Time acceleration hypothesis (Galaxies)

[kmarinas86]

Time acceleration hypothesis - Academic Publishing Wiki - a Wikia wiki

 

This page is being remodeled for simplicity.

 

Have you heard of Occum's Razor before? its a principle that states that 'in the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible' or as more commonly paraphrased 'the simplest solution is the best'. Why are you overcomplicating things to produce no more of a clear explanation for why galaxies appear to be receding from us?

[Pluto]

Hello Kmarina

 

Very interesting link.

 

 

Please expand on the recyclic multi universe theory.

[Jay-qu]

Have you heard of Occum's Razor before? its a principle that states that 'in the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible' or as more commonly paraphrased 'the simplest solution is the best'. Why are you overcomplicating things to produce no more of a clear explanation for why galaxies appear to be receding from us?

[kmarinas86]

In addition to time dilation of massive objects, the following are what GR needs to explain changing wavelength and frequency of light due to gravity:

• Length contraction of objects near massive objects
  
• Coordinate speed of light that decreases in the presence of gravity
  

 

In addition to time dilation of massive objects, the following are what time acceleration hypothesis needs to explain changing wavelength and frequency of light due to gravity:

• Expansion of matter near massive objects
  

 

In GR, the cosmological redshift is the result of time dilated galaxies which:

• Were closer in the past
  

 

In Tah, the cosmological redshift is the result of time dilated galaxies which

• Appear enlarged
  

[kmarinas86]

Do we have to assume that the universe is expanding throughout the course of history?

 

Or could we assume that it isn't?

 

Do we have to assume that redshift is a function of an expanding universe?

 

Or could we assume that it is not?

 

Do we have to assume that all distant galaxies were actually closer in the past?

 

Or could we assume that some galaxies take up more space in the celestial sky?

 

Do we have to assume that redshifting of photons has to do with some continously changing properties along its transit?

 

Or could we assume that redshifting of photons is simply induced by the observer?

[kmarinas86]

Have you heard of Occum's Razor before? its a principle that states that 'in the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible' or as more commonly paraphrased 'the simplest solution is the best'. Why are you overcomplicating things to produce no more of a clear explanation for why galaxies appear to be receding from us?

 

Ockham's razor is used when concepts have equal explanatory power. However the mainstream and proposed concept have different ranges of explanation. So Ockham's razor doesn't apply.

 

The time acceleration hypothesis explains the acceleration of galaxies, the expansion of the universe does not. You would have to add that the expansion is accelerating, which is tangential assumption not accepted by the time acceleration hypothesis.

[freeztar]

Or could we assume that the redshifting of photons is simply induced by the observer?

 

How would redshift be induced by the observer?

 

Also, why would objects shrink as they escape a gravitational field? What type of gravitational field?

[kmarinas86]

How would redshift be induced by the observer?

 

If an observer's constituents shrink independent of the wavelength of light (atoms and all), then other things, particularly light, will grow relative to that observer, and the observer will see longer wavelengths of light (a redshift).

 

What type of gravitational field?

 

A gravitational field in which objects are in different positions.

 

Also, why would objects shrink as they escape a gravitational field?

 

To explain why redshifts are observed higher up in the gravitational field.

[Tormod]

If an observer's constituents shrink independent of the wavelength of light (atoms and all), then other things, particularly light, will grow relative to that observer, and the observer will see longer wavelengths of light (a redshift).

 

Wouldn't the shrinkage have to be *enormous* in order to create any redshift? In fact, for a human observer no change in size would change the wavelength of light since the wavelength is so incredibly small.

 

A gravitational field in which objects are in different positions.

 

That definition would imply absolutely all objects in the universe.

 

To explain why redshifts are observed higher up in the gravitational field.

 

Now you lost me. The shrinkage is an *effect* of the explanation?

[kmarinas86]

 

{|

|+ Mainstream versus Tach

|-

!width=50%|Mainstream

!width=50%|Tach

|-

!Space between galaxies expands

!Galaxies' constituents shrink

|-

!Wavelengths of light expand

!Galaxies' constituents shrink

|-

!Cosmological redshift induced by space

!Cosmological redshift induced by observer

|-

!Cosmological time dilation induced by movement of distant objects

!Cosmological time dilation induced by time accelerated observer

|-

!Galactic rotation curves are explained by cold-dark matter distribution models

!Galactic rotation curves are explained by velocity-neutral radial shrinkage

|-

!Acceleration of the universe is explained by dark energy and a positive cosmological constant

!Acceleration of galaxies is explained by angular momentum transfer from smaller to larger

|-

!Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric

!Euclidean metric

|-

!Escape from a gravitational singularity

!Freedom from large gravitational wells

|-

!Variable coordinate speed of light

!Constant coordinate speed of light

|-

!Big Bang

!Cyclic Multiverse

|-

!Cosmological Principle

!Fractal Geometry

|-

!One time

!Repeatable

|-

!Global Thermodynamic Equilibrium at the largest scales

!Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium at the largest scales

|}

[kmarinas86]

Wouldn't the shrinkage have to be *enormous* in order to create any redshift? In fact, for a human observer no change in size would change the wavelength of light since the wavelength is so incredibly small.

 

You may think so. But I am definitely sure if the ratio of a lights wavelength to the diameter of a person's consitutents were increased, the person, if having retinal sight, would be able to see lower frequency of light. A shrinkage proportional to your cosmological time dilation is very imperceptible, as these would span many billions of lightyears.

 

That definition would imply absolutely all objects in the universe.

 

Exactly. No exceptions are proposed here.

 

Now you lost me. The shrinkage is an *effect* of the explanation?

 

Yes. Whenever coming up with an unverified hypothesis, the reasoning for it is definitively circular.

[Jay-qu]

Ockham's razor is used when concepts have equal explanatory power. However the mainstream and proposed concept have different ranges of explanation. So Ockham's razor doesn't apply.

 

The time acceleration hypothesis explains the acceleration of galaxies, the expansion of the universe does not. You would have to add that the expansion is accelerating, which is tangential assumption not accepted by the time acceleration hypothesis.

I see where you are coming from, but apart from that, why should we drop our current model and adopt yours, what else is it useful for predicting that the current expansion model cant?

 

Also hubbles law provides a very nice curve of how fast a galaxy should recede given its distance from us. Your proposal must also fit this data, do you have any calculations to support this?

[kmarinas86]

I see where you are coming from, but apart from that, why should we drop our current model and adopt yours, what else is it useful for predicting that the current expansion model cant?

 

Also hubbles law provides a very nice curve of how fast a galaxy should recede given its distance from us. Your proposal must also fit this data, do you have any calculations to support this?

 

If my proposal fits the data, then my proposal offers an alternative interpretation of the data. There are some lower-level interpretations of the data that are consistent with both my hypothesis and Hubble's, which are higher-level interpretations.

 

The lower-level interpretations are simply stated:

 

Galaxies are more redshifted the greater the angular diameter distance, up to redshifts of 1.5 or 1.6. Beyond redshifts of 1.5 or 1.6, the angular diameter distances is reduced.

 

 

 

Other distance measures include:

• Luminosity distance
  
• Comoving distance
  
• Light travel time distance
  

 

Luminosity distance is the last distance in consideration that can be directly derived from photometry. The last two, comoving distance and light-time travel distance, are supported by theoretical justifications which are independent of photographic techniques, and can be arrived at by a completely abstract process.

 

In the big bang theory, the drop in luminosity is due to the combination of the redshift [math]z[/math] due to expanding space, as well as the increase in the volume space by a factor of [math]z^3[/math]. Indeed, it is observed that light in the largest scales drops by the fourth power of the redshift, or [math]z^4[/math], which is like saying luminosity decreases with the fourth power of the distance.

 

In the time acceleration hypothesis, there are several factors contributing to the drop of the radiation by a factor that increases with the fourth power of the distance (or of [math]z[/math]):

• The area of the radiation shell increases with the square of distance.
  
• The frequency of the radiation decreases with [math]z[/math].
  
• The "tachometer" (if you will) of galaxies decreases with [math]z[/math].
  

 

The variable [math]z[/math] in the hypothesis signifies by the factor by which we are shrunken relative to objects at redshift [math]z[/math]. This comes with a small set of new distances not found in the Big Bang theory:

• Maximized distance - the distance it would take for someone, leaving behind a meter stick at home, to reach the redshifted object while growing (same as the angular diameter distance)
  
• Minimized distance - the distance it would take for someone, leaving behind a meter stick in the redshifted object, to reach the non redshifted object while shrinking (same as the angular diameter distance divided by [math]z[/math])
  

 

The strange result is that if you go in certain directions in the sky, you will be able to travel the much shorter angular diameter distance as a result of the growth you will get. Not only does it radicalize our notions of the size of the universe, but also suggests faster travel through space. By going in particular directions, we will be able to leave the optical window and arrive at destinations quicker, if we have the means.

[Pluto]

Hello Kmarina

 

Well done.

[Tormod]

You may think so. But I am definitely sure if the ratio of a lights wavelength to the diameter of a person's consitutents were increased, the person, if having retinal sight, would be able to see lower frequency of light.

 

You need to show me some support for such an idea.

 

The wavelengths for visible light imply to me that you'd need very extreme shrinkage to see colors change.

 

Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Yes. Whenever coming up with an unverified hypothesis, the reasoning for it is definitively circular.

 

This is a logical fallacy. Not all unverified hypotheses require circular logic, and circular logic says nothing about the hypotheses, only that your explanation of it is not good enough.

[kmarinas86]

Continuation of the hypothesis

 

The variable [math]z[/math] in the hypothesis signifies by the factor by which we are shrunken relative to objects at redshift [math]z[/math]. This comes with a small set of new distances not found in the Big Bang theory:

• Maximized distance - the distance it would take for someone, leaving behind a meter stick at home, to reach the redshifted object while growing (same as the angular diameter distance)
  
• Minimized distance - the distance it would take for someone, leaving behind a meter stick in the redshifted object, to reach the non redshifted object while shrinking (same as the angular diameter distance divided by [math]z[/math])
  

 

The strange result is that if you go in certain directions in the sky, you will be able to travel the much shorter angular diameter distance as a result of the growth you will get. Not only does it radicalize our notions of the size of the universe, but also suggests faster travel through space. By going in particular directions, we will be able to leave the optical window and arrive at destinations quicker, if we have the means.

 

Recap:

 

The time acceleration hypothesis proposes galaxies escaping an immense gravitational field will shrink and become time accelerated. In addition:

Basically

• The velocities of its constituents will be conserved.
  
• The radius of its constituents will be reduced.
  

Furthermore

• The angular momentum of the constituents will be transferred to the orbital angular momentum of the galaxy.
  
• The angular velocity of the galaxy will increase relative to a distant observer, but will appear to be the same according to its inhabitants.
  

And finally

• 
  The galactic rotation curve is comparable to a "super"galactic rotation curve stemming from areas of higher cosmological redshift.
  

 

Julia set:

 

As for objects that escape gravitational fields in general:

Basically

• The rate of photon emission from relatively time accelerated objects will increase.
  
• The frequency of each photon from relatively time accelerated objects will increase.
  

Furthermore

• Objects falling down gravitational fields will experience more radiation pressure from the outside.
  
• When observing from a higher to a lower cosmological redshift, assuming a linear [math]z[/math] gradient, the apparent brightness of a class of objects at the lower cosmological redshifts does not appear to change.
  
• Variable stars would have their period reduced and brightness increased as a result of time acceleration, which is expected to be more pronounced in satellite galaxies like globular clusters.
  

 

As for the interaction between objects between different ends of a [math]z[/math] gradient:

Basically

• An observer at redshift [math]z[/math] would be proportionally greater in size than us by a factor of [math]z[/math].
  
• An observer at redshift [math]z[/math] which appears to us at distance [math]d[/math] will observe us as if we were at distance [math]d/z[/math].
  

Furthermore

• The angular size seen of observers like ourselves located at [math]z \gt 0[/math] is no different than the angular size they would see of us who are like them, but at [math]z=0[/math].
  

[kmarinas86]

You need to show me some support for such an idea.

 

The wavelengths for visible light imply to me that you'd need very extreme shrinkage to see colors change.

 

Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Yes.

 

Extreme shrinkage is implied.

 

This is an alternative to extreme length contraction coupled with a varying coordinate speed of light.

 

The reason is that while time dilation takes care of the frequency adjustment of EM waves escaping a gravitational field, it does not take care of the wavelength adjustment, so one must find out what may be behind it.

 

Mainstream Explanation

By combining the length contraction of objects within a gravitational field (which reduces their size relative to the wavelength), and adjusting the wavelength with a coordinate speed of light, which reduces EM wavelengths approaching a gravitational object, the result is a wavelength that contracts relatively to the objects situated within the gravitational field, resulting in a reduced wavelength according to the ground observer. It sounds like I just violated Ockham's razor :hihi:.

 

"Tach" Explanation

One could propose that objects grow as they approach a gravitational field. Since we say that light does not "grow" with the objects, in this manner, it must be short relative to their particle widths. Shorter, then, must the wavelength be. The evidence for this explanation, then, is Ockham's razor.

 

As for the bending of light around the sun, we know that it happens to be twice the value predicted by Newton. In mainstream theory, this can be explained, in bad terms, as a sort of "refractive index" that corresponds to the coordinate speed of light, which in a simplified Schwarzschild metric is [math]c(1-2GM/rc^2)[/math]. Note that the "LaTex" formula just given here is a special case and not representative of the coordinate speed of light. I have been told that the coordinate speed of light is inversely proportional to the scale factor. Funky stuff huh:doh:?

 

Explanation of the curvature of light around objects:

One can think of both the angular deflection and angular acceleration of light around massive objects as being twice the Newtonian value. Light does not affect the center of mass nor of gravity. It cannot apply any torque on any massive object unless it is absorbed. Therefore, the light must have twice the angular acceleration and angle of deflection as predicted by Newton.