The Snowflake Universe Overview of Snowflake Universe Model for Bahamas Conference May 13, May 17, 2018 Printed May 11, 2018 (Reprinted/edited for PowerPoint Distribution May 29) By John M. Kulick (B.S.E.) 860 416 6868 cell [email protected] (note no e^) Appreciation
After working for several decades, essentially in isolation with no one really to describe my work to, this conference meant a lot to me. It is the first time I made an overview of the cosmological aspects of the model. The two papers I had previously published involved little human interaction, all I was told was that they were the most imaginative papers they have reviewed. Brian Schmidt, (Nobel Prize winner), with whom I have exchanged some tweets about the first two papers, told me I should have picked a more prestigious journal for publication, but who would want to publish a model that would have to be made in pieces, taking several years to fill in? Especially if it did not require General Relativity. I am especially appreciative of Professors Thomas Cartwright and Peter West. Their encouragement and efforts to ease my sometimes anxious temperament made the idea of talking in front of others much less worrisome. I feel like I have made some friends. I also appreciate the sponsors of this conference that made this opportunity possible. It is hoped that something remarkable happens.
The following is a review of an alternative cosmological model called the Snowflake Universe Model, as presented at the BASIC 2018, Bahamas Conference. The model has the potential to be a Unified Field Theory which also negates the need for Dark energy. The presentation essentially was described in 4 parts. A more detailed explanation follows this quick summary of the 4 parts. These slides were made after the conference for which printed material was provided instead. 1. The Geometric Expansion Model has the expansion of Observable Space not stopping at the boundary of galaxies but occurring incrementally within the atom. This results in an uncertainty or variation in measures at the atomic scale of observation. When the clock is run backwards the universe does not begin as a singularity but with a spatially arrayed distribution of jets of matter that form galaxies. The dynamics within an expanding Observable Space, relative to an Absolute Space, is
defined by the Unifying Conjecture. The geometrically defined model supports Paul Diracs and George Gamows belief that the effect of gravity diminishes over Cosmological Time since the density of all systems diminishes over time. The information presented was part of a previously published paper, A Multidimensional Geometric Expansion of Spacetime; by John M. Kulick, International Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2014, 4(2): 17-36 DOI: 10.5923/j.ijtmp.20140402.01 2. An alternative explanation for the Cosmological Red Shift is provided by the introduction of an additional field that is responsible for the property of inertia. The proposed geometry resolves fundamental problems in Cosmology associated with the Cosmological Red Shift. Model does not require that at the beginning of time, all the mass of the entire
Universe needs to instantaneously be moving at unbelievable speeds. The equivalency between mass and energy is restored. The information was part of a previously published paper, Could the Inertia and Energy Content of Matter Diminish over Cosmological Time? by John M. Kulick International Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical Physics p-ISSN: 21676844 e-ISSN: 2167-6852 2014; 4(3): 120-133 doi:10.5923/j.ijtmp.20140403.08 3. The evidence for the variation in the effect of gravity over Cosmological time with respect to stellar evolution is compelling. Stars Older than Universe Evidence of Metals in young quasars and galaxies Missing 2/3rds the expected Lithium The Faint Young Sun Paradox No Metal free red dwarf stars The energy production from Quasars
Explains numerous aspects of the structure and formation of our Solar System 4. The unification of the two field relationships defining the expansion of Observable Space with the extra dimensional field space associated with the property inertia, produced a new set of field relationships resulting in the Galactic Horizon Model. The resulting field set, yields a surprising, but much more realistic Cosmological Model. The Galaxies are not expanding away from us, we and all our rulers are contacting, resulting in the appearance of an expanding Universe. Absolute space is contracting relative to Inertial Space while Observable Space is still expanding relative to Absolute Space. Features of Galactic Horizon Model 1. 2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. No Dark Energy. No Singularity. No Inflation Theory- Same geometry from Beginning of Time to the Present. Does not require all the mass of the entire Universe to instantaneously be moving at unbelievable speeds.
Resolves Issue with respect to the lack of Time Dilation in the energy variations in quasars. Predicts the peak in quasars, star formation rate and Gamma Ray Bursts occurs at z = 2, which corresponds to observation. Resolves issue of some clusters being too large to be consistent with the cosmological principle. Resolves tension with respect to two measures of the current expansion rate of the Universe depending on the Model used, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation verses direct measures using Cepheids and Type 1a supernovas. Explains the physics or justification for Machs Principle. Comparison of Big Bang Model to Geometric Expansion Model (1st Paper) Big Bang Model Big Bang Model begins with Singularity
and Galaxies are gravitationally bound and do not expand with expansion of Spacetime. Often analogously described using an expanding balloon with fixed pennies, with the pennies representing the galaxies and the expansion of the balloon representing the expansion of Spacetime. Present Past Galaxies would be drawn on the balloon for the Geometric Expansion Model with expansion
occurring incrementally within the Atom. The incremental expansion is responsible for the uncertainty in measurements at the atomic scale of observation. . (The Dashed arrows help describe a motion of an unobserved dimension, as detailed in the Second Paper.) Geometric Expansion Model Present Past
Uniformly expanding everything, including rulers, requires an absolute ruler to describe the change. L2 A ruler in the present can be used to describe the size of the object and the rulers in the future or the past.
An Absolute reference frame is required to describe the proportional change. (The 1 and 2 notation are earlier and later measures) l&L1 T1 T2 Expanding Space Expanding Objects D2
The figure on right shows and object at T1 and T2. The proportional measures of the object, such as D1 and D2 are maintained. Note that an external frame of reference is required to define the change in linear measures. T2 D1 T1
Notation S = Volume measure of Spacetime D = Distance measure associated with object T = (Capitol T )= measure of Cosmological Time, Defines a location in time somewhere between the Beginning of Time to the Present To = The present o added to term, such as To, demarks present measures, the o is used instead of 0 to avoid confusion as to earlier and later measures and to avoid the confusion between usage of 0 and . Use of _ Notation T = T1/T2 = Earlier location in Historical Time / Later location in Historical Time D = D1/D2 = Earlier Distance Measure / Later Distance Formula Defining Expansion of Universe
Too simple to be true S == T2 Double the Age of the Universe and the Volume Increases 4 Times (Simple Geometry so far). == = a more powerful term to replace A proportional relationship based on Geometrically Defined Relationships S == T2 (1.10, 1) The volume of any object is a linear measure representative of the object cubed times an appropriate constant S = 1/k D3 (1.10, 2) Combining the linear measure of volume with the variation in the volume measure
over time yields a relationship defining how linear measures change over time. S = 1/k D3 = T2 (1.10, 3) Which results in, D3 = kT2 (1-10,4) (Looks like Keplers 3rd Law, coincidence?) D = kT2/3 (1.10, 5) The first Time derivative of the distance measure yields the rate
distance measures associated with an object change. The second Time derivative of linear measures of an object in this expanding spacetime field yields an accelerative relationship defining how the rate of change of linear measures changes over Time (Note Cosmological or Historical Time is used). dT D = dT kT2/3 = V = (k 2/3)/T1/3 (1.11, 4) dT V = dT(k 2/3)/T1/3 = A =(-k2/9 ) / T4/3 (1.11, 5) (Note negative value associated with acceleration) The Ratios of Time D1 = k(T1)2/3 (1.11, 1) D2 = k(T2)2/3 (1.11, 2)
Divide one equation by the other results in eliminating the constant k and becomes D1 / D2 = (T1/T2)2/3 (1.11, 3) Repeating the ratio type derivation for acceleration and velocity V2/V1 = (T1/T2)(1/3) A2/A1 == (T1/T2)(4/3) (1.11, 6) (1.11, 7) The Ratios of Time
D = T2/3 (1.11, 3) V = T(-1/3) (1.11, 6) The measure of the Cosmological constant k can be defined relative to the Age of the Universe and the size of Observable Space, (c To). Do = kTo2/3 , k = Do/To2/3 Do = c x To
(1.12, 1) (1.12, 2) (1.12, 3) k = c To1/3 (1.12, 4) k is equal to the speed of light times the cube root of the age of the Universe. The Unifying Conjecture What if the Ratios of Time not only define the change, and rate of change in the linear measures of objects, but also the dynamic
relationships of all objects within the expansion of Observable Space, relative to Absolute Space? The Expansion of Spacetime causes a Kinematic Loss that is geometrically defined. Just as when the tension is reduced in a balloon and it expands, there is a drop in temperature and a decrease in the velocity of the molecules in the balloon, so too is there a reduction in the velocity of any object within the expansion of
Observable Space. The rate of velocity loss is proportional to the speed since the relationship is proportional to the number of voids encountered with the expansion Ratios of Time Ratios of Time define the variations in dynamically balanced systems over Cosmological time T = Historical Location/ Age of Universe
D = Size in Past/ Present Size V = Velocity in Past/ Present Velocity A = Acceleration in Past/ Present Acceleration A = T -4/3 V = T -1/3 D = T 2/3 T Intervals of time It is rather obvious that if everything proportionally expands, then all relative or local measures of distance stay the same, but what about clocks
or the local measures of intervals of time? If we expand a pendulum, the period or interval of time defined would become longer; so would ALL local clocks maintain the same local measure of intervals of time? Variation in local measures using a Light Clock V = D/T (1.18, 1) T = D/V (1.18, 2) V = Velocity D = Distance D1/D2 = (T1/T2) (2/3)
V2/V1 = (T1/T2) (1/3) T =D/V, T1 =D1/V1 (1.18, 4 ) T1/T2 = (T1/T2)(2/3) /(T2/T1)(1/3) = T1/T2 T = T (1.18, 5 ) C1 D2 D1 C2 T1 T2
Sample problem: When the Universe was 1/8th its present age, how much faster was an interval of time defined by a light clock? T1/T2 = T1/T2 = T = 1/8. (1.17, 6) Pendulum Intervals Intervals of time proportionally change the same rate in systems balanced between inertial and spatial fields that include acceleration. D1/D2 = (T1/T2) (2/3) A1/A2 = (T2/T1) (4/3)
(1.18,10 1.11, 3) (1.18,11 1.18, 3) Substituting these values for the period at T1 and T2 to describe intervals of absolute time results in t = (l/g)(1/2) T = (D/g) (1/2) (1.18, 12) T = (T (2/3) / T(-4/3))(1/2) = T (1.18, 13) T1/T2 = T1/T2 (1.18, 14) T == T (1.18, 15 1.18, 5) Show that relative intervals of
time in a Keplerian defined orbital relationship also change in direct proportion to the proportional measure of Historical Time, or any dynamic system balanced between inertial and spatial forces. The Spatial Forces are those associated with electrodynamics and gravity. They are spooky, in that the relationships are made without direct physical contact but through spacetime.
Two Dimensions of Time Local time measures define the time interval between points and is locally invariant. In order to define how the local clock rates are changing over time, an Absolute clock is needed. Absolute, Cosmological or Historical Time defines where in time an event occurs with the 0 measure of Historical Time beginning with the beginning of the Universe. Proportional Relationships of time and length preserved- predicted Not only do all rulers keep their proportional measure in this geometric expansion, so do all clock rates. Conservation of Momentum The math is the same as the light clock, with the speed of the object changing at the same rate as the speed of light, and the distance
traveled changing at the same rate as the speed of light. This conservation of proportional relationships is defining the Conservation of Momentum principle as a property based on a geometric expansion of Observable Space. T = T D1 V1 Moving object at T1 D 2
V2 Moving object at T2 Forces Spatial and Inertial Are these Relationships Preserved? Electrodynamic and Gravitational Forces If Coulombs constant is locally constant, and the Gravitational constant is locally constant, along with the spatial interaction of the matter involved within Observable Space, the only variation in the Spatial Force would be that
associated with the distance separating the objects. Fspatial 1/D 2 Inertial Forces Basically there are two types of inertial forces. One results from the change in the magnitude of the velocity of a moving object, the other occurs when the velocity of the moving object changes direction. Both are based on the change in the velocity vector of a
moving mass. F linear A F rotational V 2 / R Spatial and Inertial Forces maintain their proportional relationship over time Spatial Forces over Historical Time Inertial Forces over Historical Time Fspatial =D-2 (1.21, 8) Incorporating the change in absolute distance D = T2/3
(1.21, 9 1.17,1) F linear = A= T-4/3 (1.21, 12 1.17, 3) F cicurlar = V^2 /R= (T(1/3)^2 / T2/3 = T-4/3 (1.21, 13 1.17, 3) Fspatial =R = (T ) = T Inertial Forces are diminishing at the same rate that spatial forces are diminishing. -2
2/3 -2 -4/3 (1.21, 10) Which also is the same rate of change for acceleration predicted by equation A2/A1 == (T1/T2)4/3 (1.21, 11 1.17, 3) A balance between inertial and spatial forces is being defined by a geometric
expansion of Observable Space Energy Do energy relationships maintain their proportional relationship in Observable Space over Time? Work Work = F x D = M x A x D (1.22, 1) Ework = A x D = T-4/3 x T2/3 = T-2/3 (1.22, 2) Kinetic Energy K.E. = V2 = T-2/3 Potential Energy,
in Inverse Square Spatial Field, U inversesquare -1/ R (1.22, 6) U= 1/D = T-2/3 E = Mcc Potential Energy, Constant Spatial Field U constant field = F x d = = T-2/3 (1.22, 8) E = C x C = (T (-1/3))2 = T (-2/3) (1.22, 14) Assuming that mass is constant, the
mass will divide out in a ratio so (1.22, 16) The Lorentz Factor or Gamma Special Relativity = 1/ (1-(v/c)^2) (1.24, 1) V/C = 1 (1.24, 2) The relationships of special relativity are preserved General Relativity Since General Relativity uses local intervals of distance and time in the establishment of the relationships, then so long as only local gravitational relationships are considered, the relationships of General
Relativity are unaffected. However, if General Relativity is used over Cosmological Time in a limited expansion model (stopping the expansion at the boundary of galaxies), then General Relativity will fail to conform to observation without a number of after the fact fixes Energy of a Photon - Trouble! E = f = c/ (1.23, 1) Check for proportional change in Energy with other systems
Energy variation by frequency. T == T (1.23,2 1.18,5) Ephoton = f = T-1 (1.23, 3) T-1 T (-2/3) c/ Energy variation by c and E = c/ (1.23, 4) Which changes over time in observable space by Ephoton = c/ = T-1/3 / T2/3 = T-1
(1.23, 5) (1.23, 6) The energy content of a photon is not maintaining the same proportional rate of energy loss as determined in all other dynamic systems that contain mass. More Trouble with the GEMs Cosmological Red Shift While the GEM does predict that the energy content of a photon diminishes over time, it turns out that the photon starts off with more energy in the past, due to the
denser electrostatic field the electron would orbit in the past. The photon would be bluer in the past, but as the traveling photon travels through the expansion of Observable Space, the energy content is diminished at exactly the same proportional amount to end up appearing have the same energy content of a presently produced photon. The two effects cancel each other. (This may be fun for some to check for themselves). It seems the order and geometry is too perfect. Problems with the Cosmological Red Shift, It is not just within the Geometric Expansion Model In the void of outer space, a gram of matter is converted into radiant energy and beamed to a distant galaxy which has a large mirror that returns the signal. When the light returns, the wavelength of the light has been lengthened and the energy diminished. Convert this energy back into matter and there will no longer be a gram
of matter. This issue violates three fundamental laws of physics, as will be described shortly. This indicates some very significant problems exist within the current Big Bang Model and the GEM. One of the Pillars of Modern Cosmology is the Cosmological Red Shift. If I presented any other model that violated the following laws, that model would be dismissed as wrong. If this pillar is false should the Big Bang model collapse? Conservation of Energy Violated Where did the energy of the traveling photons go? The energy content of the light is gone. There is no residual background radiation or warming of space. The energy is actually gone. This violates the principle of conservation of energy.
The Equivalency between Matter and Energy is Lost, E = mcc Matter and energy are no longer equivalent. The relationship, E = mcc defines Energy as equivalent to matter. However, when General Relativity is applied over Cosmological intervals, in what can be called a limited expansion model, this is no longer true. A gram of radiant energy does not equal a gram of mass, once the light is traveling through outer space. A fundamental equivalency relationship is being lost. The equivalency of matter and energy is no longer a universal property valid everywhere, but it becomes conditional. Equivalency would be maintained within the confines of gravitational bound galaxies only. A stunningly beautiful relationship becomes mired in complexities and condionalities. Principles of Special Relativity are Violated
Special Relativity predicts that as an object approaches the speed of light, the process of physical change slows down and that at the speed of light all physical change would stop. How can a photon traveling at the speed of light change its energy content and wavelength? Impossible Beginning If it is assumed that the Cosmological Red Shift is an indication of galaxies actually being carried away from each other by the expansion of spacetime, then if we run the clock backwards, galaxies would eventually pile up on top of each other and as the beginning of time is approached, everything converges into a singularity. This presents a number of real issues. Momentum When the Universe was very young, the expansion rate has to be fast, otherwise the Universe would collapse back in on itself due to gravitational attraction, per the
relationships of General Relativity as applied in a limited expansion model. The greater the mass, the harder it is to move. The shorter the time period to move the mass, the harder it is to move the mass. How can every atom, in every solar system, with every star, in every galaxy, with every galaxy we can see in the Universe, and presumably the many more galaxies we can not see, all move at unbelievable speeds in just an instant? What is the Physics of Inflation Theory? One solution is to propose that there is another set of laws are acting in the early Universe. These after the fact laws fall within the umbrella of inflation theory. Inflation theory exists only to keep the currently model conformant to observation. Were there not any issues with the current Big Bang Expansion model, there would be no need for inflation theory. Also, there is no consensus as to the actually dynamics of the model. For example,
predict, from fundamental principles, what happens in the first 5 plank length units of time to the first 1/1000 of a second. Do not fit the model to conform to observation, but provide the model that predicts observation. Relative Distance Measures are Preserved over Time The distance between galaxies would be the same or invariant over time Look Back Distance Same now and in Past Another problem for GEM. No Expansion of Galaxies Observed at To The spatial distribution of galaxies becomes invariant in Observable
Space Observed at T1 And More Problems for GEM, no Time or Space Dilation Time Dilation An event that takes time to transpire, such as the duration of a supernova, has the interval of time defining the duration, stretched with the expansion of spacetime. It maps to that of the Cosmological Red Shift. If the wave length ratio is doubled, the duration of the event is doubled. This is observed. This effect would not be observed for dynamically balanced systems in the GEM because of the faster clock rates of the past. The two effects exactly cancel each other. Spatial Dilation
The observed size of a dynamically balanced system in should stretch with the expansion of spacetime. However the GEM predicts such systems would be smaller in the past. As was found for the Cosmological Red Shift, the smaller size in the past would be counteracted by the stretch of Observable Space. There would be no spatial dilation that would match the Cosmological Red Shift. The preservation of order and relationships is not only preserved locally over time but globally across time. The Snowflake Universe This expansion or growth of a snowflake is in many ways like the expansion of the Universe. a. The edge of the snowflake (Universe) is where the snowflake (Universe) expands. b. The edge of the snowflake (Universe) is where the present is defined. c. At the edge of the existing structure of the snowflake (Universe) is the location where change can occur.
d. The existing structure of the snowflake (Universe) is the accumulation of past events. e. The snowflake (Universe) grows a tiny little piece at a time. The molecule of water (the piece of spacetime) forms on the existing structure of the Snowflake (Universe) f. The pieces have a geometric shape that fit with the established structure. g. The form or shape of the expansion of the snowflake (Universe) is generally the same across (within) the snowflake (Universe). h. The expansion of the snowflake (Universe) releases energy and it takes energy to change the existing structure. i. The Snowflake (Universe) has Fractal Characteristics. j. The Snowflake (Universe) is Self-similar to a limited extent. The Gravitational distance is similar to the structure of the Charge distance, producing similar dynamically structured relationships at two scales of observation. k. The shape (the dynamics) of the Snowflake (the Universe) conforms to Geometry.
A Better Cosmological Red Shift Based on 2nd Paper If the inertial properties of matter diminished according to Mi = T(-1/3), with a corresponding loss of intrinsic energy, an alternative explanation for the Cosmological Red Shift is provided. There are two main advantages 1. The Equivalency between Matter and Energy is preserved. 2. The Universe does not have to have the galaxies actually moving away from each other, avoiding singularity issues and the problems of somehow accelerating all the matter in the entire Universe to unbelievable speeds in and instant. Separating Inertial Mass from Spatial Mass There is a spatial property to mass that corresponds to spooky type of relationships which are revealed by how objects experience force without actually touching each
other. The spatial forces are those of electromagnetism and of gravity. The spatial mass (or charge) of an object imposes a spatially defined field relationship between objects. Inertial mass is directly evidenced by contact types of forces where the velocity vector defining the motion of an object either changed direction or magnitude. These two physical properties of matter and there relationship to force are much different, yet it has been assumed that they are equivalent. This model will challenge that assumption and replace it with a model that produces a Cosmological Red Shift that is consistent with the laws of physics. Spatial Mass Spatial Mass is a spatial based volume like property that is defined by field based relationships in Spacetime. It is
assumed to be a spatial-temporal characteristic of an object that is a scalar based constant with respect to the structure or volume measure of Observable Space. Since spatial mass is constant over time within Observable Space it is expressed as Ms = 1 (2.1) Inertial Mass Inertial Mass is tied to a scalar number associated with an object that is modified by an independent
function. This function is proposed to result in Inertial Mass to vary by Mi = T-1/3 Inertial mass greater in past (2.2) (The extra dimensional field relationship explaining this variation is provided later in the Vu Model). Contracting Orbits, Denser Field Relationships As the inertial mass diminishes in orbital systems, the centripetal force diminishes, causing the orbiting object to be drawn inwards. Conservation of Motion (Replacing the term momentum with motion is required since inertial mass is diminishing over time), requires the orbiting object to increase in speed, which reestablishes the balance between centripetal forces and spatial forces.
cosmological = T-2/3 This contraction of orbits over time places the orbiting object in a denser field relationship. When considering the spectra emitted when an electron drops from one energy level to another, the spectra in the present would be bluer than the spectra emitted in the past. When combined with the fact that our rules would contract as the orbital relationships of the electrons contract, results in a Cosmological Red Shift that varies by cosmological = measured = Ruler variation x comparison =T-1/3/ T1/3= T-2/3 Dilation of Image Size is Different The change in ruler size partially restores, or changes the expected image size of orbital relationships observed in the past. The mainstream model would
expect the cosmological red shift to stretch the image size as much as the wavelength. Rruler = Rorbit = T-1/3 (3.18) Objects observed in the past, would appear bigger using a smaller local ruler. Verses mainstream model R orbit = Red Shift ratio (This will be important when resolve the appearance of cosmological structures that appear to be too large). Energy Issue Resolved The First Paper predicted that the energy content of a photon would vary by E photon = c/ = T-1/3 / T2/3 = T-1 ((First paper I- 23.5), 6.7) Yet the intrinsic energy content of a gram of matter in the first paper varied by
E = C x C = (T (-1/3))2 = T (-2/3) ((First Paper 22.17), 6.8) A gram of radiant energy did not equal a gram of matter over time. This issue is now resolved since the inertial mass also varies over time, effecting the energy content of Mass. E = Mi cc (6.9) E = Mi x c x c = (T (-1/3))3 = T -1 (6.10) Energy Loss over Time Show that all expressions of energy now conform to the same rate of decay of E = 1/T Existence comes at a cost, Even matter loses its energy content over time, Conservation of Energy is only valid when we measure events locally.
Orbital Velocity, and Radius over Cosmological Time From conservation of rotational intervals we have V1 x R1 = V2 x R2, or V1/V2 = R2/R1; V = R-1 (3.8) Centripetal Force = Gravitational or Charge Force CF = GF (Or Charge Force) becomes Mi x V2/R= 1/R2 (3.10) Mi x V2 = 1/R which = V (3.11) Mi = R =V-1 (3.12) Mi = Rorbit =V-1orbit = T-1/3 (3.9)
Errata Equation 3:14 in Second Paper, and as given in the Handout for the Conference. The change in the accelerative field was written as Aorbit = V2/ R = (T1/3)2 / T-1/3 = T1/3 It should have been written as Aorbit = V2/ R = (T1/3)2 / T-1/3 = T (3,14) Smaller Orbital Periods and Faster Clock Rates Time Dilation The period of an orbit is described by the distance travelled divided by the time it takes to travel the distance. (Orbital relationships describe systems in balance between spatial
and inertial forces). Torbit = D/V = T-1/3 / T1/3 = T-2/3 (3.15) Our faster clock rates, compared to the past, restores time dilation Shrinking Rulers If the orbital size of atoms shrinks due to the loss of inertial mass, then rulers, which are constructed with atoms, should also shrink. Since the radius of the atom was predicted to vary by R-1 = T1/3 (3.17) rulers composed of atoms should also vary at the same rate.
Rruler = Rorbit = T-1/3 (3.18) Objects observed in the past, would appear bigger using a smaller local ruler. Vu Model This was cut from presentation and is briefly included now. It is the geometrical justification for why inertial mass diminishes over time at the same rate that the speed of light changes. The Vu model proposes that there is an extra 4 dimensional space that is orthogonal to our 3 dimensional space. As this Unobserved
Dimension travels through our Observable Space, it establishes the Speed of light and imparts the property of inertia to mass. The speed of this Unobserved Space diminishes according to the same geometry as found in Observable Space, Vu =T -1/3 . The absolute speed of light and the inertial mass all change at the same rate, thereby keeping the geometries the same and connected. See 2nd Paper for more details Unobserved space with structured field relationships moving through a Flatland Universe Flatland Universe with its own structured Field
Relationships Ring expands across Flatland as Flatland intersects the field relationship described by the cone. The radial velocity expanding across Flatland defines the speed of light. Photons catch interaction and move. Predictions of Model There are three cosmological observations that could verify the model. Observed Image Size, Clock Variation, and the Luminosity of Stars. Clock Variation corresponds to Red Shift Ratio Torbit = T-2/3 Period cosmological = T-2/3
(5,13) (3.15) This expression matches the expected Cosmological Red Shift which is helpful in assuring that the model is consistent with observations such as the duration of supernovas correlating to the cosmological Red Shift. Image Size One significant difference between the Mainstream Dark Model (DM) and the GEM is the expected apparent size of galaxies, clusters and the anisotropies (blotchiness) of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The Mainstream model predicts the variation in observed image size would be altered not just by distance but by the stretch of space.
Image Size Increase (DM) = cosmological (which generally maps to a Image Size Increase (DM) = T(-2/3) . The Vu model is predicting an image size variation not just because of distance but also because of ruler variation. Image Size Increase (GEM) = T(-1/3) . This difference is significant and will be discussed later Fusion in Stars The prediction of higher intrinsic energy of matter in the past would result in the energy produced by fusion to be greater in the past. Combine this with the increased effect of gravity in the past and the luminosity of stars should generally increase the further they are observed in the past. This topic will be discussed in more detail next.
Varying the effect of gravity over Cosmological Time Worth Considering? If Paul Dirac and George Gamow (both Nobel Prize winners), believed the effect of gravity could decrease over Cosmological Time, is it worth considering the effects and see if there is evidence of such variation? George Gamow writes in his book Gravity about how the luminosity of a star would vary if the gravitational constant, G, were to vary. From the theory of internal structure and energy production of stars, one can show that the luminosity of the Sun would change as G 7.25. (page 140). (Gravity by George Gamow; Library of Congress Card number 62-8840, 1962 copyright by Educational Resources Incorporated, Published by Doubleday) This allows the variation in the luminosity of a star to be expressed as Luminosity of Star, gravity alone = G-7.25
Luminosity of Stars The prediction that the effect of gravity and inertial mass diminishes over time, dramatically alters the luminosity of stars over time. This is one of the most radical predictions of the model and it would be expected that there would be observational evidence of such variation. The UGEM would predict that the effect of gravity varies by A = T -4/3 and the inertial mass of matter varies by Mi = T -1/3 Factoring out part of the variation in the gravitational field we have A = T -4/3 = T -1 x T -1/3. Associating the Acceleration term, T -1/3, with the variation in inertial mass, allows the result to be as if the star was gaining gravitational mass, not just inertial mass.
Since the Luminosity of a main sequence star varies by the mass raised to the 3.5 power, part of the luminosity of the star can be describe with the incopreration of the variation of the inertial mass. This approach results in a model in which the gravitational mass and inertial mass of the star is essentially increasing by T -1/3 , with that star also experiencing an increased gravitational effect that varies by T -1 . Gravitational and Inertial Mass of Star Variation M G&I star = T -1/3 The left over accelerative field that would be applied to the star that changes its inertial and gravitational mass becomes A left over = T -1 Luminosity Varying Gravitational and Inertial Mass
The variation in the gravitational and inertial mass over time would result in a variation in the brightness of a main sequence star to approximately be Lum Gravitational and Inertial Mass = (LumMgstar ) 3.5 = (T -1/3 ) 3.5 = T -1.17 Luminosity Varying Acceleration The Luminosity of a main sequence star like our Sun under the accelerative field of A left over would be A left over = T -1 Luminosity of Star,A left over = G-7.25 Luminosity of Star,A left over = T-7.25 Adding the Variation in Inertial Mass the following approximate relationship can found by considering the increase in luminosity if gravitational mass and inertial
mass increased by Lum Main Sequence Star = (T -1.17) x T -7.25 = T -8.42 T = -1.5 Lum Main Sequence Star = 12.63 = T -8.42 Lum Main Sequence Star = (T -1.17) x T -7.25 = T -8.42 T = -1.5 Lum Main Sequence Star = 12.63 = T -8.42 When looking backwards in time, the net result would be that of a star that increases in gravitational mass, with the matching increase in inertial mass, with that star also experiencing an increased accelerative field. Net Local Luminosity of Main Sequence Stars The variation in the luminosity factored together with the variation in inertial mass and gravitational mass now needs to include the variation in the effect of gravity.
Lum Main Sequence Star = (T -1.17) x T -7.25 = T -8.42 T = -1.5 Lum Main Sequence Star = 12.63 = T -8.42 Extra Luminous Stars As the energy output of a star increases, the radiant pressure would decrease the interior density of a star, slowing the rate of energy production. (Eddington Limit). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_luminosity For example, the exponential term of the Mass luminosity relationship drops to approximately a value of 1 for the most massive and radiant stars, Luminosity varies linearly with respect to mass. Extra Lum star = Mass of Star A rough estimate of the luminosity of an extra luminous star would be to using the same technique done for a main sequence star. First, part of the accelerative field is combined
with the variation in the inertia of the star, and then the remaining accelerative field is applied to the combined relationship. Net Luminosity of Extra Luminous Star Net Lum Ex Lum star ) T -1/3 x T -7/3 = T -8/3 = 4 The graph illustrates the dramatic proportional increase in the luminosity of stars as they are observed in the past over a range of exponential values. A more likely representation of the luminosity of a star over time would be a more S shape, with
luminously peaking at around 250 times in the past, then dropping down to the rate of Main sequence Stars. The dramatic variation in the luminosity of stars indicates that our sun comes from a previous generation of stars, with probably a multitude of generations before that. Generation o stars
Evidence of Accelerated Stellar Evolution Stars Older than the Universe Stars in Globular Clusters tend to have formed from the same cloud of gas at the same time. When these stars have consumed most of their initial fuel, they diverge from being on the Main Sequence and get very large. Estimates as to how long this should take should fall within the Age of the Universe. In 2003 when I investigated this, I looked over 21 years of papers. 33 place the age of these stars to be greater than 14 x 10 9 years and 16 place the value to be less than that. The vast majority of papers show that there is a problem. If the effect of gravity was greater in the past, stars would evolve much faster, resolving this issue. The Faint Young Sun Paradox
The Astronomers Carl Sagan and George Mullen have described how the expected reduction in the energy output of the sun about 4 x 109 years ago would be about 70% of what the sun produces now. This would have resulted in the Earth being too cold for liquid water, contrary to the evidence of water on the Earth at this time in the past. Sagan, C.; Mullen, G. (1972). "Earth and Mars: Evolution of Atmospheres and Surface Temperatures". Science. 177 (4043): 5256. Bibcode:1972Sci...177...52S. doi:10.1126/science.177.4043.52. PMID 17756316 Earth would be a frozen ball, as opposed to the geologic evidence of an extremely prolific period for the existence of life on the Earth. While a number of after the fact fixes have been proposed to resolve the issue, explaining the evidence of water on the planet Mars remains a challenge as there is no evidence of anywhere near enough green house gasses.
Cascading Mini Supernovas and Quasars In the past, it would take much less mass to form a star, so they would evolve much faster with a much denser collection of smaller proto stars around them. When one mini proto star reached the end of its evolution, and it was massive enough to become a mini supernova, surrounding mini stars would explode from the inrush of radiation and particles. It would look like what we see when we look at Quasars. Nucleosynthesis Problems for Big Bang Model One of the other pillars of the Big Bang model is nucleosynthesis. A brief period of time, lasting supposedly about 20 minutes, the entire Universe was essentially a ball of plasma with temperatures sufficient to support fusion. It is during this time that Helium was produced. There are two problems with the Dark Models explanation for the production of
elements. 2/3rds of the Lithium expected to of been made is missing and the evidence of metals in the early Universe. Missing Lithium Stars with interior temperatures high enough will burn lithium. The Universe Star would never have reached these temperatures so it would be expected to still see this lithium. Two Thirds of the lithium is missing. However, if the effect of gravity was more intense in the past, this lithium would be consumed in the course of stellar evolution Evidence of Metals Astronomers call the heavier elements above Lithium, metals. These elements can only be produced by stars have lived a lifetime and the interior pressures and temperatures are
sufficient to either form the metals as a result of fusion, or as a result of a supernova. This process takes current stars thousands of millions of years to reach. It was a surprise to discover metals in highly red shifted galaxies and quasars. No star we were familiar with could of lived long enough for metals to be produced. This resulted in the after the fact fix of a class of new stars called Population III Stars. These stars would be so massive that they would evolve very quickly. Supposedly the extra dense clouds of gas that would of existed in the early Universe would have allowed the creation of these super stars. The theoretical feasibility of these stars is questionable. But if the effect of gravity were more powerful in the past, the evidenced of metals would be expected. Metals in Red Dwarf Stars Red Dwarf Stars evolve very slowly. Their mass is less so they burn fuel slower than a typical Main sequence Stars.
Collections or fields of red dwarf stars have been studied and they all have evidence of Metals. This would not be expected since none of the stars have lived long enough to have one of their neighbors evolve to the point where metals would be formed. However, if the effect of gravity were more powerful in the past, the evidence of metals would be expected in every red dwarf star. At one time red dwarf stars were many orders of magnitude more luminous than they are now, and they evolved very quickly. It is only now when the effect of gravity has diminished to its present effect that these stars have slowed their fusion process. Evidence a mini proto star blew up in our Solar System Angular Momentum of Solar System Isotopes of Xeon Rocky inner Planets
Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt The Asteroid Belt The tilt of the Axis of Uranus The impact of Earth with Mars sized Mass forming Earth Moon Structure The source of Meteors and Comets Angular Momentum of Solar System As our Solar System formed from a disk of dispersed matter, no part of the disk would be moving faster than any other, due to the multiple collisions that would occur. The velocities of each partial or gas would be close to the velocity of the surrounding matter. As the effect of gravity draws everything together, the angular momentum of the matter would be drawn in with it. Where most of the mass goes, most of the angular momentum would follow. This formation process requires most of the angular momentum of our Solar System to be concentrated where most of the mass is, the sun.
This is not the case, most of the angular momentum is dispersed out towards Jupiter. Why? If a mini proto star, about 1/50th the mass of our present sun, blew up, the outer rotating material of the star would be blown outwards, Dispersing the angular momentum. Isotopes of Xeon A nuclear physicist named O.K. Manuel had the opportunity to analyze samples of material gathered in multiple space missions. He discover an Isotope of Xeon that could only of been formed from a stellar explosion about 4 to 5 thousand million years ago. Since the Sun is the only nearby star, he concluded that our Sun blew up about 4 to 5 thousand million years ago. When he reported his results at a conference of American Astronomical Society, he was not taken seriously. When a star blows up in a supernova, there is little left. All the planets would be destroyed.
However, if the explosion was much smaller, the consequences would not be as catastrophic. Rocky Inner Planets Early explanations for the inner planets of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars being mostly rocky in comparison to the gas giants of Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune, is that the early suns radiant energy would more effectively pressure the lighter elements away from the sun while the heavier elements would still be drawn inwards. Were it not for this proposed selection process it would be expected to have the largest planets towards the center of the solar system. When we discovered giant gas planets larger than Jupiter in orbits around their star that were closer than the planet Mercury, a serious reevaluation had to be made and after the fact fixes had to be invoked. However, if a small proto star blew up, it would have stripped off all the atmospheres
from all the planets near it, and displaced it out towards the outer planets. Titus-Bode Law There is an apparent geometric distribution of the planets that has been mathematically expressed as the Titus-Bode Law, so named for the discoverers of the relationship. Usually the law is dismissed as coincidence since the pattern breaks down where the asteroid belt is located. The asteroid belt has nowhere near the amount of mass of a planet. However, if the effect of gravity was much more powerful in the past, the only stable patterns in the distribution of matter would be that which occurs in resonance. Also, if the process was interrupted by an explosion, the planet that was to become the planet between Mars and Jupiter could have been smashed apart, denying it the opportunity to become larger.
More Evidence of Explosion in Solar System It is probable that there was at least 1 planet forming within the orbit of Mercury at the time the proto sun blew up. The remnants of that smashed planet would of primary been cast out along the plane of its orbit, the same plane all the planets generally are found. The flying debris would have 1. hit Earth, forming the Earth Moon System 2. hit Uranus, tilting it on its axis 3. hit the planet that was where the asteroid belt is now 4. dispersed what will become meteors and comets. The Galactic Horizon Model Despite the apparent success of the United Geometric Expansion model, the
cosmology was not quite right. For example, it was desirable to have a distribution of galaxies that did not require Dark Energy. Also, the appearance of an expanding Universe was evidenced by more than just the Cosmological Red Shift, there was the apparent distribution of galaxies and quasars. The idea intrigued me that the two field spaces, the expansion of Observable Space, and that of an unobserved velocity of Vu from Unobserved Space, should piece together producing more than just the speed of light and the property of inertia. The following are excerpts of the next paper that will be published called An Intriguing Cosmological Model. In an effort to preserve Copy rights for the publisher and myself, only parts of the paper are presented here. The Universe is Not Expanding; we, and our frames of reference, are Contracting It was discovered that based on boundary conditions,
the only way that the expansion of the Universe could make sense was if the velocity of expansion was zero, not just now, but across time. This would mean that that the expansion of the Universe had to be reinterpreted, it was our frames of reference that were shrinking, resulting in the illusion of an expanding Universe. A Galactic Horizon The other odd result of combining the two field sets was the nature of the apparent distribution. There was the appearance of a Galactic Horizon. Galaxies with a red shift factor greater than 2 could not be seen. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation would find its location moved to the Galactic Horizon. (The source of radiation would not be from the Universe
Star, but the multitude of stars exploding like pop corn in hot oil) The ramifications of these changes needed to be considered. Especially worrisome is the claim that no galaxies or quasars could be seen with a z >2 despite the fact there are many thousands of objects observed with a z>2. The graph shows the limit in which galaxies and quasars can be seen. About 1/5 of the Age of the Universe can never be seen. 1/3 of the observable part of the Universe can not be seen. Peculiar Motion The graph illustrates the proportional magnitude of the accelerative response between galaxies.
(The effect of gravity varies over Cosmological Time). While today the gravitational acceleration between galaxies is very small, when the Universe was very young, the accelerative response was dramatically greater. This would introduce a variation in the velocity of what would have been initially a static distribution of galaxies. This motion of galaxies relative to the fabric of Observable Space astronomers call Peculiar Motion. It produces a Doppler Effect that would be added or subtracted to the Cosmological Red Shift. This is the reason objects are observed with a z>2. Evidence of Significant Peculiar Motion
The lack of time dilation in the variations in the luminosity of quasars Time Dilation and Quasar Variability; May 2001 University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3Hj, Scotland, UK). Quoting M. Hawkins in the reference paper We find that the timescale of quasar variation does not increase with redshift as required by time dilation. Possible explanations of this result all conflict with widely held consensus in the scientific community. Adding or subtracting a Doppler shift to the variation would negate this issue. The highest Red shifted quasars are closer and the bluest quasars are actually further away than assumed, thereby compressing the range in time the quasars are observed, which reduces the actual range of Cosmological Red Shift. Too Big Too Early Issue A February 2015 paper in Nature, titled An Ultraluminous Quasar with a twelve-billionsolar-mass black hole at red shift 6.3, . Xue-Bing Wu, et al. Nature 518, 512 515 (26 February 2015) states the following in the Abstract,
roughly 40 quasars with a red shift factor greater z =6 have been discovered and The existence of such black holes when the Universe was less than one billion years old presents substantial challenges to theories of the formation and growth of black holes and the coevolution of black holes and galaxies * (* Reference for present mainstream model, Volonteri, M. The formation and evolution of massive black holes. Science 337, 544547 (2012)) "How do you build such a big black hole in such a short time?" asks Xue-Bing Wu of China's Peking University, lead author of the study. (Quote from National Geographic article on discovery) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/140225-black-hole-big-science-space/ These quasars are not as young as thought, a Doppler Effect has been added to their Cosmological Red Shift. Highest Red Shift Galaxy, z = 11.1, Forming too Early
The Highest red shifted object observed is galaxy GN-z11. It has an assumed red shift factor of z =11.1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11 A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at z = 11.1 Measured with Hubble Space Telescope Grism Spectroscopy P. A. Oesch1, Draft version March 3, 2016 arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.00461 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.00461v1.pdf The Wikipedia article about this quasar states the following The fact that a galaxy so massive existed so soon after the first stars started to form is a challenge to some current theoretical models of the formation of galaxies. The Galaxy is not as young as thought. A Doppler effect has been added. Same Geometry The same geometry is used even to near the
Beginning of Time where the pieces of spacetime are fixed by proportional relationships, 3 space intervals per 2 time intervals. No extra inflation theory needed. Galactic Horizon Model Compared to Dark Model The graph illustrates a comparison of the Dark Model to that of the Galactic Horizon Model. The values for the Dark Model are from Ned Wrights Cosmological Calculator using default values for Dark Matter and Dark Energy based on the following Dark Model Paper. The 1% Concordance Hubble Constant 10/2014, ApJ Volume 794, Issue 2, article id 135,8 pp (2014) ; B. Larson, J Weiland, G. Hinshaw
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.1718.pdf http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc The Dark Model CMR is moved to the Galactic Horizon and scaled to fit range of the GHM. The Dark models distribution is close to a straight line, as indicated by the red line. The red line closely corresponds to the distribution of the GHM in that it appears linear, but a red shift comparison shows a more dramatic variation. Dark Model and Galactic Horizon Model Comparison The plot shows the predicted Look Back Distance to galaxies per Cosmological Red Shift compared to the distribution predicted by the Galactic Horizon Model. Two different ages of the Universe is shown for a sense
of the change that results if the Age of The Universe is different. The match is not good, but the predicted change in the luminosity of stars have not been included. Adjusting the Type 1a Standard Candle Type 1a a Supernovas generally explode with a fixed size since the size is determined by the spatial array allowed for electrons per the relationships of Quantum Mechanics. Once degeneracy pressure is exceeded, the distribution of electrons can collapse and the supernova begins. The increased effect of gravity in the past would not compress additional material into the supernova but the increased inertial mass of matter in the past would increase the luminosity of the supernova If Type 1a supernovas were brighter in the past because if the increased inertial mass, the assumed distance to these supernovas would be underestimated and should be increased by the following
Distance Correction Lum 1asn = T -1/6 Distance Correction Lum 1asn = 1/4 The following plot shows the distribution of galaxies based on 1asns after correcting for luminosity variation. No Dark Energy Needed The graph shows that once the predicted luminosity distance corrections are made, the correlation to observation is fairly good. No dark energy is needed. While the correlation is good, it would seem that for a z = .6, a slightly younger age would help, and at high measures of z, an older age would be better. This slight discrepancy can be resolved if the increased effect of gravity were to begin to decrease the size of
the radioactive cloud of Nickel and Cobalt that is believed to be the source of the radiant energy observed. This observation would tend to require the Age of the Universe to probable be somewhat less than 13.8 x 10 9 years. Other issues briefly mentioned There are 6 cosmological clusters that are too large to be consistent with the expected distribution of galaxies. Also, at large angular scales of observation, the distribution of the anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, do not match expectations. In large part this can be explained by the difference in the expected image size associated with the red shift ratio. The DM has the size expanded by the red shift ratio while the proposed model has the image vary by square root of the red shift ratio (ruler contraction
due to the loss of inertial mass). Change in Image size, DM = Verses, Change in Image size, GHM = 1/2 Tension in measure of Ho using CMB verses Cepheids and Type 1a supernovas The Dark Model assumes that the CMB occurs near the beginning of time. The GHM places it at the Galactic Horizon. The change in slope corresponds to the discrepancy between the two methods. (See Slide 94). There was more but that was it for now. Thank you