#297 Isn't that 'weird'? The universe conspires to look like it is not expanding!
Despite decades spent telling astronomers that the universe doesn’t expand, it seems they will need to discover that by themselves:
Noting again that the apparent size evolution is proportional to (1+z), in the sense that high redshift galaxies are apparently smaller than those of similar stellar mass locally. This (1+z) is the factor that relates the angular diameter distance of the Robsertson-Walker metric to that of Euclidean geometry. Consequently, we would not infer any size evolution if the geometry were Euclidean. It’s as if cosmology flunks the Tolman test. Weird.
From https://tritonstation.com/2025/01/01/a-few-videos-for-the-new-year/
2👍 3
The problem is that the Doppler shift interpretation of redshift seemed so plausible in 1927 that it was grabbed like a dog with a bone who won’t let go. This is even after the Doppler shift interpretation had to be discarded when objects with z > 1 were discovered.
In my opinion it’s just as unexplained why the velocity of recession/expansion should be proportional to redshift (or whatever function you want to pick) as the interpretation that redshift is merely proportional to distance.
From: Louis Marmet @.> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2025 3:32 PM To: a-cosmology-group/acg @.> Cc: Subscribed @.***> Subject: [A Cosmology Group] Isn’t that ‘weird’? The universe conspires to look like it is not expanding! (Discussion #297)
Despite decades spent telling astronomers that the universe doesn’t expand, it seems they will need to discover that by themselves:
Noting again that the apparent size evolution is proportional to (1+z), in the sense that high redshift galaxies are apparently smaller than those of similar stellar mass locally. This (1+z) is the factor that relates the angular diameter distance of the Robsertson-Walker metric to that of Euclidean geometry. Consequently, we would not infer any size evolutionhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950L..14L/abstract if the geometry were Euclidean. It’s as if cosmology flunks the Tolman test. Weird.https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4284
From https://tritonstation.com/2025/01/01/a-few-videos-for-the-new-year/
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/297, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALJTMRDROMGA7T6X5D2OM3T2I3XVFAVCNFSM6AAAAABUSJRRNKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ERDJONRXK43TNFXW4OZXG43TKNJZGY. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
Why would the Doppler shift have to be discarded when objects with z > 1 were discovered? The Doppler effect can produce a redshift z with any value.
I’ll bite. How does it produce a value of z=1?
Seems like you get a divide by zero instead.
I see.
v/c = 0.6 will do it
Can’t resist.
$$ \frac{v}{c}=\frac{(1+z)^2-1}{(1+z)^2+1} $$
With $-1 < z < \infty$.
I left this message on a Czech cosmology website in response to the silence surrounding my “inappropriate” questions.
There is a relatively simple, often trivial explanation for all of these questions, as well as dozens or hundreds of other unanswered questions, including the most difficult ones. However, this is assuming that current science would stop for a moment and look back into the distant past, as I have done. As a quality engineer in the automotive industry, investigating root causes is my daily bread. And I used the simple 5-why method on the phenomenon of dark energy.
And as the root cause, I found a misinterpretation of the red shift around 1927 as a reaction and “confirmation” of Fridman’s mathematical equations from 1922, which allow for both expansion and contraction. Fridman never said that the universe must be expanding. He merely outlined such a mathematical possibility. Others then said, yes, we have a red shift, and the only way to explain it is that space is expanding! And in 1931, this was accepted as a valid (and “proven”) theory of expansion.
But what they didn’t do at the time was ask themselves whether this red shift could be interpreted in another way. Of course it can, we have gravitational and Doppler shifts, but neither can explain the observed (large) red shift. And now I ask, is there really no fourth possibility? So now pick up your pencils and calculators and try this: a photon is emitted from a slower time frame and is received in a faster time frame. I’m not talking about gravitational shift. I’m talking about an epochal time frame. You say this is not possible? I can prove to you that it is! If you are interested in a discussion.
Let’s not fall into historical revisionism, there were proponents of tired light and static universes back then, most iconically Hubble himself though I don’t have statistics on the popularity evolution of ideas over time
I apologize, I know nothing about the theory of tired light. My search for the source of dark energy and the path of logical questions and answers led me to the point where time in the universe is regulated by the global and local effectiveness of gravity, that is, by the total amount of matter within the structure—which, according to my deductions, has been decreasing since the emission of CMB which analogously accelerates time. I am not aware of anyone else thinking this way, but I cannot rule it out. However, this model theoretically resolves all current paradoxes.
@0124112233 I don’t think you have to apologise. We are all here to test each other’s ideas and help where we can. I think we are all aware that the ‘answer’ is not going to come from inside the box. If you are not aware of ‘tired light’ then you may also not be aware that someone has already thought along similar lines of your ideas.
There is sense in what you present (I have not viewed your blog) The presence of mass effectively slows down time. IOW in a gravity well time is slowed, relative to out of the well. This is tested so we don’t have to argue this point. Since time must also exist in outer space, we can hypothesise that time is ‘fastest’ in ‘empty’ space (where minimum mass exists). As opposed to ‘more mass, slower time’, I also think of it then as ‘less mass, faster time’. (but to a flat line max)
Then as you say above if the universe was more dense in the past - gravity would have been higher - time would have been slower. By the same argument if the universe is now less dense then time would be faster. It still makes sense and this is a possible explanation of observed redshift.
However, to get to a current ‘fast’ time you would need to reduce the density of the universe from its original state … aka expansion. Do you propose a mechanism by which mass (or mass density) might have reduced over time? @HanDeBruijn may have some interest in this discussion too.
Thank you very much for this idea and question at the end. I will have to study the theory of tired light, as I have been working in isolation in my research so far. So, to your question about density reduction. The whole problem is very complex, so I will be very brief.
My model of the universe is designed as a cycle of energy (matter) evolution: matter - life - inteligence, with gradual release into empty space at the beginning, when t=∞ in D0 (t=∞, the absence of time—the present, future, and past cannot be separated). —time is linked to matter—but this space, our universe, let’s call it D1, is surrounded by a sphere D0, which defines the framework from the outside using t=0 (and also t=∞ for emission). And from this sphere D0, matter is then emitted (apparently via the fundamental frequency) – its first emission activates Planck time – this emission phase is also the longest phase of development. Global gravity increases, which slows down time.
Once the saturation of matter reaches the optimal level, the emission ceases, global gravity does not increase, and time stops slowing down - it flows constantly. The CMB period begins, followed by the formation of local gravitational nodes - stars and quasars - stars as the beginning of matter processing, quasars as extractors of unnecessary matter (this explains non - galactic SMBHs with billion of suns). Thus, each quasar or black hole has several functions, primarily as a decomposer of complex matter and its return to D0.
It means, from CMB, time accelerates.
And CMB is a chapter in itself – we see it “locked” in time on the horizon of our structure, in places where t=0 spheres of D0 act. (important : it is not possible to reach 0 here, this is not an exit to D0). That is why ESA’s Planck mission found the entire light spectrum and UV radiation stretched 1090 times. It also explain dipole anizotrophy. The universe has an end and is defined by time, not distance - same redshift effect. So yes, it is possible objects are expending to each other, but not in distance, by timeframe. This also explains why we see galaxies with the largest “z” and not quasars. These galaxies are located in a slowed-down edge, while quasars are where more matter was emitted (according to the Fibonacci grid) – closer to the center of the universe. And many more details in my blog on Zenodo.
https://zenodo.org/records/15475523
I was just looking for a model that would explain all the current problems. And this one hypothetically tells me yes, that’s how it could be.
Can you leave me a link to the tired light hypothesis?
Is that too much?
@0124112233 . >So now pick up your pencils and calculators and try this: a photon is emitted from a slower time frame and is received in a faster time frame.
People here have picked up their pencils and calculators in previous threads, for example in Time Dilated Past hypothesis. Relevant as well are one , two , three issues in The Cosmic Time Frame. My personal bias is the Variable Mass Theory .
Dear Mr. De Bruijn,
thank you very much for your witty comment and valuable information. You must understand me—I am new to cosmology, and just the day before yesterday, I thought I was the only heretic in the world. I was in an environment where I was banned one after another for simply asking questions, and I didn’t understand what I was guilty of.
Finally, I found kind people who came to very similar conclusions as me. And I believe that here our hypotheses will either grow in parallel or intertwine like a DNA double helix. I don’t want to sound smart, that’s what you professors are here for, but I believe that we should strive to research and verify with the aim of creating a unified and fully functional concept that works at all levels. Only then will there be a chance of success in such a hostile environment.
@0124112233
Hey… there’s two of us!
@0124112233 F.Y.I. there are thousands of heretics working on cosmology and theories of everything.
We [the heretics] all have the hope to see “our hypotheses either grow in parallel or intertwine like a DNA double helix”.
I’ve tried to merge my STz redshift with Lyndon Ashmore’s NTL, and although they have a lot in common, some features of these theories are contradictory. Han has seriously tried to make his VMT match STz and other models (see his post above), but again some parts of these theories are contradictory and cannot be reconciled.
My experience, as a second-generation dissident, tells me that new ideas are profoundly incompatible. As a result, heretics do not work well together. I am a member of a few “dissident groups”, and “A Cosmology Group” is no exception: we all agree there’s a serious flaw in the Big Bang model, but everybody proposes a personal idea that is incompatible with every other proposal.
From Garth A. Barber - altcosmology forum, 2005-1-18:
This is good advice: study everybody else’s idea before continuing on your own research. You must be open to understanding everybody else’s idea if you want others to try to understand yours. ACG is here for you to ask pertinent questions and discuss with the authors of these theories.
You are absolutely right, I came to exactly the same conclusion yesterday and decided to abandon the scientific plane and move to the philosophical one. But before I do so, I will leave my conceptual opinion here – with regard to the above, we should proceed systematically and conceptually.
For example, if current science considers CMB to be the reference frame for determining the galactic velocity of the sun, then CMB should be accepted as a static frame. And if this can only be satisfactorily explained by the fact that it is a structural (and static) source, since no other possibility exists, then this should create a common platform for reflection. Until this happens, no one will move forward.
I find current science unnecessarily complicated. It literally seems to me that, due to this complexity, we have lost the ability to understand the simplest things. A friend told me today, try looking for God somewhere other than in church. And I happen to really like that, it makes a lot of sense.
So what is next step ? :)
With the Variable Mass Theory, there is Creation of matter out of nothingness. Conservation of mass-energy with this process has been argued in Origin of Inertia, proving with a ton of math that the total energy content of the universe is nil.
Thanks for sharing the videos Mr Han, I watched Variable Mass Theory a few days ago, so today I did some deeper analysis. I am not biased in any way, although my comment may sound that way. But that’s not the case, I just need to hear a pure symphony, without any hint of doubt. And here, even the author himself expresses doubt at the end.
I also saw the Origin of inertia. Unfortunately, I can’t comment on it, it’s too much information for me, I don’t understand most of it and I would welcome some kind of output, basic findings. And if it is really a finding that there is no energy in the universe, then this completely contradicts my basic philosophy that the universe is an energy evolution cycle and everything else is subordinate to it. So, for me, even matter, humans, AI, and even the next god are forms of energy. Why else would the universe exist?
Anyway, I am fully open to any discussions, that is why we are here.
Mr. Han, do you think it is unrealistic that matter has been flowing out of the system since the formation of the CMB, as I suggest?
It would explain many current paradoxes. It would even help me if you could find an objection as to why this is not possible.
I understand that I do not speak the language of physics or mathematics, but I believe I can rely on logic. And defining the processes themselves is, I believe, the basis. And these can be proposed in broad terms.
Especially in an environment where nothing works as it should.
@0124112233 . Only the few questions that I am able to answer.
No it isn’t. Past objects are redshifted. And it has nothing to do with gravity. It’s the (static) electricity in atoms, causing Intrinsic Redshift with variable mass.
There is an explanation of the rotational speed of galaxies in my version of the VM theory. The authors of the video don’t know this and I have not been able to contact them about it.
By the way, there does NOT exist an explanation of everything. Be glad if you can explain something !!
Please read more carefully! That’s not what is stated in the book.
By the way, there does NOT exist an explanation of everything. Be glad if you can explain something !!
Of course it exists, it’s the only right solution. Everything else is just delaying and confusing. Although the universe is the most perfect system, there is no systemic solution for it. We can see now where it has led us, that we won’t get out of it so easily.
The second issue is whether anything can function properly in a system that is completely upside down. Of course it cannot. That is why a completely new and comprehensive system must be found to replace the current one as a whole. There is no other option.
This is my opinion.
Ah, philosophy / metaphysics sneaking in.
But if explanations exist while you don’t have them, what’s the big deal?
Me, I do have them (causally complete explanations), so that one can see what the “big deal” exactly is and how it is accomplished (e.g. physics/0510240, hal-02489867). It’s beyond all those simplified “models”, each with its own contradictions, gaps and missing points, which are inevitable (I show why). @0124112233 is right: If we believe in any objective knowledge system, then its real, causally complete and intrinsically unified explanations must be free from any essential contradictions (where observations are complete enough). If this condition is not fulfilled for “models”, it’s because they are not really looking for those causally complete explanations, preferring simplified reductions. If a machine, like a car, is missing some essential details, it won’t go, however perfect and well “calculated” other details may be. The machine of conventional science approach (including its “alternative” but equally reduced models) is missing the majority of details, it’s only a collection of disrupted “shadows” (projections) of reality on the famous cave wall. These statements are rigorously specified in my papers.
Explanations do “exist” out there and we only have to discover them Explanations are made up in the human mind; they are created by us
Mr @HanDeBruijn,
Isn’t that exactly what philosophy is? It reminds me of the claim that time is a human construct. In my opinion, the time is more than we think it is.
I’m just trying to solve things logically and systematically. As I’ve mentioned somewhere before, I’m a quality engineer by profession and I solve (among other things) the root causes of manufacturing problems. There is a systematic methodology for this that can be applied to any process. The universe is, of course, also a process—and it is the most complex, logical, and efficient process there is.
And I truly believe that the universe is as simple as it can be in its immense complexity. Feel free to judge me for that.
Here is a review of distance duality breaking cosmologies https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13613
We do not need any mathematics here. The expansion of the space or the whole universe are just impossible, non-existent things in the physical reality. It is normal philosophy and physics. The universe and the space are not such things that they can expand in any meaningful way.
Make the analysis of the concepts “universe”, “space”, “the space of the universe” and “expand”. In philosophy and in physics.
Conclusion: The space of the universe does not expand. Expanding has not any real meaning for the space of the universe. Or for the space.