The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?  (Read 916 times)

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« on: 12/07/2016 04:00:25 »
I have posted a new paper on viXra that derives the Hubble shift as a relativistic Illusionary effect. This would disprove the accelerating expanding universe theory and eliminate the need for "dark energy". The paper also derives the mass/energy of the dark matter of M31, Andromeda, eliminating the need for "dark matter". As we cannot post links here, if you would like to read this paper and begin a discussion here on its merits, please search for the following paper:
"Relativistic Derivations of Gravity, Dark Matter, the Hubble Shift and Foundational Particle Physics."


 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #1 on: 12/07/2016 23:10:04 »
MOD EDIT: As this is not spam and a genuine attempt to discuss your theory I am posting the link for you
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1606.0038

As agreed, if you keep the discussion to this thread I am happy that you are abiding by our forum usage policy.

I hope you get some interesting discussion going
 
The following users thanked this post: captcass

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #2 on: 14/07/2016 03:43:28 »
Like many here, I have been working on relativity, gravity and cosmology for a very long time in order to solve the mysteries of gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. This has involved a lot of study and a lot of false starts.
In August of '15, while trying to tackle gravity again, I had an inspiration. I then worked on the basis of that inspiration for nine months to produce my paper and the derivations it contains. I got cross-eyed many times as I considered the effects in time and where they were leading me, which really surprised me as so many things just fell into place. I have tried to write this paper in such a way that it doesn't make the reader cross-eyed as well. I urge you to put all previous theories and conceptions aside as you read it. Just leave your mind open as long as the logic flows. 
To those of you who would download the paper, I can't stress how important it is to read the paper through from the beginning. Just jumping to the Andromeda derivation doesn't work.
This is a new approach most will find highly unusual. Premises must be understood first or it will seem like gibberish. These are new concepts, though I think they are easy to understand if the reader begins at the beginning. Of course that is easy to say as I understand them and can see them with my mind's eye. :)
Also, I have had negative comments about the number of decimal places in my computations. This was necessary in the derivation of the Gravitational Equivalency Constant as the constant refines out to a large number of decimal places. It is also necessary in the Hubble shift derivation of Gn-z11 due to the large distances and small percentages involved.
I carried this forward into the Fundamental Particles section simply because a computer wouldn't round off, either, and ask for your indulgence there.
As a high number of decimal places is required in both the Andromeda and Hubble shift derivations, it would follow that it might also be significant at the quantum level.
The Fundamental Particles section is derivative and can be considered postulates on my part, but it is the logical extension of the primary theory and the derivations work to derive particle mass. It also provides for a never-ending direction for time.
Again, please read this from the beginning, though the Hubble shift derivation might be understood without doing that.
I am looking forward to a spirited discussion, but please be kind folks.
Please let me know if and where you find fault in the derivations without slamming the concepts. In my view, the derivations work and prove the concepts and that does it for me. I've got nothing to think about or work on anymore and I've been working on these things for decades. I need to find something else to work on. Tough proposition when you have a theory of everything that answers 8 or 9 of the most sought after answers in physics...... :)
Thanks in advance folks,
Cass
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #3 on: 15/07/2016 17:41:33 »
I do not understand why you think anyone would want to read your paper without giving people a brief idea of what it is about. Perhaps you could produce some basic concepts and discuss them here. then people can see if they make any sense to them. Why should people waste their time unless you say something that makes them interested?
 

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #4 on: 15/07/2016 21:14:36 »
The link Colin put up goes to the abstract, which is brief. If interested, the full PDF can be downloaded from there. I might should have copied the abstract here first.....sorry bout that.
 

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #5 on: 17/07/2016 05:01:28 »
Here is a copy of the abstract. The full paper can be downloaded at the link Colin provided in his earlier post.

Ive been having a spirited discussion regarding this theory in another forum and hope to do the same here.

I fully expect the initial comments to be negative but look forward to rebutting those as I have in the other forum.

ABSTRACT:

Generally speaking, Einstein’s gravity is a distortion of space/time geometry, expressed in the spatial aspect. Distortions in time, which are apparent different rates of time in different reference frames, manifest apparent curvature of motion in space. In Relativity, gravity disappears in a free fall in open space except for “residual” tidal forces as objects converge on a common gravitational center, i.e., the center of a mass, or an unbalanced force is applied to the mass, accelerating it. This theory postulates that Einstein stopped short and that Relativity describes the geometric effects of gravity, and not gravity itself, which is an actual force in time.

According to this theory, the tidal force convergence is caused by a focusing of the update in time into a time dilation vortex, and the shift of the update in time through the time dilation gradient creates the drag of gravity.

When Advanced LIGO1 detected gravity waves on Sept. 14, 2015, it did so detecting distortions in the time aspect, fluctuations in the rate of time, which this theory is built upon. This theory explains how that distortion is responsible for the gravitational force in time.

LIGO’s detection, if verified, proves effects in time generate force on space. Otherwise they could not distort space to produce the detected signal. The effects in time force space to change, distorting it. In the case of LIGO, this was a change in the shape of the antenna, a shortening of the length of a meter by accelerated time. The shortening of a meter creates stress in space, which is cohesive and resistant to change. Both space and time possess inertia.

In this paper, first a Gravitational Equivalency Constant for the force in time relative to the force in Newtons is mathematically derived.

This is used to mathematically derive the mass/energy “Dark Matter” content of the Andromeda galaxy, and again in the Elementary Particles section to derive the formation of quanta and their entanglement in space/time that forms complex particles, mathematically explaining why the masses of protons and neutrons are so much larger than the sum of the masses of their constituent particles, and how gravity is responsible for the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces.
 
In Relativity, time dilation creates an increase in space to maintain the speed of light, C, as C is constant in any inertial reference frame. This increase in space is usually accounted for by the addition of meters. This is not correct. As C is a constant at so many m/s, the number of meters must remain the same between any two frames of reference when the rate of time increases or decreases between those frames, 299 m/s is not the same as 310 m/s. There must always be the same number of meters. This means it is the length of the meter that changes. If a meter = 1 in your inertial frame, a meter in a faster time frame = <1 standard meter. This is a relative meter.

Using this, the Red Shift of Gn-z11, the farthest known galaxy with the highest red shift, is determined, placing it at 13.4 Gly in actual and “lookback” time, contradicting theories of an accelerating expansion of the universe. It explains why the cosmic red shift is not due to cosmic expansion, but relativistic effects.

The Andromeda dark matter and red shift derivations eliminate the need for either dark matter or dark energy.
 
We see time dilation as a result of mass, but when we look at the processes in time, we see that mass is the result of time dilation. Space/time is not being stretched and thinned by mass. Space/time is not isotropic to begin with, especially in the time aspect. This theory demonstrates that the fluctuations in rates of time create gravity waves that result in the formation of mass in slow time rate areas and, unlike Relativity, the math works on the galactic scale, as in the Andromeda Dark Matter derivation.

This paper is based on the interactions of the true, temporal, direction of time all observers experience in their own inertial reference frames and the relativistic apparent lateral shift of the update of time down-gradient through time dilation fields in external frames; two forward directions of time.

Einstein’s geometric curvature in the future evolution of space/time is due to the effects in time this theory explains: reference frames shift forward in space/time in the direction of the lateral update.

On the quantum level, temporal time and space curve sharply in the spins of the quanta as temporal time and space follow the lateral shift into a spin, a space/time vortex. Because space is also drawn into the spin, and is limited by the restrictions of Planck units, the quanta can be quantized at the Planck level in space, though not in time, which is dimensionless.

This theory does not try to alter the mathematics describing gravity and other effects used in Relativity that work so well on the scale of the solar system, but it explains gravity in different terms that give us gravity waves that can be applied to larger systems, such as galaxies and galactic clusters, where time dilation fields are irregular in shape and where Relativity fails to accurately describe gravity, resulting in theories of dark matter.

This is a grand unification theory. The reader will find much correlation between quantum and cosmic events, tying the two scales together.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #6 on: 31/07/2016 23:07:10 »
Thanks for explaining a little of your theory. I have no opinion of the validity of your work.That is more for the mathematical physicists to study. For myself I believe that the work of Hubble and the astronomers of the ages produce a valid and simple interpretation of the time since big bang. When I can calculate the time since big bang by an alternate method that agrees with the astronomers, I am happy.
   Once we look at the universe from other perspectives we move away from the astronomical data. We move away from the background radiation. thus several branches of science tends to agree that the redshift indicates an expanding universe.
  Your work may pertain to a particular aspect in which your answers are a good approximation to what you believe has occurred. I have no ability to know that. All that is self evident to me is that the universe existed in a small volume about 13.78 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Too much data indicates that this is true.
   
 

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #7 on: 01/08/2016 01:58:12 »
I totally agree that all the science seems to indicate a BB and expansion. Just because it seems it is so does make it so. Not yet.

In QM, "stupid" results are discarded. As in QM, I cannot accept a "stupid" result for the foundation and end of the universe.

That is why I have kept looking for another explanation. The other science is made to fit, like with Guth's expansion.  Now we also have "dark energy". I'm sure if I turn out to be correct we can make the thermodynamics, etc., also fit that. Hopefully w/o anything "dark".

There is a problem with my Hubble derivation. It turns out it only works directly at that distance  I believe the concept is still corect, and am finishing up derivations for each set of frames.

What is interesting is the difference in the rate of change of the rate of change in succeeding frames. I am hoping to find the solution for the other frames there.

Thanks much for the comment. Either way the results go, I will post them here. I hope to be done within a week.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #8 on: 09/08/2016 13:59:11 »
I totally agree that all the science seems to indicate a BB and expansion. Just because it seems it is so does make it so. Not yet.

In QM, "stupid" results are discarded. As in QM, I cannot accept a "stupid" result for the foundation and end of the universe.

That is why I have kept looking for another explanation. The other science is made to fit, like with Guth's expansion.  Now we also have "dark energy". I'm sure if I turn out to be correct we can make the thermodynamics, etc., also fit that. Hopefully w/o anything "dark".

There is a problem with my Hubble derivation. It turns out it only works directly at that distance  I believe the concept is still corect, and am finishing up derivations for each set of frames.

What is interesting is the difference in the rate of change of the rate of change in succeeding frames. I am hoping to find the solution for the other frames there.

Thanks much for the comment. Either way the results go, I will post them here. I hope to be done within a week.
   I just posted "When does the red shift of the far stars occur?  As I look at the title of your post, it appears that you do not believe that the red light is due to the Doppler effect. In many respects I have to agree with you since I seek the mechanism by which the light turns red. In general Doppler is a measurement of the wave itself such as a radar wave. When an object moves toward us the peaks and valleys occur faster. When it moves away they occur slower. Sound is similar. In general science I just asked if the redder photons were measured to have less energy.
   From the astronomical data it appears self evident to me that the far stars are moving away from us at faster and faster rates. Yet this could merely be due to the expansion of the universe.
  Now for the problem, if the light turned redder and all the photons in the spectrum lost energy, how did that occur. If they truly lost energy then the mechanism is not a Doppler.
  As I see it, the far away galaxy gravitational field meets our galaxy field at a balance point. Since they are separating at a high velocity, there is a stretching of the fields at the balance point. Photons traveling at a velocity C relative to the far galaxy are traveling at C-V relative to our galaxy. Then when the photons reach the balance point they lose energy and move at C with respect to our galaxy. This would not be a Doppler effect but a space time effect.
   So the title of your effort has truth in it. The details or your work I do not know. My concern is from an engineering viewpoint, I want to know the nuts and bolts of how the light turns red and the Doppler does not explain it that well.
 

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #9 on: 22/09/2016 15:36:45 »
I have found the solution for the Red Shift and have revised my paper with the new derivations. Turns out there is a mirror effect in gravitational time dilation.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #10 on: 22/09/2016 16:22:22 »
I have found the solution for the Red Shift and have revised my paper with the new derivations. Turns out there is a mirror effect in gravitational time dilation.

Is that inverted time dilation?
 

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #11 on: 22/09/2016 17:24:12 »
In one aspect I suppose it is, though not really. It is more of a mirroring effect. Time dilation from infinity is the inverse of time dilation from our inertial frame, but it is a combination of effects of both gradients that create what we see.
 

Offline captcass

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #12 on: 25/09/2016 04:21:55 »
Sorry, this new derivation is trash. I got twisted by an edu site that said the dRt reduced to 0 at infinity. It is the change in the rate of change that reduces to 0. I am very embarrassed. This was a very stupid mistake.
Still thinking about it from the go point.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
  • Thanked: 55 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #13 on: 25/09/2016 22:28:44 »

captcass
\

I noticed you were expecting a standard distance for your meter stick. Relativity shows us there is no standard meter stick. Time slows distances increase to measure the same speed of light in every frame. SR is a special increase through space. GR is dilation of space itself as a gradient of course. So the physical size of the measuring stick increases to compensate for the dilated space for light to transverse. Light produced in gravitation causes red shift in light frequency.
 
The following users thanked this post: captcass

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic effect?
« Reply #13 on: 25/09/2016 22:28:44 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums