Dear ACG!
I have finally found a “safe haven” for my thoughts, so I will get straight to the point—we all know that current cosmology is completely dysfunctional. But on the other hand, I still lack a model that would “solve everything.” So I designed one myself.
There is a relatively simple, often trivial explanation for all of these 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!
https://zenodo.org/records/15475523
I hope that my idea will inspire someone and spark a discussion - with one goal in mind - to move forward.
Welcome to ACG @0124112233 Tomas! The idea of misinterpretation of redshift is not new, people have been working on it since at least 1931. You can see some of these ideas here https://cosmology.info/redshift/, most of them propose a non-expanding cosmology. You may also want to check various ideas about cosmologies here https://cosmology.info/models/
Your ideas seem different from other work, but unfortunately I cannot understand them. No quantitative description is presented and the language is not defined in standard terms used in English. There are no references to other publications given as references one could read to try to understand the concepts presented in this work. Your discussion seems to list several possibilities incompatible with each other, so I can’t figure out which one you are supporting. This raises many questions, such as:
In die Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister (Goethe)
Dear @marci84afk ,
I appreciate your extensive response and I appreciate the opinion that my hypothesis brings something together. Although I did not understand your response at first, after rereading it again, I realized that you are presenting your hypothesis—and here I must agree that it would be more appropriate to open a new thread.
However, what I want to write about is something else.
I have only been involved in cosmology for two months, but I can already see it quite clearly – the vast majority are trying to solve the unsolvable. And I must say that, unfortunately, they are also trying to solve the insignificant. In this case, it is the very origin of the universe, the emission of the first energy, and so on. It is true that I also describe this stage in my hypothesis, but only in a general and marginal way – as a hypothetical replacement for the Big Bang – I had to write something there so that I could move on to the subsequent events. However, the essential part takes place somewhere else entirely.
If we really want to advance science, we should first focus on the period between the origin of the CMB and the red shift observed today. We should put anything before the CMB out of our minds until we have a clearly defined stage for which we have evidence. Without evidence, there is no point in inventing anything—it is a waste of time and cannot help at this stage of research. We must put forward hypotheses that are primarily solid in their explanation of the redshift, are consistent with the law of conservation of energy, fully explain the origin of the CMB without inflation, and are based on a non-expanding universe. These four conditions take precedence over everything else. Of course, there are many more conditions to be met, but these four are the basic ones, without which there is no point in even considering a hypothesis.
So as not to just lecture here, I must mention one of your ideas in point 6—although I do not address this topic in my work, I came to the same conclusion during my research—the brain most likely really does serve as an antenna. I believe that just as the eye slows down light waves to make the dark universe a beautiful place, the brain can also function as a wave slows down. This occurred to me in connection with people who, during kundalini activation, are able to return to their childhood, for example, and relive their trauma there. I don’t think they are going back in time; that is not possible in my model. Then, of course, this can only be explained by the fact that every individual event of anything, every thought, every piece of information is stored “somewhere out there,” probably in infinite time, i.e., outside of time, and can be accessed. And this could best be achieved (systematically) if the human brain were a receiver. However, these are all just speculations at this point, which is why I did not include these findings in my work. There are many ideas that I did not include.
So, friends, dear colleagues, we all have the same goal, let’s set out in the same direction, let’s solve these four conditions, let’s agree on them collectively, and then let’s fly off in different directions with our thoughts and meet again later. Let’s create systematically and together. We can start with a debate on whether these four conditions are really key or whether we need to add any more. There aren’t many of us here, we can communicate as a team, every opinion is valuable.
What do you all think, everyone here?
Dear Mr. Marmet,
I am deeply honored that you took the time not only to write this review, but above all to read my work. And for that, I will be as honest with you asI possibly can. Simply because I really have nothing to lose, I am just an ordinary person who, by some strange coincidence, found himself here.
Before I get to the heart of the matter, it is important for you to understand that I have no adequate education. I am not a physicist, mathematician, or cosmologist. And perhaps this is my advantage, that I did not have to be shaped by a dogmatic environment and my mind remained open and free. I do not have the necessary language skills either – I use Deepl for translations and am fully aware of the consequences. I find myself among people who have devoted their entire lives to study and deserve my utmost respect.
I burst in here like a flood, not looking left or right. Don’t think it’s because I’m so self-centered. But my model is so different and so scandalous that I confess, I myself don’t know how to deal with it properly. I need help. That’s why I’m here. I just have to convey an idea. Maybe 80% of my work is wrong. But maybe what needs to be said is right.
My first hypothesis was completely different—I was trying to find a force that could replace dark energy and expand space, nothing major, just a little idea. We’re talking about April 10, 2025, a month and a half ago. Since there weren’t many options, I tried growing mass. And then everything aroundme changed somehow, as if something had taken control of me. I wrote to a physicist, my son’s high school teacher, asking if such a situation would generate a blue shift – and he wrote me an extensive study where the shift is red. I became so fascinated that I researched the entire universe. Then I came across the Pound-Rebka experiment (1959), which showed that the physicist was wrong. However, I already had enough information to make it seem reasonable to subject gravity to the same research—that time regulationis the key dynamic component of the universe and that black holes are the key—because this had been waking me up every night for 14 days, after only three hours of sleep. It was no coincidence; it was meant to happen. Now I am back to my usual self, but the newly acquired information remains. What has changed dramatically, however, is my view of current theories…
Now to your questions:
That’s a really difficult question. I don’t know. In my model, redshift only tells us the time scale at which the photon was emitted. So in this case, the photon was emitted from a system that was 14.44 times slower. In this model, we lose all information about distance or age. We would probably first have to determine the radius of the universe. Ideally, we would need to calculate how much matter there is in the universe and how much matter there was at maximum saturation. From this, we could calculate the global gravitational “z” and extract it from the galactic “zMoM=14.44,” which would leave us with the pure D0 dilation “z” (assuming that the system is not moving away from us – Doppler shift). Yes, I agree, it is a problem – it is a big problem for our current understanding – we are all happy to have a “functional” method of measurement. And we don’t want to give it up just like that. Now something occurred to me – are we able to detect the composition of elements in distant systems? We can assume that there are two generations of objects in the universe – for example, our solar system is the second generation, we have elements from the previous supernova here (gold). If we discovered a galaxy with a high “z” and it demonstrably contained second-generation elements, it would have to be “close” to us, but in a slowed-down area at the edge of the universe – unless we assume that we are in the middle of the universe, we will have the edge of the universe closest to us in some direction. And such a galaxy would signal this. I don’t know, it’s all so new and unexplored…
- In your model, is the universe static or expanding?
Definitely static. That is precisely what I believe is the greatest obstaclefor contemporary physics and cosmology. An expanding universe has solved absolutely nothing; it has only brought problems. And big problems at that. Dark energy speaks for itself, and I will not comment further on this, as I believe it is a topic for a separate publication. But I will say this: the expansion of the universe has no meaning, no purpose. If we consider that the universe is a MATTER cycle, as the evolution of matter: matter – life – intelligence (all of which are forms of matter, including intelligence), what is the point of the evolution of space: space – more space – even more space?
I didn’t expect such a question – perhaps this is an indication that I am mistaken here. I am assuming that in a black hole t=0 and, from my point of view, a black hole is 100% gravitationally effective - ahh…Now I think I understand. Gravitational effectiveness is apparently calculated based on mass; a larger black hole will be more gravitationally effective. That’s my imperfection again. I naturally relate it to mass, that it is compressed to the maximum and only this state of matter generates t=0. I’ll have to adjustthat somehow. I simply see a relationship between time and mass. No mass = no gravity = infinite time, and 100% mass concentration is t=0. Can you help me express this better in physical terms?
Yes, this is important to explain – just as we perceive evolution in general, for example here on planet Earth, I am assuming a similar pattern – an extremely long beginning, gradual evolution. In my model, we have to replace the Big Bang and at the same time we want to highlight the diversity of the flow of time – this is an important element for ensuring inhomogenity and anisotropy – I believe that this is what the universe wants to be, it wants to be diverse – I always keep in mind that the primary goal of the universe is to transform basic energy through matter into intelligence so that it can become energy again – there is a limit in the frequency field for f=0 to fP, which is the return value to D0. It is certain that reaching the Planck frequency is beyond the power of nature. I leave this topic open.
So: · In the emission phase (before CMB), time slows down · In the phase around CMB, time flows constantly (insignificant) · With the emergence of the first quasar, time accelerates (acceleration phase) - mass extractors already at place
We are only interested in the acceleration phase, as we have no information about the previous phases. The problem is that in the acceleration phase, gravity split into two components – total gravity (which I have provisionally called Gr) and local gravity (Gl, all objects). Each object has its own value “z” – gravitational shift. This is highly controversial even in the classical conception – as I mentioned, it is not possible to compare the gravitational “z” of a quasar with an active accretion disk or inactive Sagittarius A, where we observe a surrogate orbiting star. Similarly, it is not possible to compare the gravitational “z” of a galaxy and a quasar. I don’t even know what else to say about it – it’s all wrong. And now we also have Gr – a certain equivalent of the gravitational efficiency of the universe – I really don’t know how to quantify this at the moment, I’m just assuming that if matter returns to D0, then logically the total cosmic Gr must decrease. And if there is a significant decrease in matter, then “z” will also increase significantly. So, total z = Grz + Glz +Dopplerz + z from the edge of the universe (D0z)
What does it mean? That “z” as we know it completely loses its meaning and cannot be used in reality. But what else this means? That this is the great news for us, because it was just confusing us anyway –there is no distance or age in it, nor has there ever been. We can congratulate ourselves (with exaggeration).
I’m sorry, but I didn’t find this in the text; it may be a metaphor that remained here as a reference to the fact that AI helped me in my work when searching for sources. Nothing important.
I proposed this as a limit for stopping the emission of matter. It has to bedefined somehow. Just like in the Big Bang, exactly that amount of matter was emitted. But I really have no idea how to determine this. However, if wedid find out, it would greatly advance our research.
This is my unfortunate topic - but there’s no going back now. In my first theory, I borrowed Einstein’s static universe from 1917. However, I soon discovered that his universe could never have been viable. It needed absolute equilibrium, homogeneity, isotropy, and it had no center – which heexplained by saying that everyone is in the center. In my new model of a static universe, I should not have used this example. I should have left it without comment. Because my static universe has absolutely nothing to do with Einstein’s. Regarding the center, I was convinced that the universe must have a center in order for a frame of reference to exist. And the idea that everyone is in the middle drove me to intellectual despair—that there would have to be an infinite number of subjective versions of the universe for every object in the universe. That’s why I mentioned it as a difference. So that I could finally come to the conclusion that even my model has no center. It’s nonsense. I just need a frame of reference, and that’s what the locked CMB provides me with.
Yes, as I wrote above. However, this is not a logical error on my part, but an interpretation—my reasoning concerned the idea that “everyone is in the center.” Perhaps I drew from the wrong source, and Einstein never said this.But if he did, then I insist that it is not possible. “Everyone” would have to have their own subjective projection of the universe. And I deduced from this that this is a consequence of the absence of a frame of reference. However, I admit that this topic is unfortunate.
When I read this, I feel ashamed. This is one of Ai’s rare interpretations when I was investigating whether the golden ratio angle could, by its nature, tend towards movement. I will remove this in the next revision (if there is one), thank you for pointing it out.
Yes, this can be corrected relatively easily, everything is based on known methods of speed and gravitational dilation, unfortunately I am not a mathematician and I simply do not trust AI in such calculations where I am unable to detect an error. But I have verified that such deviations can be safely detected, with a huge margin. And as I mention in revision no. 3, thecenter does not exist, but we can detect and confirm the CMB reference frame in this way—and here I also offer the possibility that it might be possible to calculate the distance in this way. That would be something sensational and would really open many more doors for us.
Please excuse the lengthy response, but I always try to convey everything that I consider important as accurately as possible.
And if we do end up finding common ground, I would be honored to utilize your assistance in developing even just some of my ideas.
P.S. A moment ago, Mr. de Bruijn informed me that I had apparently “arrived late for the meeting”. But that’s great news for me (and for you too), I’m finally on the right track. And you know what? I figured it out all by myself. Isn’t that an interesting coincidence? Those things usually mean confirmation.
Warm regards,
Tomas Fox Ostrava, Czech Republic (47 years)
@0124112233 On line 33 in your document you write
But you write above: “I’m sorry, but I didn’t find this in the text;”, and add
Well, it seems you are using AI to write garbage you don’t even understand, and then waste the precious time of experts asking them to fix your text. This is the typical behaviour of a crank.
Please, tell me something.
Now I was wondering during lunch - if I move at the speed of light, why will it be impossible to emit light in front of me - so because my time at that moment will be t=0. And to take action I would need elapsing time. Therefore, nothing can happen. This is probably how any speed could be interpreted.
However, I’m always interested in why an effect occurs, so here in this case I’m asking why time slows down with velocity - could it be the increasing mass? And what causes t=0 in a black hole? In my paper I state that it is 100% an effect of gravity, which probably cannot be stated that way and therefore such an interpretation is wrong. Would it be more appropriate to consider, for example, the density of matter? - So 100% dense matter generates t=0.
Obviously I won’t be the first or the last to claim such a thing, right Mr @HanDeBruijn ? :)
I have a saying: “You cannot see a photon coming” Meaning a photon does not (cannot) emit light ahead of itself. There are some who say time stands still for a photon. I don’t know if that makes sense because a photon does not evolve. Well, maybe if space is stretching but we don’t agree to that here.
You can only ‘see’ a beam of light when it reaches you. In my opinion space is the limiter because if you switch on another parallel beam as soon as the first one arrives, the two beams will travel exactly in step. No matter at what speed you are when you release the beam, it will not overtake the other beam.
In this sense Einstein ‘could have’ said that everyone is in the centre of the universe. ‘Everyone’ meaning here, Andromeda, z=14, and every point in the cosmos. Because for all points they will have their own ‘CMB’ which looks like they are in the centre, and to them everything else looks redshifted.
For mass it’s more complicated because you can ‘never’ reach the speed of light, so even if you are at an insane Doppler to everything else, you would still emit light ahead of you. Because you can never reach the speed of light, time will never stand still. Thus you may not even know that time has slowed down for you although your observation ‘ahead’ would appear extremely blueshifted.
Yes, undoubtedly the speed of light is a privilege of energy, not matter. I presented such an unrealistic situation to bridge the gap to the question of why speed slows down time. There must be some reason for this. Time regulation is always the result of interaction with something else – see the unstable conditions for calibrating atomic clocks in laboratory conditions. I can’t figure it out right now, maybe it’s very simple.
This question occurred to me as a broader framework for thinking about how current cosmology uses CMB dipole anisotropy as a reference frame for the motion of the Sun. Have you ever thought about how they contradict themselves here in their theory? But obviously no one minds, because it works. In other words, the CMB is the only static reference frame in the universe—it must have its own source—its own CMB static structure—that’s how I understand it from their words.
Or do they mean something else? But then how? Thank you for clarifying.
The idea that light time is altered by universe density and topological inhomogeneities is an interesting idea see e.g. Timescape cosmology though it usually only explain the dark energy component, not the classical cosmological redshift https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/537/1/L55/7926647?login=false
Excuse me, but isn’t it primarily the red shift that needs to be explained primarily and satisfactorily?
In any case, I will read the information from your link this evening - thank you for sharing.