Science topics: AstrophysicsAstronomy & Astrophysics
Science topic
Astronomy & Astrophysics - Science topic
Everything about Astronomy & Astrophysics.
Questions related to Astronomy & Astrophysics
On the basis of previous questions and an elder research proposal, see references below, we have come to a stimulating relation between the dimension of elementary particles and the global gravitational potential (GP):
ℏω/m = GP = c2 = 2GMu/Ru
GP stands for the cumulative gravitational potential originating from mainly the distant masses of the universe.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Aether_something_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
Research Proposal Triple-gyro model for deduction of proton radius and magnetic moment
Upcoming Events "CONFERENCES" in Berlin, Germany |October 24-26 2025.
Global Meet & Expo on Astronomy, Astrophysics and Space Technology (GMEAAS2025):
The demarcation between philosophy and science is defined by the validation of ideas through experimentation. However, what happens when loopholes are created that allow unsubstantiated thoughts to re-enter science under the guise of scientific rigor? This, in fact, was achieved by scientists like Einstein and has since been embraced by the scientific community. Below are three specific examples of such loopholes. I invite you to comment on them:
- Thought Experiment: Einstein reintroduced a core philosophical concept by renaming it, substituting real experimentation with hypothetical scenarios. This approach has significantly altered the scientific landscape.
- Thought Instrument: Einstein also introduced the idea of the "thought instrument," exemplified by constructs like the "light clock" and the "graphene-thick windowless laboratory (GTWL)," to support his thought experiments.
- Handicapped Experimentation: The most striking loophole was the deliberate exclusion of key observations in experiments, which allowed for experimentation within the confines of the GTWL. This last loophole is the hardest to detect but becomes obvious once revealed. Imagine being given two identical bottles containing two transparent liquids. You're told that no experiment can differentiate between the two liquids. However, when informed that one smells like white vinegar and the other does not, you're instructed not to use your sense of smell in the experiment. This is similar to the rationale given to justify the "equivalence principle" and, subsequently, general relativity.
For more on the intersection of religion, philosophy, and science, please refer to the attached presentation materials.
Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion
My speculation :
Starting from the universal gravitational potential Vu = c2 = 2GMu/Ru we might interpret c = √Vu as the escape velocity out of the visible universe. If c is independent of the location, ie we are not at the center of the universe as prescribed at the times of Galileo, the total universe should be unlimited.
In principle, this situation offers opportunities for new insights. However, it sometimes rather leads to the rejection of observational data without serious examination. So experimental data [1] that apparently confirm James C. Keith's prediction [2] about the energy loss of highly accelerated mass systems due to interaction with large external masses is not even considered for serious discussion, in particular, as it seems to confirm Mach's principle, see [2] on page 11. Other objections are based on purely theoretical grounds [3] and/or on inaccurate comparative data [4] without any comment on the experimental setup and procedures.
[3] Frehland E., 1973, Critique of the Gravitational Radiation Damping Effects Calculated by Keith, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 7 (12), 490-492
[4] Reinhardt M. and Rosenblum A., 1973, The Nonexistence of a Relativistic Effect Proposed by Keith, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 6 (5), 189-191
The gravitational potential (GP) is widely ignored by the science community which appears rather strange as it is responsible for a series of quite obvious physical phenomena such as eg:
1. GP is a quantity that sums up to huge values in space as it falls off by 1/r and so mainly buids up from distant masses of the universe.
2. GP gradients, ie a secondary feature of GP, are the origin of huge forces that keep planets in orbit and galaxies in clusters.
3. Cumulative GP of all masses within the observable universe directly leads to E = mc2 and indicates relation between gravitation and electromagnetic properties of space:
4. GP has been identified as responsible for the observation of light bending over large distances (Einstein rings) by heavy celestial bodies.
5. GP is the basis for calcuation of escape velocities and the generally accepted Schwarzschild radius.
6. Interaction of accelerated bodies with distant masses of the universe was suggested by Ernst Mach and substantiated by James C. Keith, see appended reference on page 11, as the origin of acceleration forces.
I am interested in talking with engineers, specifically Systems Engineers, who work in astrophysics and cosmology. I am looking for some potential overlap between the two other than the development of instrumentation.
and (PDF) SPIRAL universe size at decoupling CMB calibrated (researchgate.net)
discussion Marco Pereira describes his 'Big Pop' hypothesis.
Here we hope to compare where they can reconcile and where not.
The ISS is nearing its decommission date and various deorbiting plans are under consideration, but they all seem to involve crashing it into the Pacific Ocean in one way or another. That's a lot of raw materials going to waste. Would it be feasible to crash land it on the moon instead? That way materials for processing or parts for repurposing would be available to future Lunar settlers.
Distance is a scalar representing the length of a traveled path. Displacement is the length of the straight line (a vector) connecting start and end points.
In a Euclidean plane, they appear to be described by the same number of units.
Light travels in a straight line, analogous to the straight line in a plane.
Is displacement measured using luminosity equal to the corresponding cosmological distance?
Are there experiments? Are there theoretical proofs? Are there articles about this? What are the cites?
Dear Professor Shour,
This is a good question.
The answer is simply that "distance" is "distance" as normally understood.
There is actually no Special Relativity and no General Relativity, because there is no "spacetime". The Lorentz relations (light cone &c.) describe the offsets and corrections to the light rays -only-, such that space and time are left Absolute.
The reason why we know, for certain, that we have an Absolute character to space and time, is because the "Relativity of Simultaneity" has been demonstrated to be a logical impossibility. Confer above and below, tilting-mirror demonstration, and also the proof by Kılıç (2005) below :
Einstein field equations [1]:
Rµν - (1/2)gµνR + Λgµν = Tµν ...... (EQ.1)
where Λ is the cosmological constant, gµν is the spacetime metric, and Rµν is the Ricci tensor. EQ.1 expresses the relationship between the amount of energy-momentum (mass) and the curvature of spacetime in a region (or point) of spacetime.
The basic Friedmann equation that dominates the expansion of the universe [2]:
(a')2+K=8πGρa(t)2/3 ...... (EQ.2)
where a(t) is the Robertson-Walker scale factor, and it determines how large-scale distances in space change with time in Friedmann-Lemaître -Robertson-Walker metric：
ds2=gµνdxµdxν=dt2-a2(t)dX2 ....... EQ.3
And it is a solution of Einstein field equations. Two Space-Time properties are expressed here: curvature and expansion over time.
What causes Space-Time Curvature is local energy. What drives spacetime expansion is dark energy. ”Physics welcomes the idea that space contains energy whose gravitational effect approximates that of Einstein's cosmological constant,Λ; today the concept is termed dark energy or quintessence." [3] Dark energy is not the usual matter and radiation[2].
Our questions are:
1) Space-time is interconnected, confined by the speed of light c =Δx /Δt; the factor a(t) that determines space-time is of a kinetic nature; what makes it relevant only to time (it affects all of space in the same way as time passes) [4] and not to space？
2) Can the Einstein field equations essentially be written as two separate equations, the bending effect equation and the expansion effect equation?
3) How does Space-Time know to distinguish between energy and dark energy if Space-Time Curvature and Expansion are both different properties?
4) Can local Space-Time Curvature geometrically affect expansion if it appears to be strongly curved?
-----------------------------
Notes
* “How the view of space-time is unified (3)-If GR's space-time is not curved, what should it be? ”https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO17How_the_view_of_space-time_is_unified_3-If_GRs_space-time_is_not_curved_what_should_it_be
** How the View of Space-Time is Unified (4) - Is Space-Time Expansion a Space-Time Creation?
-----------------------------
Refererncs
[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8
[2] Weinberg, S. (2008). COSMOLOGY (Chinese ed.). Oxford University Press.
[3] Peebles, P. J. E., & Ratra, B. (2003). The cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(2), 559.
GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX (GCP):
INTRODUCTION TO GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (GCC)
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. Pre-scientific Law of Causality: A Short Introduction
Anything can exist only non-vacuously and absolutely in Extension (having parts) and simultaneously and inseparably also in Change (existents and their parts impacting some other extended existents). Anything without these two mutually integral characteristics cannot exist. Physical entities are in finite change in themselves and in every part. In that state of finite change, they are also finitely stable in themselves. This alone is their identity as Extension-Change-wise processes. The entities within cosmos are such.
Hence, back to the cosmos. Even the allegedly “non-causal” quantum-mechanical constituent processes are mathematically and statistically circumscribed measuremental concepts from the results of empirical activity of experiments and thought on Extended-Changing existents and ipso facto the realities behind these statistical measurements are in Extension-Change if these processes are physically existent. Without such existence, statistics has no foundation at all.
If not in Change, how can something physical exist in Extension alone? And if not in Extension, how can something exist in Change alone? Hence, Extension-Change are the two fundamental and exhaustively complete implications of To Be, and hence may be termed the ontological Categories of all existence.
Finally, Extension-Change-wise existence is what we understand as Causality. That is, if anything exists, it is in Causation. This is the principle of Universal Causality...!
Space is the measured shape of Extension; time is that of Change. Therefore, space and time are epistemic categories. How then can statistical causality be causality at all?
In short, everything existent is causal: hence Universal Causality as the highest pre-scientific Law, second only to Existence / To Be.
Absolute vacuum is not an existent. The 3500+ years old gods are either vacua, or parts of this cosmos. And if the Absolute Divine should exist, the only remaining rational possibility is that it must have ubiquitously infinite Extension and infinite Change. Infinite Extension is not stability without Change. Infinite Extension must be just the infinitely intense state of affairs – infinite activity and the infinite stability proper to infinite activity.
If the Divine exists, it must be in infinite stability in its state of infinite Change. But is it possible to have rational arguments in favour of its existence? The whole history of humanity has not yet produced one with enough truth probability. Can cosmology now accomplish this task? We do not yet know.
2. Gravitational Coalescence Paradox
Even if there is no common big bang within a fully finite-content universe, there will be expansions and contractions locally. Moreover, the universe will have outer limits. At the outer limits some gravitational and non-gravitational energies must be lost, because there is no force at the outskirts to block these from escaping. Additionally, if the universe has a finite but fixed speed limit of energy propagation, then what is lost at the outskirts can never be brought back by propagations that issue later. If there is a general expansion, then there will be contraction too. Naturally, there are consecutive expansions and contractions, however limited they are. These cannot go on infinitely, since the finite-content universe loses energy (convertible in terms of mass) at the outskirts.
A fully cyclic and geometrically fully spherical oscillating universe existing as the sole finite universe can never be defended. Within a finite (of course, very long) time, it will exteriorize its matter-energy and be entirely rarefied over a finite number of oscillations. This raises the question of the causal horizon of the first big bang of a finitely cyclic universe and/or the very beginning of this universe. If other such separate universes exist, the final residues of the first will form part of one or many of them, because the distance between them is always finite, and all of them have some gravitation.
Now there are the following two possible lines of solution for the first big bang of a finite-content universe: (1) the matter of our universe has come from other universes or (2) it was created in some way from a Source that is not a form of matter-energy with finite activity and finite stability (which finite activity and stability is the case only of the cosmos).
If the matter-energy of a finite oscillating universe is from other universes, there remains only the case of existence of an infinite number of them. All of them eventually will exteriorize their matter-energy into becoming parts of other universes in finite durations. Such universes exist at finite distances. Gravitation from one such universe will affect similar neighbour universes in finite time. So, they should coalesce gravitationally with each other and with others over the course of time. Gravitation has a finite propagation velocity, not infinite. If gravitation can vary in velocity, each such local gravitational coalescence will have a highest limit, whatever, of gravitational velocity at each phase of expansion from a common central black hole.
Moreover, at any time with respect to one finite-content universe, there are only a finite number of universes in mutual gravitational attraction, since an infinitely spatiotemporal universe can never form a fully gravitationally related infinite-content conglomeration. If it could, there would again appear the contradiction of infinite mass, density etc. and infinite velocity, which is the same as the absolutely miraculous action-at-an-infinite-distance. We do not need it.
The mass-and-volume differences among coalescences do not matter. Due to the tendency of matter as groups of island universes to form ever wider gravitational conglomerations or coalescences, the formation of an eventual common center for each such wider coalescence is a must. There is no time when a coalescence of such universes existed or exists without gradually forming a common gravitational center. This conclusion is absolutely inevitable if all existing universes and parts thereof are gravitational.
No such coalescence, however wide, can bring back the gravitons it has radiated to the peripheries from the common gravitational center at a time before or during or after its big bang or big crunch – and even if there is no big bang and big crunch. This process can only continue forwards forming ever wider coalescences; and never backwards in a de-coalescence or de-coherence of gravitational coalescences, because gravitational propagation is an outward, not inward, process of some sort of energy propagations.
If the cosmological scalar Λ-addition is a dark energy qualified solely by its alleged ability to repel, no amount of dark energy should possess the capacity to attach itself to any other dark energy quantum. Ipso facto, it never exists in any real universe. If it includes also gravitational radiation, it is impossible to understand why there should be these ad hoc quanta of repulsion if, naturally, the limits of density that each conglomeration of matter-energy possesses by reason of its mass, volume etc. can produce repulsion between parts of the conglomeration after the conglomeration has attained critical density.
As is evident, it is irrational to posit the existence of repulsons – as quanta / wavicles of repulsion to keep dark energy on par with gravitation. Hence, I discuss gravitational coalescences to theoretically circumvent any irresolvable problem that the concept of dark energy can offer.
It is common knowledge that gravitational propagation is an outward, not inward, process of energy propagation from any gravitating material body. This should take place also from within a universe to other universes. Hence, there should be coalescences of universes at some time or other due to gravitational attraction.
At no time relative to the coalescing universes of universes can an infinite coalescence be actualized via gravitational influence from a central black hole common to all the infinite number of universes, although infinite such gravitationally coalesced universes, groups of universes, etc. exist in an infinite-content multiverse.
Hence, no gravitational coalescence, however big, is a gravitational member of an infinite number of gravitational coalescences. This fact and the fact of loss of energy at the fringes of universes flow logically from the foregoing discussions. I shall now define in the following paragraph the paradox of matter-energy creation implied above.
The Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP): At any time in an infinite multiverse, there will be an infinite number of gravitationally ever broadening coalescences, none of which can be traced back to other such coalescences for their origin. Each maximal gravitational coalescence at any timerelative to the local set of coalescences is irreducibly finite and hence has a finite past in the absence of any past contact with any other outer universes.
Each of the infinite number of coalescences is thus cosmogenetically isolated from other such coalescences, because, at any time, there exist an infinite number of coalescences which are cosmogenetically isolated and cannot be traced for any causal inheritance from an infinite number of them. All the universes from which a certain universe has had causal inheritance is already included within its broadest possible gravitational coalescence.
3. Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology
The above Paradox facilitates the question to be posed of the origin of each such gravitational coalescence in the finite past of each such, since at any given time none of the designated infinite coalescences has had past gravitational or any other causal contacts with any other cosmic entity. I term the foregoing discussion the backbone of Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC).
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Our Universe has Visible and Dark matters that we believe but we can see between planets or heavenly bodies that have much distance, They have their magnetic field too.
Whether they are situated far from each other; If there are no other invisible bodies then how the galaxies are formed and shaped and the gravitational force working with everybody's internal connection where too many far bodies would suppose to separate from the galaxy.
Are current scientific views propped up by censorship of competing ideas and mutual complacency?
I am asking this controversial question because I cannot get a single astronomer, physicist, cosmologist, or astrophysicist to take the other side of my arguments.
I hope some of the outstanding scientists here will accept to talk shop.
I made a special request to Dr. Brian Keating.
Inflationary cosmology adopted its primary (free lunch) concept from Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC), the latter being an evolved version of the steady-state model. However, its supporting evidence appears lacking. The theory leans heavily on two graphical representations: one illustrating the distinction between false and true vacuum, and the second utilizing a piston and cylinder diagram merely to emphasize that false vacuum behaves differently from true vacuum, as traditionally taught in textbooks.
Given the malleability of storytelling, numerous inflationary ideas have proliferated since the initial acceptance by the scientific community[1]. This raises the question: Who is accountable for this type of science, its proliferation and ensuing confusion?
For details please see Appendix A in
[1] J. Martin, C. Ringeval, V. Vennin; [1303.3787] Encyclopaedia Inflationaris (arxiv.org)
If it is true that space-time is expanding, how does the measure of space-time change?
The shape of space-time is the shape of the universe; how can expansion without a boundary be called expansion? If the boundary of spacetime is the boundary of the universe, can spacetime expansion with a boundary have no background? How is the boundary maintained? If the boundary of spacetime is infinite, how does it expand?
We will use these paired terms to describe spacetime: infinite/finite, absolute/relative*, flat/curved, continuous/discrete, four-dimensional†/higher-dimensional, and so on. Normally we think of these properties as opposites ‡ and only one or the other can be chosen. But the full range of properties of spacetime will be combinations between these different properties. For example, spacetime has infinite, absolute, continuous, flat, four-dimensional properties, or spacetime has finite, discrete properties, etc. In any case, none of us thinks that there is a concept of "multiple spacetimes", or that spacetime should have its own background, or that spacetime can overlap, although physics suggests that there may be local "warps" in spacetime.
Astronomical observations show that the universe is in a process of accelerated expansion [1][2][3], with all stars moving away at an accelerated rate and possibly never returning. Physics attributes the expansion of space-time to the presence of dark energy with negative pressure [4]. Dark energy has been hypothesized in various ways (including non-existence), one of which is the cosmological constant Λ in Einstein's field equations (the zero-point radiation of space [5], the energy of the vacuum, the zero-point energy [6]).
Physics has not exactly explained the exact relationship between spacetime and the various fields assumed by the Standard Model [7], but only assumes the existence of vacuum energy [8][6], and is not sure which field's vacuum energy it is, whether it is the electromagnetic field, the electron field, the muon field, or the up-quark field, the charm-quark field, the Higgs field [9], or just the sum of their respective vacuum energies. So when it is assumed that space-time is expanding, and vacuum energy is expanding, are they created in it, or are they diffused across the boundary? Are they the driving force or the result? How do they manifest within microscopic particles when expanding at high speeds on the macroscopic scale?
Physics does not explain the origin of the dynamics of the Big Bang, nor does it explain when and how all the various fields in the Standard Model were formed, how they were formed, how they were maintained in existence, and how they evolved along with, or determined, the evolution of the Universe throughout the entire evolution of the Universe from the Big Bang onward. It is not clear how the various particles were excited initially from their own fields, but the explanation of nucleosynthesis [10] to the current period is relatively clear.
Usually we think of the universe as a set of space-time and matter-energy. There are many different models of the universe, and in addition to the Standard Model, there are many cyclic universes and multiverse views [11][15]. Then, when we haven't confirmed the model of the universe, there is no confirmed goal of the evolution of the universe, and there is no confirmed shape and boundary of the universe.
Both Einstein and Hawking say that the universe is "finite and unbounded" [12]. They believe that the universe is a finite three-dimensional sphere with a finite volume but no boundary. Topological theory says, "The boundary of a region has no boundary itself. "** [13]. Wheeler's statement is, "The boundary of a boundary is zero" [14]. What is the result of the infinite extension of the three orthogonal coordinate axes for a finite three-dimensional spherical universe?
Mathematically, there are four combinations between measures and boundaries: finite bounded, infinite unbounded, finite unbounded, and infinite bounded. The first two concepts are clear, but the latter two need to be recognized carefully when translated to physics. The "singularity" is a typical example of an "infinite bounded". Usually in physics, when time or space shrinks to zero, the corresponding physical quantity tends to infinity. For example, E=hν, when ν→0; F=q1*q2/r^2, when r→0. However, we believe that this is only a trend and that there can be no state that reaches a singularity. Therefore, "infinitely bounded" is not real. The Koch Curve, often thought of as a fractal geometry expressing "finite unbounded", is one of the nth iterations of the Koch snowflake that can be implemented in the Wolfram Language as KochCurve[n]¶. The difference between physical reality and mathematics can be shown here, as n cannot be chosen to be infinite, so the Koch Curve will always be in a definite state in reality, and although it can evolve, "finite and unbounded" is a tendency, not a state. The formulation of the Mobius strip††, the irrational numbers, is another way of saying "finite unbounded". In physics, a typical example of "finite unbounded" is the electron. The electron has a fixed charge e, but the boundary of the electric field E of the charge extends infinitely (the field strength is convergent). Of course, the concept of zero-dimensional "point particles" is also a kind of abstract "finite unbounded". In short, in physical terms, finite must have boundaries.
General relativity is the basis for modeling the universe, but is there any good reason why we should be able to determine the evolutionary goals of the universe, its shape, and its boundaries through general relativity alone? Shouldn't such boundaries be "boundary conditions" of GR?
There should not be any boundary conditions, which are the conditions necessary for the model of the universe to hold correctly.
------------------------------------------------------
Notes
‡ As long as we do not have a precise definition of spacetime, viewing these properties as opposites can only be taken for granted. As with the wave-particle duality of particles, which property is presented depends on the observer's perspective; the structure of the particle itself does not change. Further characterizations of spacetime include whether it is inherently existent or generative, whether the vacuum contains energy, and so on.
¶ https:// mathworld.wolfram.com/KochSnowflake.html; Stephen Wolfram, Founder of Wolfram Language, is very interested in the question of the evolution of the universe, and is the author of the book "a new kind of science", which has been trying to find out how the universe evolves using metacellular automata.
** e.g. the two-dimensional region has as its boundary a one-dimensional loop; the loop has no end, that is, it has no boundary itself.
†† The Möbius strip is bounded as long as one does not confuse metrics with boundaries.
------------------------------------------------------
References
[1] Linder, E.V., Exploring the expansion history of the universe. Physical Review Letters, 2003. 90(9): p. 091301.
[2] Riess, A.G., The expansion of the Universe is faster than expected. Nature Reviews Physics, 2020. 2(1): p. 10-12.
[3] Freedman, W.L., The Hubble constant and the expansion age of the Universe. Physics Reports, 2000. 333: p. 13-31.
[4] "Dark Energy Survey, Collaboration." from https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/the-des-project/overview/.
[5] Oks, E. (2021). "Brief review of recent advances in understanding dark matter and dark energy." New Astronomy Reviews 93: 101632.
[6] Carroll, S. M., W. H. Press and E. L. Turner (1992). "The cosmological constant." Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics 30: 499-542.
[7] Group, P. D., P. Zyla, R. Barnett, J. Beringer, O. Dahl, D. Dwyer, D. Groom, C.-J. Lin, K. Lugovsky and E. Pianori (2020). "Review of particle physics." Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020(8): 083C001.
[8] Jaffe, R. L. (2005). "Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum." Physical Review D 72(2): 021301.
[9] Springer (2020). 100 Years of Fundamental Theoretical Physics in the Palm of Your Hand: Integrated Technical Treatment.
[10] Cyburt, R. H., B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive and T.-H. Yeh (2016). "Big bang nucleosynthesis: Present status." Reviews of Modern Physics 88(1): 015004.
[11] Carr, B. and G. Ellis (2008). "Universe or multiverse?" Astronomy & Geophysics 49(2): 2.29-22.33.
[12] Hawking, S. W. and M. Jackson (2001). A brief history of time, Bantam Books New York.
[13] Yang, C. N. (1980). "Einstein's impact on theoretical physics." Physics Today 33(6): 42-49.
[14] Misner, C. W., K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler (2017). GRAVITATION, Princoten University Press.
Why do astrophysical and cosmological theories accept the merely mathematically thinkable ISOTROPY (the principle that all directions in the cosmos are alike, and hence no direction is preferred in any manner than any other) in large regions of the cosmos as the general empirical case and as the absolute case in the cosmos? I think the most important reason is the dogmatic faith of physicists and mathematicians in the statistical "counts" / "measurements" of particular regions of the universe.
In fact, the reason why statistical measurements are being used is that there are differences between every two regions, subregions, etc. everywhere and in every direction in the universe. This fact is forgotten in the dogmatic faith in the power of mathematics!
If there are local differences here, and local differences there, and the same everywhere, then we cannot generalize the same local differences into supra-regional overall isotropy! But, for mathematical purposes, some theories generalize these details statistically, but this is never the absolute case anywhere, in any direction!
Even in the pages of RG, I have had discussions where some have continued to insist on the power of mathematics over physics and that those who cannot take the statistical average as the general case (and hence as the absolute case) are being stupid, because mathematics does wonders!
Let me now take the simple example of a balloon in order to discuss the cosmological aspect of identity of parts, ISOTROPY (of course, this is not identity), simultaneity of processes, cyclic cosmic evolution, etc.
I consider them all as very simplistic and silly, ad hoc, meant only for ideal mathematical consumption, and not meant for physics and cosmology. For example, how can anything absolutely cyclic, spherical etc. be the real case, if there are ANISOTROPIES everywhere in the universe?
A balloon may be inflated with air at a measurably very stable and constant rate. But between any two points of it there must be some difference of rate of expansion. This is the natural case. Nothing else can come and stop this process in the cosmic case. If not, all the points in it would naturally have to be made of the SAME thing, which is impossible.
Similarly, all our measurements and the predictions of isotropy and related equalities of potentially measurable and comparable spacetimes, may be good in theory. But these cannot be as equal as we may conclude from the theories that result.
Merely because of the minute but naturally true difference between their existence in terms of the different potentially measurable spacetimes, it should naturally be concludable that there is no absolute identity of physical existence, structure, evolution, etc. between any two parts in the cosmos.
NATURALLY, THE MINUTE DIFFERENCES IN PARTS OF THE COSMOS, IN THE COURSE OF TIME, SHOULD EXPRESS THEMSELVES AS GREAT DIFFERENCES AND RESULT IN THE MANY COSMIC ANISOTROPIES THAT WE SHOULD FIND AND THEORETICALLY PRESUPPOSE, NOT ONLY IN SOME OBJECTS OF THE COSMOS BUT ALSO IN VAST REGIONS OF THE COSMOS. NATURALLY, THIS MUST BE THE CASE EVEN IN THE VARIOUS UNIVERSES WITHIN THE COSMOS, IF THE COSMOS IS AN INFINITE-CONTENT CONGLOMERATION OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FINITE-CONTENT UNIVERSES.
This then becomes a pre-physically self-evident fact. This shows something interesting: Concluding CONSTANCY OR EQUALITY OF RATE OF EVOLUTION from the values concluded “at present”, “a few times”, that seem to be “constant" CAN AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A SELF-GOAL IN PHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, AND COSMOLOGY.
Hence, in my opinion, any sufficiently big portion of the cosmos, under expansion or contraction, should at some time experience some sort of contraction or expansion as the opposite evolutionary case. This evolutionary case is not a recurrence of everything as such, but a forward process!
This must be the case also in the infinite number of parts of the cosmos, if the cosmos is of infinite matter-energy content.
Penrose and some of his colleagues seem to have held a sort of CONFORMALLY CYCLIC COSMOS theory. On the other hand, we have the miracle-feeder theories of CONSTANT INFLATION WITH RESPECT TO OUR LOCAL UNIVERSE. I consider these theories, too, as fads INVENTED TO EXPLAIN SOME COSMIC DISCOVERIES.
In the case of Penrose, it was the recent discovery of circles (spheres) of the CMB which they claim are "around the big bang universe of ours".
In the case of Alan Guth and others, the inflation theory has been a contrivance to keep astrophysics and cosmology away from some speculations, which Guth recently admitted to be not a very realistic solution!
The extent of inapplicability involved in the concept of isotropy may be extended also to theories of the overall shape of the outermost realms of each expanding universe. Some speak of empirical evidence for the outermost layer of such a universe to be spherical. From this conclusion, they even proceed to emphasize that it is absolutely spherical, citing again the same “empirical” evidence! They do not forget to claim that all cosmic shapes are such! But the question to be put at them is whether the so-called spherically exact expansion of our universe would mean also that the clusters of galaxies, galaxies themselves, stars, planets, etc. should also expand as do the universe in a spherical manner as they claim!
When God built the world, he needed an absolute ruler to measure space, an absolute clock to measure time. This is light. Then the light was kneaded together in space-time and became matter. Space-time is not a container for matter, not a stage for matter, but "you are in me and I am in you", becoming part of matter. Light is their dominator. Therefore, when we say that virtual particles are transmitting interactions [1], they are actually interactions mediated by light and space-time, and virtual particles are only a kind of "pronoun".
We should be aware of the special nature of light. Many physicists believe that photons have no special characteristics compared to other elementary particles [2]. Why do we choose to ignore the basic facts?
1) The speed of light is independent of the inertial system in which the observer is located, and becomes the basis of Special Relativity‡, the limiting criterion of motion. This alone is sufficient to declare that the photon is not in the same position as any other particle.
2) The speed of light is independent of the inertial system in which the light source is located*, and the speed of light seen by the observer remains the same no matter at what speed (and in what direction) the light source is moving. This one determines the absoluteness of light's own background spacetime, and provides a reference standard for relative spacetime. The speed of motion of any other particle is closely related to the reference frame.
3) Photons have an infinite variety of continuity (ν→∞), while any other particle in the Standard Model [1] has only one. Or group them together, in symmetrical terms, a finite number of generations. A more symmetrical statement would be that a continuous infinite number of photons corresponds to a discrete infinite number of matter particles. But there are only a few kinds of matter particles that can exist stably. If we haven't missed it, the distribution of discrete matter particles, from lowest to highest, should be, x → neutrinos (three generations) → x → electrons (three generations) → x → quarks (three generations) → x → ....... Where x represents particles that are undiscoverable in their very short lifetimes, or their energies are too high to have been discovered yet. We believe that black holes line up in this series[4].
4) Photons express energy-momentum from infinitely small to infinitely large without limit. The energy of any elementary particle in the Standard Model is determined.
5) Light is in eternal motion and cannot be accelerated, which determines that photons are particles without mass. This is the essence that distinguishes photons from other particles [3].
6) A free photon has no gravitational field**, or its gravitational field potential is 0. Any other particle has a gravitational field.
7) The polarization of a photon is different from the spin of a particle.
8) Light is the only particle that does not interact with its own kind, they only interfere superpositionally, and any interference disappears as soon as it does not interact with other matter (e.g. the screen). Any other particle interacts with its own kind.
9) Any two photons of the same frequency are absolutely identical in absolute space. However, any two electrons cannot overlap, and the difference in spatial location causes them not to be absolutely identical†.
10) The speed of light is constant in any spacetime context and in any medium¶. This point determines that the spacetime of GR, the spacetime of SR, and the spacetime of QM must be the same spacetime[5]. And any other particle will change its velocity not only when interacting, but also in a gravitational field.
Please feel free to add to this and welcome different points of view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note
* The process of photon emission: from a light source in a particular inertial system to a photon in absolute space, where the interface can only be light itself.
† I am not sure how this differs from the all-homogeneity that determines statistical properties, Bose statistics, Fermi statistics.
‡ Any "relativity", relative space-time, relative energy-momentum, arises because of interactions and the need for conservation of energy-momentum during the interactions.
¶ The change in the velocity of light in a medium is only the result of an external observer's observation; it is the result of a change in space-time within the medium. Nowhere does light appear to change its velocity.
** If a photon is in a gravitational field, its energy owns the gravitational field as it matches it. This is compatible with GR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
[1] Schmitz, W. (2019). Particles, Fields and Forces, Springer.
[2] Weinberg, S. (2020). Dreams of a Final Theory, Hunan Science and Technology Press.
[3] The only possibility for a photon to manifest mass is from the non-axial action of matter particles on it. That is, any action that exists at an angle to the direction of propagation of light, z, is capable of experiencing the mass of the photon. Note that our criterion for determining mass is the presence or absence of "damping" in its own motion. The structure and motion of the photon have a definite directionality, and other particles do not have to distinguish between the directionality of their structure and the directionality of their motion (or we don't know that yet), and their structure can be considered isotropic. So using E=mc^2 applied to photons is not correct, because when there is no interaction, the photon must not have mass. When there is an interaction, the mass of the photon is simply the mass felt by the other. The photon does not hold. Whereas any other particle will hold a changed mass after the interaction. For example, when an electron is accelerated, his mass changes according to the Lorentz transformation.
[4] Similar point of view, “The assumption is made that black holes should be subject to the same rules of quantum mechanics as ordinary elementary particles or composite systems. ”‘t Hooft, G. (1985). "On the quantum structure of a black hole." Nuclear Physics B 256: 727-745.
I created a simple model for the Universe. A theory that replaces Relativity and explains the Universe without the need for Dark Energy, Dark Matter, the Higgs Mechanism for Mass creation, the Big Bang, etc.
The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU) has three hypotheses:
- The Universe is a Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Hypersurface
- Particles are polymers of the Fundamental Dilator (FD). FDs are coherences between stationary states of deformation of space. In other words, HU's Universe contains only space, deformed space, and time. HU also provides a replacement for the Big Bang Model called The Big Pop Cosmogenesis (don't confuse it with a copycat - the Big Flash...:) Plagiarizers, copycats abound... but they are always crummy copies since the plagiarizers don't copy the whole theory.
- FD's obey the Quantum Lagrangian Principle (QLP). QLP states that FDs travel in a 4D spatial manifold without doing work. This requires them to dilate space in phase with the local dilaton field. In other words, they add their contribution to traveling metric fluctuations coherently, and that permits Gravitation and Electromagnetism to be an extensive properties of matter.
QLP is the basis for Quantum Mechanics of Material Systems. I qualified "Material Systems" because SPACE itself is quantized. The two phases involved in the FD coherence are the proton and the electron phases. FDs are actually 4D constructs, shapeshifting deformations of space that also spin in 4D space while traveling along the radial direction at the speed of light.
I make it tempting to plagiarizers by giving them a link to a spreadsheet where the Supernova Data is modeled with only two parameters (and a topology, of course).
There, you can find the SN1a data, their distances calculated from the Distance Modulus. You will also find the correction of the distances by the G-dependence of Absolute Luminosity of SN1a (I calculated it). That results in a correction of the SN1a Distances by G^{-1.66).
If you have trouble understanding, please feel free to ask questions.
Here is a Quora answer with some details
So, this is a model that explains the Big Bang:
The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - replacement to the Big Bang
Propagate the Universe equation of state up to the current epoch:
Big Pop Article
I also modeled the Neutronium Acoustic Oscillations to recover the "4D Sound" created by the Blackholium-Neutronium phase transition. I was able to find the location of Earth within a Hyperspherical Universe and predict the Galaxy Density Distribution across the Observable Universe:
Here, I created a map for the observable and unobservable Universe and located Earth on it:
Here, is how I created the map of the Hyperspherical Universe from the knowledge obtained by the Planck Satellite:
3D galaxy density map of the current universe:
This is not a small amount of information that has been blocked by the community since 2006. When I say that, it is to be understood that not a single scientist reached out and offered to fight censorship at the Los Alamos Archives or to be a reviewer at a visible journal.
If you disagree, you are welcome to be my endorser, reviewer... etc.
Of course, my theory also explains the early formation of galaxies, the spiral galaxy rotation curve conundrum, weak gravitational lensing results, and predicts the Universe Dimensionality Probability Distribution:
Check the spreadsheet. Learn that a two-parameter model is better than 7-parameter model.
THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
The Background: The ultimate physical and cosmological significance of the Categories of Extension (“being extended / having parts” while in existence) and Change (“extended existents causing impacts on others and also on themselves”) must be seen in the context of warding off quantum-physical, cosmological, statistical, and other sorts of inexplicable and bizarre existence-related aberrations resulting from theories like those of (1) parallel universes, (2) extra dimensions, (3) vacuous universes, (4) total mutual disconnection of universes, (5) infinite number of positive-content physical universes taking origin like extra-fitted balloons from “technically / mathematically zero-valued” quantum vacua or quantum-vacuum universes without any iota of causal agency (because quantum vacua are merely of near-zero zero statistical expectations), (6) the presumed existence of space, time, and spacetime like physical things in mathematical fields, (7) the theoretical writing-off of time alone as unreal and unnecessary, etc.
This sort of aberrations renders some theories and their related concepts into theories about absolutely non-existent objects (in some analytic-logical philosophies, called also as “counterfactual possible worlds”) and into substitute theoretical entities that serve only to explain procedures and not to explain existent processes. These serve for physicists and cosmologists to temporarily save their face by use of irrational adherence to methods of maintenance of mere uncertainties in mathematical physics.
The Anomany in Theoretical Physics: I mentioned these above in order to speak of the anomaly in advanced mathematical physics. This curse is the confusion between (1) physical existents, (2) non-existent theoretical constructs, (3) theories representing small or large theoretical processes required only for theory, and (4) the lack of criteria of creating theories for describing existent processes with recourse to vacuous, non-existent, virtual objects and processes, but without turning these objects and processes into existent objects lacking the criteria of existence.
Positing ad hoc explanatory theories to clarify certain theoretical inaptitudes of notions or deviations in arguments is assuredly necessary for the progress of science. But these are sooner to be overwhelmed (not to be substituted) by more adequate and existentially non-aberrational unobservables and/or theoretical terms. As of now, physics, astrophysics, and cosmology are full of theoretical entities that cannot ever be proved to be existent unobservables. This is the curse of physics today – a graver problem today than previously.
A GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS
Beyond the Two Millennia
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.
IS CAUSALITY A SCIENTIFIC OR PRE-SCIENTIFIC LAW?
§§-- Without beings in existence (To Be), there is no science “on them”. Existence is not vacuous. Non-vacuous existents are in Extension (Existence-Category 1), i.e., they have parts, they are composed.
§§-- Both parts and wholes can interact. They cause impacts on a finite number of other existents and on themselves: Change (Existence-Category 2). Change involves motion, but is not motion. Parallel to these two physical-ontological Categories, no other characteristic is thinkable. Hence, Extension and Change ꞊ Exhaustive implications of To Be of Reality-in-total the highest natural kind.
§§-- If Extended+Changing (with parts and with impact formation) entities exist, this is causal existence. Every existent is such. Hence: Universal Causality...! Extension, Change, and Causality are pre-scientific Laws. Now, no Quantum Physicist can tell us that some (observable) processes are causal and the others (partial observables [unobservables] and non-observables) are merely statistically causal or non-causal…!
§§-- Smaller natural kinds (ordered and/or organized parts of Reality-in-total) also have characteristics. These are ontological universals (modes of being of processes). They are primarily in the natural kinds, and only thus in the token enities in the natural kind.
§§-- Space ꞊ measure of extension. Time ꞊ measure of change. These are epistemic concepts. Epistemic space-time cannot curve as physicists make us believe. Extension-Change-wise existent matter-energy conglomerations curve.
Centuries of violent and extremist discussions have taken place as to a Yes or No or Yes-and-No to causality in existent beings, namely, Reality-in-total. In the fray have been mainly philosophy, and only then physics. This state has changed after the genesis of quantum physics. In the above, I have “proved” in a very simple manner that Universal Causality is a pre-scientific Law.
The purely epistemic version of causality can only be a sort of concept and not be that of what happens in the world. It gets formulated due to the sense-related, conceptual, and logical conclusion towards a correlation of some sort between two or more events, but without recourse to the events’ existence.
Any further justification of the epistemological conclusion of causality without involving the purely physical-ontological aspect of existence of the event at question in total and its antecedent and consequent part-events may even be taken as an explanation of the experience of correlation. Historical examples abound, and Hume’s is the most famous example.
But this is not the case if the purely physical-ontological aspect of existence of the event at question in total and its antecedent and consequent part-events may be accepted as the conditio sine qua non of the sensation, conceptualization, and logical argument. Hence the fully physical-ontological status of causality.
Traditionally, causality is the relation between the antecedent and the consequent part-events of the one event at issue. And causation is the act of a cause-event in effecting an effect-event. This is the age-old manner of conceiving the ontology of causality. The former, the epistemic and the explanatory, have been the trend during most of the 20thcentury history of philosophical and physical-philosophical inquiry on causality.
But what I have proposed in the various parts of my five published books is a whole new manner of theorizing Universal Causality. I hope to finally suggest that this is also a game-changer in the history of the concept of causality.
Recently, I have written a research article. I want to produce preprint of it. I found various platforms for creating preprints of articles, including arXiv and Researchsquare. Personally, which platform do you prefer?
SOURCE OF MAJOR FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES:
MATHEMATICS-TO-PHYSICS APPLICATION DISCREPENCY
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
The big bang theory has many limitations. These are,
(1) the uncertainty regarding the causes / triggers of the big bang,
(2) the need to trace the determination of certain physical constants to the big bang moments and not further backwards,
(3) the necessity to explain the notion of what scientists and philosophers call “time” in terms of the original bang of the universe,
(4) the compulsion to define the notion of “space” with respect to the inner and outer regions of the big bang universe,
(5) the possibility of and the uncertainty about there being other finite or infinite number of universes,
(6) the choice between an infinite number of oscillations between big bangs and big crunches in the big bang universe (in case of there being only our finite-content universe in existence), in every big hang universe (if there are an infinite number of universes),
(7) the question whether energy will be lost from the universe during each phase of the oscillation, and in that case how an infinite number of oscillations can be the whole process of the finite-content universe,
(8) the difficulty involved in mathematizing these cases, etc.
These have given rise to many other cosmological and cosmogenetic theories – mythical, religious, philosophical, physical, and even purely mathematical. It must also be mentioned that the thermodynamic laws created primarily for earth-based physical systems have played a big role in determining the nature of these theories.
The big bang is already a cosmogenetic theory regarding a finite-content universe. The consideration of an INFINITE-CONTENT universe has always been taken as an alternative source of theories to the big bang model. Here, in the absence of conceptual clarity on the physically permissible meaning of infinite content and without attempting such clarity, cosmologists have been accessing the various mathematical tools available to explain the meaning of infinite content. They do not also seem to keep themselves aware that locally possible mathematical definitions of infinity cannot apply to physical localities at all.
The result has been the acceptance of temporal eternality to the infinite-content universe without fixing physically possible varieties of eternality. For example, pre-existence from the past eternity is already an eternality. Continuance from any arbitrary point of time with respect to any cluster of universes is also an eternality. But models of an infinite-content cosmos and even of a finite-content universe have been suggested in the past one century, which never took care of the fact that mathematical infinity of content or action within a finite locality has nothing to do with physical feasibility. This, for example, is the source of the quantum-cosmological quick-fix that a quantum vacuum can go on create new universes.
But due to their obsession with our access to observational details merely from our local big bang universe, and the obsession to keep the big bang universe as an infinite-content universe and as temporally eternal by using the mathematical tools found, a mathematically automatic recycling of the content of the universe was conceived. Here they naturally found it safe to accommodate the big universe, and clearly maintain a sort of eternality for the local big bang universe and its content, without recourse to external creation.
Quantum-cosmological and superstrings-cosmological gimmicks like considering each universe as a membrane and the “space” between them as vacuum have given rise to the consideration that it is these vacua that just create other membranes or at least supplies new matter-energy to the membranes to continue to give rise to other universes. (1) The ubiquitous sensationalized science journalism with rating motivation and (2) the physicists’ and cosmologists’ need to stick to mathematical mystification in the absence of clarity concurring physical feasibility in their infinities – these give fame to the originators of such universes as great and original scientists.
I suggest that the need to justify an eternal recycling of the big bang universe with no energy loss at the fringes of the finite-content big bang universe was fulfilled by cosmologists with the automatically working mathematical tools like the Lambda term and its equivalents. This in my opinion is the origin of the concepts of the almighty versions of dark energy, virtual quantum soup, quantum vacuum, ether, etc., for cosmological applications. Here too the physical feasibility of these concepts by comparing them with the maximal-medial-minimal possibilities of existence of dark energy, virtual quantum soup, quantum vacuum, ether, etc. within the finite-content and infinite-content cosmos, has not been considered. Their almighty versions were required because they had to justify an eternal pre-existence and an eternal future for the universe from a crass physicalist viewpoint, of which most scientists are prey even today. (See: Minimal Metaphysical Physicalism (MMP) vs. Panpsychisms and Monisms: Beyond Mind-Body Dualism: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Minimal_Metaphysical_Physicalism_MMP_vs_Panpsychisms_and_Monisms_Beyond_Mind-Body_Dualism)
I believe that the inconsistencies present in the mathematically artificialized notions and in the various cosmogenetic theories in general are due to the blind acceptance of available mathematical tools to explain an infinite-content and eternally existent universe.
What should in fact have been done? We know that physics is not mathematics. In mathematics all sorts of predefined continuities and discretenesses may be created without recourse to solutions as to whether they are sufficiently applicable to be genuinely physics-justifying by reason of the general compulsions of physical existence. I CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO DISCOVER WHERE THE DISCREPENCIES LIE. History is on the side of sanity.
One clear example for the partial incompatibility between physics and mathematics is where the so-called black hole singularity is being mathematized by use of asymptotic approach. I admit that we have only this tool. But we do not have to blindly accept it without setting rationally limiting boundaries between the physics of the black hole and the mathematics applied here. It must be recognized that the definition of any fundamental notion of mathematics is absolute and exact only in the definition, and not in the physical counterparts. (See: Mathematics and Causality: A Systemic Reconciliation, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation)
I shall continue to add material here on the asymptotic approach in cosmology and other similar theoretical and application-level concepts.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
The recent (1) “observation” by LIGO of a neutron star merger and (2) what is considered as different from it, namely, the arrival of the visible light from the merger at our location, used to be perceived as an indication that gravitational waves may have the same velocity as electromagnetic waves.
But it need not exactly be so, because even in this case we speak of our observation of the neutron star merger using the luminal velocity. Then make independent conclusions on gravitational waves. This is to be granted as a reconcilable manner of looking at gravitation in terms of luminal velocity.
In fact, the gravitational waves are themselves not being observed here directly in terms of gravitational waves or anything known previously to be of that kind in velocity. Instead, we are using the light and other electromagnetic radiation from those astronomical objects and saying that they present us with some real information about the gravitational waves.
From this it is clear that, even today, experimentally we are not sure of the velocity of gravitational propagation.
We assume it to be c because of our observation of electromagnetic propagations that carry to us news of gravitational propagation from the said objects. Hence, it need not show their velocity to be equal.
Here arises the question: At the level of the large-scale processes of the cosmos, is gravitation or electromagnetism (or any other non-gravitational or contrary-to-gravitation propagation) more influential in determining the general evolution of the structure of the cosmos?
I hold it has to be gravitation that has the final say. My arguments are indirect. I shall put them forth in the course of development of arguments in the discussion.
What I want to accentuate is this: If there are other (may be infinite number of) worlds of different content, density, etc., the velocity of what may be termed gravitation proper in each of them might also be different.
This may be the case also for non-gravitational propagations in each such worlds.
FOR MORE, CONSULT THE DISCUSSION:
CHALLENGING THE UNIVERSALITY OF
THE SPEED OF LIGHT AS A CONSTANT
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
We know that neither time nor space is an existent entity like physical existents. It is a measuremental reality (not an existent) behind all existent physical processes and experiences of existent physical processes simultaneously. The space and time behind all existent physical processes are in fact Extension and Change. their measurements are always by conventional scales and hence epistemic realities.
Can photonal velocity measured spatiotemporally as a constant like the constants of proportionality in physics? Can light be of constant velocity if no spatiotemporal constant of proportionality exists that makes it constant in all physical circumstances? Even the Planck constant is not genuine a proportionality in the strictest sense due to the insufficiency in universality of the units of mass, energy etc. in relation to quanta.
The reader will now surely ask what the meaning and implications of such a questioning would be! The constancy of the velocity of light is bound to experiments within this universe, that too within the phase of the universe where we live. Its universalization is merely a matter of experiments in our part and phase of the universe, and not of all parts and phases of the whole cosmos.
If the amount of matter-energy in the big bang (or even at the bang of a certain amount of matter-energy within a region of the universe) is, let us say, A, then the highest transportation speed would be fixed by the first propagations that arise from the big bang at issue.
That region of the cosmos or of our big bang universe as such has produced a maximal velocity at the start of its phase of expansion, and this limit cannot be overcome by any other propagation within that region of the cosmos or that universe. This is a very pragmatic fact, and not a theoretical limit of all propagations in the universe!
There can be another region of our big bang universe or another phase (say, another phase of expansion, or its contraction phase), where the amount of matter-energy directly available for work is less. The amount of energy here is, say, B – for causal reasons determined by the amount of matter-energy available for work, due to its exteriorizing some energy during the previous phases of evolution.
This can naturally result in the causal determination of the maximal photonal (or any other) velocity being limited to another amount. This is simply because of the difference of density due to the difference in the amount of matter-energy available within that universe or part-universe of the multiverse cosmos.
If not, we may admit at least that there will be speed values A, B, C, etc. in a finite number of times, and then there will be another level, determined by, say, speed values alpha, beta, gamma, etc., where the propagation velocity would be lower or higher.
This, in my opinion, is a solid argument to keep our minds open to accept the facts that (1) the speed of light need not be a constant for all regions of the universe or for all universes, (2) in this case some universes may have superluminal velocities, (3) these propagations will surely enter some universes other than the one/s in which they were produced, and (4) it is extremely difficult to detect them in our universe. But this need not mean non-existence of superluminal velocities.
Can we now say that there will be a general constant of proportionality between possible forms of source-independent (source-independent with respect to objects in their own universes) propagations? If this is imaginable, it can really be called a constant. But if there is a constant of proportionality between the various highest speed limits in each universe, this would have to mean that there are units of difference between the limits speeds of every two universes. But the existence of this sort of a proportionality constant is a matter merely of speculation.
How then can the this-worldly luminal velocity be a constant beyond our universe or our cluster of universes, where its velocity of propagation was determined fully causally by the available amount of density of matter-energy at the bang or start of whatever expansion there is in the local universe?
I have discussed this in two of my books (2014, 2018), the latter being a more generalized work than the earlier. I have also questioned the universality of the Lorentz Factor in the Special Theory of Relativity. The initial background of reasoning behind these arguments is the number of insights achieve from reading various books on the velocity of light during my school days, and developed in the course of decades.
I would be pleased to get open-minded reactions on this question.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
In an old paper, Dr. D.V. Ahluwalia suggests that the Great Attractor embeds us in gravitational potential at the order of -3x10^(-5).
Interestingly, one of my colleague (Michael Peck) also suggestes that there could be global gravitaional potential affecting the entire Universe. So what di you think?
The Nobel Prize Summit 2023: Truth, Trust and Hope has started today, 24 May 2023. The summit encourages participation. Thus, I have sent an open letter and eagerly anticipate their response. Please comment if the points I have made is adequate enough.
Open Letter to The Nobel Committee for Physics
Is There a Nobel Prize for Metaphysics?
Dear Nobel Committee for Physics,
Among the differences between an established religion, such as Roman Catholicism, and science, is the presence of a hierarchical organization in the former for defending its creed and conducting its affairs. The head of the religious institution ultimately bears responsibility for the veracity of its claims and strategic policies. This accountability was evident in historical figures like John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and Martin Luther, who held the papacy responsible for wrong doctrines, such as the indulgence scandal during the late Middle Ages. In that context, challenging such doctrines, albeit with the anticipated risk of being burned at the stake, involved posting opposing theses on the doors of churches.
In contrast, the scientific endeavour lacks a tangible temple, and no definitive organization exists to be held accountable for possible misconducts. Science is a collective effort by scientists and scientific institutes to discover new facts within and beyond our current understanding. While scientists may occasionally flirt with science fiction, they ultimately make significant leaps in understanding the universe. However, problems arise when a branch of science is held and defended as a sacred dogma, disregarding principles such as falsifiability. This mentality can lead to a rule of pseudo-scientific oppression, similar to historical instances like the Galileo or Lysenko affairs. Within this realm, there is little chance of liberating science from science fiction. Any criticism is met with ridicule, damnation, and exclusion, reminiscent of the attitudes displayed by arrogant religious establishments during the medieval period. Unfortunately, it seems that the scientific establishment has not learned from these lessons and has failed to provide a process for dealing with these unfortunate and embarrassing scenarios. On the contrary, it is preoccupied with praising and celebrating its achievements while stubbornly closing its ears to sincere critical voices.
Allow me to illustrate my concerns through the lens of relativistic physics, a subject that has captured my interest. Initially, I was filled with excitement, recognizing the great challenges and intellectual richness that lay before me. However, as I delved deeper, I encountered several perplexing issues with no satisfactory answers provided by physicists. While the majority accepts relativity as it stands, what if one does not accept the various inherent paradoxes and seeks a deeper insight?
Gradually, I discovered that certain scientific steps are not taken correctly in this branch of science. For example, we place our trust in scientists to conduct proper analyses of experiments. Yet, I stumbled upon evidence suggesting that this trust may have been misplaced in the case of a renowned experiment that played a pivotal role in heralding relativistic physics. If this claim is indeed valid, it represents a grave concern and a significant scandal for the scientific community. To clarify my points, I wrote reports and raised my concerns. Fortunately, there are still venues outside established institutions where critical perspectives are not yet suppressed. However, the reactions I received ranged from silence to condescending remarks infused with irritation. I was met with statements like "everything has been proven many times over, what are you talking about?" or "go and find your mistake yourself." Instead of responding to my pointed questions and concerns, a professor even suggested that I should broaden my knowledge by studying various other subjects.
While we may excuse the inability of poor, uneducated peasants in the Middle Ages to scrutinize the veracity of the Church's doctrine against the Latin Bible, there is no excuse for professors of physics and mathematics to be unwilling to revaluate the analysis of an experiment and either refute the criticism or acknowledge an error. It raises suspicions about the reliability of science itself if, for over 125 years, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment has not been subjected to rigorous and accurate analysis.
Furthermore, I am deeply concerned that the problem has been exacerbated by certain physicists rediscovering the power and benefits of metaphysics. They have proudly replaced real experiments with thought experiments conducted with thought-equipment. Consequently, theoretical physicists find themselves compelled to shut the door on genuine scientific criticism of their enigmatic activities. Simply put, the acceptance of experiment-free science has been the root cause of all these wrongdoings.
To demonstrate the consequences of this damaging trend, I will briefly mention two more complications among many others:
1. Scientists commonly represent time with the letter 't', assuming it has dimension T, and confidently perform mathematical calculations based on this assumption. However, when it comes to relativistic physics, time is represented as 'ct' with dimension L, and any brave individual questioning this inconsistency is shunned from scientific circles and excluded from canonical publications.
2. Even after approximately 120 years, eminent physicist and Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman, along with various professors in highly regarded physics departments, have failed to mathematically prove what Einstein claimed in his 1905 paper. They merely copy from one another, seemingly engaged in a damage limitation exercise, producing so-called approximate results. I invite you to refer to the linked document for a detailed explanation:
I am now submitting this letter to the Nobel Committee for Physics, confident that the committee, having awarded Nobel Prizes related to relativistic physics, possesses convincing scientific answers to the specific dilemmas mentioned herein.
Yours sincerely,
Ziaedin Shafiei
Black Holes out of a galaxy: do they exist???
🔴➣➣The question is as follow.
Are there black holes (also binary or system of more than two elements) outside the confines of a galaxy{*}, in the spaces between one galaxy and another???
{*}Galaxy is not meant only the Milky Way but any type of galaxy.
In what way can be identified and/or measured these hypothetical extragalactic black holes???
🔴➢➢Il quesito è il seguente.
Esistono buchi neri (anche binari o sistemi a più di 2 unità) al di fuori dei confini di una galassia{*}, negli spazi tra una galassia e l'altra???
{*}Galassia non viene intesa la sola Via Lattea ma qualsiasi tipo di galassia.
in che modo possono essere individuati e/o misurati questi ipotetici buchi neri extragalattici???
.
.
🟥➢➢Moreover there are other related topics in this multiple RG Open question:
Are the singularities of the universe correctly counted??
Is the mass of the singularities of the Universe correctly evaluated and evaluable??
What are major singularities (ex: black holes) made of??
Time**, in this Universe, does not flow constantly but is directly a function of the density of the Universe itself measured at the various evolutionary stages??
**When this Universe is very expanded (example ... > 10 billion years) then time would proceed much faster than when the Universe was much less expanded (example ... < 1 billion years). Does this mean that counting time with the current average density of the Universe would give a distorted estimate of the overall age of the Universe?? Could the first billion years of the universe have lasted billions of current years due to the very high density of the universe itself at that age??
.
.
Previous POSTS:
►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1881512595213728
►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1886349588063362
►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1886357694729218
►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1887495014615486
►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1903371136361207
►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1990787000952953
►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1990806470951006
►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1990816627616657
►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/2378526012179048
.
The Andromeda galaxy is approximately 2.5 million light years away and is approaching the Milky Way galaxy at around 110 km/s. We know that the motion of galaxies is affected in two ways. One is the expansion of space and the other is the acceleration due to gravity.
If we take the hypothesis that the Milky Way and Andromeda were relatively at rest at some time in the past we can envisage what would then happen. Initially the expansion of space would take the galaxies further apart. Then the gravitational attraction between the two galaxies would accelerate the galaxies towards each other so that eventually the velocity due to this acceleration would exceed the effect of the expansion pf space. The galaxies would then move towards each other. We know that they are now at a distance of 2.5 million light years travelling at 110 km/s so we can model their past history.
The problem is that the calculation shows that the galaxies started at rest 53.9 billion years ago.
This is fine in a model in which the first galaxy formed 126 billion years ago:
But it does present a problem if you think the universe is 13.8 billion years old.
The spreadsheet model tracking the motion of Andromeda is also useful because it illustrates the dynamics of the combined effect of the expansion of space and gravitational acceleration. This is helpful when explaining how spiral galaxies form from two spherical regions of gas and dark matter. This also solves the angular momentum problem first identified by Fred Hoyle which questions the cause of the rotation of spiral galaxies.
Richard
Could it be that there is a fifth fundamental force, a 'hypergravity' that only manifests (i.e. becomes physically significant) at a large cosmological scale ?
The gravitational field of a quark is negligible compared to their electric charge and strong charge (color). But when a sufficient amount of quarks in the form of atomic nuclei come together they produce powerful gravitational fields.
In the same way at the mass scale of planets and stars the 'hypergravitational' force
is negligible and ordinary gravity (as well as electromagnetism and other forces) plays the predominant role.
But at a cosmological scale (for mass, energy or distance, i.e. millions of solar masses) the hypergravitational force will come into the play and explain astrophysical (sp. galactic) and cosmological phenomena which seem to require 'dark matter'.
Another aproach could be through dynamical systems. The water of the ocean behaves very differently from the water in a bathtub. Ultimately this must be explained by a different scale (also different set of 'negligibles') and different values for physical and chemical parameters of the same model.
I'm wondering about the position of amateur astronomers in the scientific community. I'll be happy if I get your point of view.
Are there any other theories similar to Participatory Universe or SuperDeterministic Universe?
Material presence is essential for propagation of sound. Does it mean that sound waves can travel interstellar distances at longer wavelengths due to the presence of celestial bodies in the universe?
Temperature in umbra region is less compared to penumbra is it because of magnetic field or something else
Would any such transition have occurred in increments locally, or all at once globally?
Is the idea of the transition from one era to the next designed to save an unlikely or incomplete theory?
Are there articles discussing these questions?
RS:How does the universe know when to transition from radiation dominated ... to matter dominated ...
Robert Shour, the attached graph shows the energy density of the three components, the evolution of the scale factor depends on the combination of all three so there isn't a sharp transition but a smooth curve between them.
RL: The recent observation by the JWST of galaxies older than 13.79 billion years ...
Richard Lewis, that has not happened, galaxies have been seen at high redshift than previously but they are still about 170 million after the fiducial start, so about 13.62 billion years ago. They are very small as predicted, the surprise is that some are less unstructured than anticipated. There will be galaxies found even earlier than these but probably not before 13.76 billion years ago.
In reference to the attached document, it seems that scientist with the helping hand of metaphysics have created several scientific versions of Turtle All the Way Down viewpoint.
The article criticizes two widely accepted models for the genesis of the universe which can be listed under two hypotheses:
- Nothing
- Something
Both theories have been discussed in enough detail, but this question/discussion is related to the second theory.
The offended paper is here:
This is a rhetorical question since, in my mind, that is utterly non-acceptable.
I say that while accepting the reality that it takes time to write a few paragraphs in a rejection letter.
That said, it might take years to polish the arguments contained in a paper.
In my case, it took 16 years.
My issue is that, on purpose, I chose to tackle the Big Bang Theory first. It is the weakest model in the whole Physics. There are "Crisis in Cosmology" articles written by everyone and their cats. There is Hubble Tension, S8 tension... Missing Dark Matter, Early Galaxy Formation Conundrum...
Not to mention the lack of any evidence of a False Vacuum, Inflaton Field or Inflaton Particle, etc, etc.
My theory starts with a new model for matter, where matter is made of shapeshifting deformations of the metric (so, it is not Mass Deforms Metric, but modulated metric is mass).
It cannot be simpler. It allows the Universe to have just space, deformed space and time - the simplest possible model.
Occam's Razor will tell you that this model should be part of the conversation.
The Universe starts from a Heisenberg-Dictated Metric Hyperspherical Fluctuation, which after partial recombination is left with an Inner Dilation Layer (IDL) and the Outermost Contraction Layer (OCL).
As one would expect OCL breaks apart when it starts to move, pushed by the IDL. This process has a physical analogy in the Prince Rupert Drop
SO, the model is disappointly simple. No metrics, nothing for you to polish... just a simple model that explains EVERYTHING.
It also debunks General Relativity (Einstein's equations do not describe the Universe expansion). And replicates all Einstein's successes, while providing simpler explanations (instead of time dilation, we have the weakening of forces with absolute velocity).
What about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY? Well, we all know we can define absolute velocity using the CMB. Period. So, absolute velocity (and the breakdown of Relativity) shouldn't be a surprise.
So, my theory also challenges the current Cosmic Distance Ladder and in doing so (using an epoch-dependent law of Gravitation), it parameterless predicts the distances using just the redshifts. The predictions are attached.
So, in doing so, it attacks Dark Matter and Dark Energy and all the sordid interests behind them. I say sordid in the sense that I believe that all these entrenched interests are at play in this summary rejection of my work.
Why would I say that? There is a simple reason. If an editor (and all the other editors) don't bother to justify their actions, one is left with nothing to do other than speculate on the WHY.
Why is it ok for preprint repositories to block my already published work?? That is happening (and happened during the last 16 years) at the Los Alamos Archives.
Why would it be ethical for an editor not to write a single paragraph pointing to an specific scientific reason for yanking a paper out of the review process?
How calous these people can be with respect to Science and Mankind's Future? Science is the key to the Future. It shouldn't be at the mercy of unconfessable motivations.
In textbooks on astronomy, we can find information that the radius of the habitable zone is influenced by the luminosity of the star, the sperctral class, and metallicity. But are there any formulas or equations, using which, knowing these parameters, you can find the radius of the habitable zone?
I would like to publish my Scientific Preprint Paper free-of-charge in an international Astrophysics journal with a satisfactory Impact Factor. Can you please suggest such a journal?
I have published my Research Results on a New Orbital Model for Moving Bodies in the Universe that I am asserting as a result of my scientific analysis, which can be found below:
"Everything Is A Circle: A New Model For Orbits Of Bodies In The Universe"
(Paperback Book) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08NYG14X8
(Kindle eBook) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08PVS2FBW
I will be presenting this work to the general scientific community at #COSPAR in Sydney, Australia, which will be broadcast Live according to Congress schedule on February 2, 2021
and will be available as Video-On-Demand in more detail.
To provide an introductory idea for readers and scientific community in general, here is a short video giving an overview description of the main and most significant findings:
Dear all members of RS,
considering the high tecnology that characterizes in this moment the space era, i have a question about the exoplanets and their studies. Now, in space there will be the JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) which will study exoplanets also. In geology is more important the carthography of surfaces for understand their evolution (and the history of the planetary body). With the JWSP will be able to cartograph exoplanets' surfaces?
Thank you all that will answer
Will man, thanks to technological progress, colonize the orbit of outer space in the 21st century?
Please reply
Best wishes
Do such measurements make sense? Do they exist?
Comparing redshift and luminosity distances, if that is a sensible question, may bear on the 4/3 scaling hypothesis as it relates to dark energy.
From the 1998 book Seeing Red by Halton Arp, at page 274.
Is that consistent with nullius in verba?
Do you agree with Halton Arp?
Has anyone ever measured the velocity of light or gamma photons coming in from remote sources ?
Dear Sirs,
This question, it seems to me, may arise in the first meeting with general relativity theory. Free falling box with its locally inertial coordinate system, e.g. in the Earth gravity field, moves the same as space particles of the real spacetime continuum. So we can imagine that around us there is "a fluid" of space particles which moves towards to the Earth center. The imaginary fluid penetrates freely through the matter.
Have the space particles some dimensions (maybe the minimal one as real water, e.g.), any properties or even any forces accociated with them, does the motion look like the viscous or ideal or non Newtonian fluid?
I would be grateful of any comments on spacetime as fluid.
Will as a result of the continuation of technological progress in the twenty-first century more perfect telescopes or other astronomical instruments that will allow to know what is on the surface of the nearest exoplanets, and above all the guilty star systems similar to the Earth exoplanets located in other planetary systems circulating around other suns?
Please reply
Best wishes
If a black hole swallows an object of mass "m" and the initial mass of the black hole being "M", then does the total mass of black hole be = M + m?
Will the Schwarzschild radius change accordingly?
Dear Sirs,
The elevator example in general relativity is used to show that gravitational force and an inertial force are not distinguishable. In other words the 2nd Newton's law is the same in the two frames: inertial frame with homogenous gravitational field and the elevator's frame without gravitational field which has constant acceleration in respect to the inertial frame.
But every one knows that an inertial force is a force which does not obey the 3rd Newton's law. For example such forces are cetrifugal force and Coriolis force existing in the Earth reference frame. Gravitational force satisfies the 3rd Newton's law. So one can conclude that the gravitational force is not inertial.
Could you clarify the above controversy.
Do you think that there is life beyond our Solar System?
Please, answer, comments.
I invite you to the discussion.
Best wishes
Why in spite of the many years of listening to radio waves emitted from various parts of the cosmos, did not there appear such, which would mean the possibility of existence in another cosmos of intelligent creatures?
For several dozen years, various astronomical programs have been running radio-frequency listening programs of various emission ranges to diagnose those that could be a testimony that somewhere in another constellation there is or has existed the civilization of other intelligent beings.
However, up to now, it has not been possible to diagnose such waves that could confirm the existence of other intelligent beings in the cosmos and thus other, developed forms of life.
Why has not it worked so far?
Why in spite of the many years of listening to radio waves emitted from various parts of the cosmos, did not there appear such, which would mean the possibility of existence in another cosmos of intelligent creatures?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
Dear researcher,
I am looking for a detailed catalog of the yellow and blue supergiant stars. Could you please suggest some websites or related papers? Thanks. :)
Kennicutt (1994) proposed a simplest formula to estimate star formation rate (SFR) of the galaxies. I want to calculate SFR of some dwarf galaxies using SDSS spectroscopy and compare it with the SFR model for star forming dwarfs.
I read some papers which highlighted that when using the Hα flux for SFR estimates, we encounter the following difficulties, which may cause systematic errors: (i) contamination by [NII] emission lines, close to the Hα line, (ii) contamination by the other Hα emitters (e.g, other emission nebulae, non-thermal emitters, such as active galactic nuclei (AGN)), and (iii) internal extinction.
On the other hand, it is said that SDSS spectra data are well calibrated, so we do not need to perform any further corrections.
I am bit confused with this second statement.
Russian project to explore the moons of Jupiter after 2030 will be based on the nuclear propulsion spacecraft "Nuklon" with an electrical energy power of 0.5 MW. Such energy power gives the opportunity to significantly increase a data transfer performance to Earth. In my opinion, the speed of data transfer can be increase to 100 Mbit/sec. This value will be enough to use 4K Video for the investigation of dynamic processes in the atmosphere of Jupiter and moons. What is your opinion about this?
According to the principle of the general relativity theory, the gravity field equation should contain the field energy as a source of the field itself. Including the field energy-momentum tensor into the Einstein’s equation brings extra unknown quantities to the equation. Such equation is not suitable for a metric finding; however it allows – based on the known metric – calculating the whole energy-momentum tensor of both matter and gravitational field. As the gravity field metric, the metric of continuous field can be used, parameters of which are found from the generally covariant one-parametric equation. Here, the solutions are given of the equation for the spherically symmetric stationary problem. One of the solutions coincides practically with that by Schwarzschild for weak fields, while the other one describes an expulsive field.
