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}} \left(\frac{4\pi k_B \Theta_{CMB}}{\hbar}\right)^2 $$
Giving a CMB temperature = 2.726 K corresponding with a Hubble parameter $H_0=$ 67 km/s/Mpc.
Amazing writeup, you are indeed very talented, sadly I cannot yet fully understand the semantics behind all the equations but you are being very helpful! Also very curious on the evidence for blackhole cosmology.
https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/276#discussioncomment-10923246
new paper from the same group I mentionned today (but other group from your original answer) mention that most previous issues with circular logic with unknown physical constants have been recently solved
section 4
the speed of gravity, plnack length, h0 and cmbtemp can all be mathematically determined without circularity, thanks to recent mathematical advances
Also the gravitational constant is not intrinsically a primitive since it can be defined as a composite via the planck lenght, this proves that the universe is quantized/discrete https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/9/454
@LifeIsStrange . See my reply elsewhere. I have nothing to add.
The paper “Wrong Definition and Wrong Implications of Cosmic Red Shift (Correction and Possible Solutions)” is wrong from the start, so I have not read it past the first page.
One cannot obtain a new physical understanding by changing definitions! It is like trying to make my house ten times larger than 120 square-meters by using the “correct definition of length”, which is of course the ‘foot’. Then my house is 1200 square-feet which gives me room for more furniture! This is as ridiculous as what they do in the paper.
There are thousands of possible wrong ideas, publishing one that coincidentally gets the CMB temperature is a waste of everybody’s time.