Thank you. I have always felt like the preconceived notion that we have to find dark matter, dark energy, describe why the expansion is speeding up faster and faster.. just has gotten us no where in many years now. Science has been at a stand still. I was hoping more people would be like you and think "hey maybe we should reassess how we look at this? Maybe we are getting it all wrong and we are digging ourselves a deeper and deeper hole that doesn't have any answers because it's not the right perspective? " I'm just glad your channel and mind is even open to considering that. I appreciate your channel and just subscribed.
Actually, scientists reassess things all the time. Dark energy is still a hypothesis, and every scientist understands this, hence the name "dark" meaning 'unknown, undiscovered'. No one keeps you from publishing alternative ideas and proving something new.
I agree. This whole dark matter/energy thing has always been a preconceived 'fact'. Mainstream scientists talk about it as if it is an established theory, just without any proof. In my untrained opinion a type of matter so prevalent as to account for more than 90% of the gravitational masses of galaxies should be readily apparent for investigative proof. For example in our own solar system every orbit of bodies within the system is accounted for using classical and relativistic mechanics, without the need for any other exotic source of gravitational attraction. How come such a necessary and supposedly prevalent gravitational source be absent from anywhere?
Well they've been doing it that's why MOND theories even exist It's just that with time the unseen particle explanation has been found to be much more favourable wrt new evidence This explanation does seem to be new though. But doesn't mean scientists are so dogmatic Edit: nvm, VSL theories are old and haven't found much favour with evidence either
I had a conversation with a 20-year old the other day who stated that 'Dark Energy and Dark Matter are facts and are proven, as everybody knows.' - This attitude is, of course, because of the media. This guy didn't even understand the term 'red shift'.
Dr Mike McCulloch, Quantised Inertia explains away dark energy, have you seen his work? It is based on the Casimir effect and the idea of an event horizon of Relativity.
amd completely full of crap. his basic understanding of ligfht is flawed and you know what they say.... bad data in, bad data out. Plus we DO NOT see the light we only see the illumination. they are not the same. It is impossible to see the light.
How can you say „agree“ in the context of an objective science like physics? You can „agree“ on the outcome of a calculation if both of you got the same result. But „agreeing“ with unmotivated guesses like „dark energy is wrong“ or even „dark energy is correct“ exceeds what an individuum (even a sceptic one) can afford. Just stick to the data, nobody asks for interpretation.
I love your work very much. Dont understand them very well but they give a lot new entrance points to discover science. Gonna rewatch them lots of times. Thanks.
We have an observation that places the universe as being younger the further we look from us. This suggests that the universe is expanding very slowly when I look at the double vortex model with the two vortexes being made of quantum dots. This is to say that something set off the timing of galaxies to be made at nearly the same time and in all directions from us we see younger and younger galaxies as we look back in time (ie, distance). Even though I am a proponent of photon drag to explain red shift, I also like to add possibilities to the list, this one didn't make my list. I do however agree with the idea that variable speed works with density of material that light is traveling through. But again, for that one, I would have to go with a different reason for the speed dif.
I don't remember a single moment in history when mainstream thinking was right regarding controversial subjects. I don't know if this theory is more accurate, but makes much more sense to me. And I say "accurate" and not "right" because there are not theories that are right, there are theories that work better than others and that's it. None describe (or could do) the "truth" about how the Universe works, and none ever will do. They are all "models" that make approximations that can be used in practice. They are just useful.
@@parkertheprophet True, but what does that has to do? And as you touched the subject, also in religion mainstream was never right in history (and not now). And the reason is very simple: it is the god of this world who manages de information (actually the propaganda).
well said sir, all physical theories are simplified closed systems with defined limits of applicability that enable us to do engineering, they are not and never will be a complete description of the totality of reality. Furthermore some things are just unknowable. Many scientists these days fail to understand this point and seem to think that their theories actually create the reality they claim to describe. Then they go searching for proof by filtering noise through computer algorithms that assume the theory to be true and ignoring any anomalous observations.
I'm by no means an expert in physics and cosmology, but I've always felt when reading about cosmology and its models that science is becoming more and more religious, a faith based approach where any alternate theory/explanation is fervently shot down.
If we accept the variable speed of light then do we need to also accept that magnetic permeability and electric permittivity are also variable, since by Maxwell's Equations speed of light = 1/(magnetic permeability * electric permittivity)^(1/2), ? Also, should we assume that the speed of light [and magnetic permeability and electric permittivity] was different at the time of the “Big Bang” than now? Also, do you propose a function which describes the rate of change of the speed of light over time?
I have another "theory". One that _also_ leads to a variable speed of light! Length scales do not shrink, but _time_ runs faster and faster, as time passes. That is why we see a red shift from far away objects, because the farther away we look, the more we look into the past, and the slower time runs, the slower all processes occur, and therefore the more red-shift we see! So, which is it, Mr. Unzicker? I am working on a book about spacetime. I have been working on it on and off for the last 10 years, after I discovered the definition of time. This happened about 40 years ago, when I was a student of physics, and didn't find a proper definition of time in any of the textbooks. When I found my own definition I hadn't realized that it was new! The reason why it took so long to start writing, is because when I finally realized that it was new, and I submitted a paper, it was rejected. The main reason was that it seemed to be in conflict with the special theory of relativity. It took me about 30 years to resolve this issue. During that time I have investigated the special theory of relativity from all sides, and found a principle all laws of physics have to satisfy, which I am still working on. In any case, I _did succeed_ to derive from my definition of time not only the Lorentz transformations, but even the three-dimensionality of space! I know _why_ space is three-dimensional! I have _finally_ found the time and opportunity to write it all down! My _real opinion_ on what Mr. Unzicker says, is that he has it wrong. He is the so-many'th physicist who is not able to 'see through' the equations, and confuses them with reality. It wouldn't surprise me that Mr. Unzicker believes also that he can know reality as it is. But I haven't seen enough of him to conclude that he hasn't understood Popper's solution to the Induction Problem. Mr. Unzicker only looks at length scales. Strictly speaking, the Lorentz transformations already tell us that there is no such thing as length and time in an absolute sense. Philosophically speaking, the special theory of relativity is a much greater breakthrough than the general theory of relativity of Einstein. According to the special theory of relativity there is only 'spacetime'. When I step into a rocket to travel to the Andromeda nebula with a constant acceleration that is large enough, I will succeed to reach that destiny in my lifetime, even though it is about one million light years away. When I am in that rocket I can 'explain' that, because I see the Andromeda nebula come towards me with an ever-increasing speed, so that the time to cover that immense distance becomes less and less according to the clocks on board. It becomes so small that I will reach the Andromeda nebula within my lifetime. But an observer from earth explains my ability to reach the Andromeda nebula from looking with a (very, very powerful) telescope to the inside of my rocket, and he sees that time is running slower and slower, until he sees my time running so slow, that he understands I will reach the Andromeda nebula within my lifetime, even though I shall need to travel during more than one million years according to _his _ clock! According to the state of development my theory about spacetime now, the speed of light must be _the only thing_ that _must be_ constant. It _must be_ constant, because the speed of light is _the fundamental thing_ from which both space and time follow! To be exact. If we measure the speed of light to be constant in all directions, we are in an inertial frame of reference. When the speed of light _is not_ constant according to our measurements, we are in an _accelerating_ frame of reference. But the speed of light itself _is always constant!_ That is, constant in _any_ frame of reference that is either not accelerating or is not in a gravitational field, or is in a gravitational field whereby the frame of reference is falling. Therefore, if it is indeed the case that the speed of light varies, this statement is equivalent to the universe either expanding or contracting. _Or_ time runs faster or slower, or any combination of this. These three magnitudes are not independent but are all connected. This means, that whether you say that the unit of measurement is shrinking _because_ the speed of light becomes faster, _or_ you say that time runs faster, but the distances remain the same and the speed of light is slowing dow, _or_ you say that the speed of light is constant, but the universe is expanding, all three statements are completely equivalent! It just depends on what you _choose_ to be the most fundamental magnitude. In my theory I have chosen the speed of light to be the fundamental magnitude. And that is because from that I can explain why space is three dimensional, _and_ I can explain where the Lorentz transformations come from! Also, the speed of light is a fundamental magnitude, because it follows _directly from_ the Maxwell equations, while the choice of units of time and units of length are arbitrary. Therefore choosing the speed of light to be constant by definition is the most elegant choice to make.
@@joseluisfernandez7117 If you understand Popper, then you also understand that you say NOTHING with this remark! ALL our theories are based on abstract concepts which START as fantasies, which we then compare with our experiences. If our concepts are NOT in violation of our experiences, the only thing we can say is that they are NOT WRONG! But we can NEVER say that something is a 'real' dimension, because we cannot observe reality 'as it is', but only as it APPEARS to us. (Quote from Immanuel Kant: 'Although all knowledge BEGINS with experience, it does not arise OUT OF experience. Popper adds to this (after the big revolution of Gauss, Boljay, Lobatschewski, Riemann, and Einstein) that since all our theories begin as conjectures, which is just a fancy name for fantasies, they can never correspond to reality as it is. As Popper said: no matter how many white swans you encounter, the sheer number of them will NEVER be enough to prove that the statement: 'All swans are white' is universally valid. But a SINGLE black swan is enough to REFUTE the universal validity of this statement. So, you cannot prove the reality of ANY abstract concepts. They are all compactifications of experiences. This means that as long as you encounter NO black swan, and all the swans you have seen ARE white, you CAN say, that, as far as you know, all swans ARE white. So, if you say that 'spacetime is just an abstract concept', you are saying NOTHING! However, the very fact that you MAKE such a statement, shows that you have not put any serious thought into what it means if you say that 'something is just an abstract concept'. ALL the concepts we use begin as definitions WE make. That is not relevant What IS relevant, whether you can, on the basis of such definitions, DERIVE other statements which tell you what kind of experiences follow from them if you set up an experiment. That is, you try to find domains within which you can make predictions with certainty. That is how we, although ALL our concepts are 'just inventions of the human mind' can be proved to be useful, because they can give us tools to create consequences, which then can materialize in all the technologies we can realize. To gain a deeper understanding of this point. I suggest, read 'The Fabric of Reality' of David Deutsch. That book is a nice introduction to Popperian epistemology.
@@konradswart4069 You make an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy. And you have missed something that is fundamental as a result. 'Spacetime' _assumes_ the existence of energy. Right? In order for _any_ process of change to occur, there _must_ necessarily have been an exchange of energy. You would agree with that, I am sure? And therefore, without any energy, 'time' could not 'flow', could it? I mean, in order for something to flow, it must constantly change its configuration and any change in configuration requires an expenditure of some amount of energy. Right? In a Universe devoid of energy, the concept of 'time' becomes meaningless. Without energy, a clock will not tick. Personally, I think that this is where Physics went wrong. By postulating 'spacetime' we are actually referring to a particular configuration of energy whilst at the same time 'sidelining' the energy that 'permeates' it. As a result, we have developed a science that investigates 'spacetime' and how it interacts with energy. By doing so, we have come to _assume_ that the universe consists of a 4-dimensional spacetime _and_ a conserved quantity of energy and this distracts us from the fact that 'spacetime' itself represents an energy configuration and that this amount of energy is not being included in our assessment of how much energy there _is_ to be conserved. So, we have this model that explains the behaviour of energy moulded by 4-dimensional spacetime and this has generated a huge amount of new mathematics which seems to hold true in the majority of situations. But why? Why does this theory not hold true in _all_ circumstances? I say it's because our assumptions are slightly off. Think of 'buoyancy'. Theoretically, one could observe the phenomenon of 'buoyancy' and derive an entire mathematics and physics that relates 'displacement' and 'density' in relation to a 'real' force called 'buoyancy', i.e., there is a real force, 'buoyancy' which gives rise to 'density' and 'displacement'. And for boat-builders around the world, the theory would hold true, right? However, investigations into 'gravity' would introduce contradictions to the 'buoyancy theory'. It would soon be shown that 'buoyancy' is an 'effect' and _not a 'cause', right? Similarly; by assuming that 'spacetime' moulds energy, we mischaracterize 'spacetime' as a cause when it's actually an effect. If our Physics assumed the existence of _only_ energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we would find that 'space' and 'time' are a bit like 'buoyancy' in that _their_ existence is underpinned by some missing part of the equation. Just my two penneth. ;)
@@juandiegoparales9379 Time is a different way to formulate change but is not the same as change. Time is _the dual of change!_ Have you ever noticed, that in all the laws of physics where time appears, it always appears in the denominator, as some form of dt? Speed for example, is given by v =dr/dt. acceleration a = dv/dt = d2r/dt2. Newton's basic law is F = m (d2r/dx2) My theory is: there is no such thing as a time independent of change. Time is a derived concept, derived from change in the following manner. Look at the rotation of a second hand of a clock. Do we see seconds? _No!_ We see _a moving hand!_ We see a hand _that is rotating, therefore changing!_ We see an instance _of change!_ If a change is periodic, then, by definition, we see a change which, if we look' long enough, (which can either be extremely short or extremely long) we see that it consists of a series of states, to each of which it returns. (Changes with periods.) If this happens regularly, we can use it as a basis for counting. And then we can compare those periodic changes with other periodic changes. If we then compare the periodic change of a second hand with the periodic change of the earth turning around its axis, we can see that the change of a second-hand making a rotation happens 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 times _faster_ than the periodic change of the earth revolving around its axis. But we can also formulate this differently. We can say that the rotation, or, precisely, the periodic rotational _change_ of the eart is 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 times _slower_ than the rotation = the periodic rotational _change_ of the second hand. This causes me to introduce a new concept, which happens to be _exactly equivalent_ to the concept of time. I can say, that _the slowness of change of the earth revolving around its axis is 86,400 times larger than the slowness of change of the second hand of a clock!_ You can also say that _the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate around its own axis is 86,400 times _*_larger_*_ than the amount of time it takes for the second hand to rotate once around its center of rotation!_ We can also say that we must _keep watching both the second hand of our clock and the rotation of the earth!_ We _count_ then the total number of the same rotational changes_ the second-hand makes around its axis of rotation needed for the earth to make just _one_ rotation. And this _waiting_ until the earth has finished one rotation we call _duration!_ But 'duration' is, psychologically speaking, nothing else as just 'waiting and counting' (and being bored!) And this brings me to _my_ definition of time. Time is _the slowness of change!_ You can also, say, that time is _the dual_ of change. Or time is _the reciprocal_ of change. The relationship between change ant dime is quite simple. If the amount of time needed for a process to change from state A to state B is, say, 5 seconds, then its corresponding _amount of change_ is 1/5 = 0.2 s^(-1) The change from state A to state B, by the way, doesn't have to be periodic. Of course, this is only the case when we choose the second as our counting unit. That is, if we choose our counting mechanism some process we _define_ as the second. One can use _any_ periodic change as our basis of measuring change. The point is, however, that time and change are not two different concepts but are juist _two ways_ to look at any process. One can look at processes in terms of how fast one is, compared to the oter, or how slow it is, compared to the other. We can speak of 'the fastness' of a process, or of 'the slowness' of a process. But both are just two equivalent ways to look at processes. As Aristotle said: 'time is a measure of change'. To which I add: 'time is a measure of _the slowness of change!_ If an object moves from A to B in 5 seconds, and another moves from A to B in 10 seconds, we can say that _the amount of time_ it took for the second object to move from A to B is 10 seconds, while the first needed 5 seconds. Therefore, one can say that the second object moved 2x slower than the first, and therefore it took it 2x the _amount of time_ to move from A to B compared to the first. So, the faster a process goes through different states, the less time it takes to 'move through' these states. Conversely, the greater the amount of time it takes some process to move from some beginning to some end state, (defined by us as beginning and end) the slower the process happens it consists of, when compared to our 'standard change', which is the 1/second. That is why I say that time and slowness of change are the same. There is nothing deeper than change! Every-thing _consists of_ change! This follows from the general form of Einstein's most general equation of special relativity, which is _not just_ E = mc^2, which, by the way, already implies that every-thing consists of energy = chage, but which is E^2 = (cp)^2 + (mc^2)^2 So, to return to Newton's equation: F = m(d2r/dt^2), it says that the amount of force imposed on an object with energy content m to have a change of change in its position, is equal to its energy content 'at rest, its mass', which is m times the change in change of position. And since in _all_ fundamental equations of physics time appears as a denominator, what we are talking about _is not time!_ No, we are talking about _relationships between changes!_ From this deep consequences follow. For example, that the basis of metaphysics, as understood by philosophers, is not fundamental. Metaphysics asks: 'what _is!' But 'is-ness' _is not the most fundamental concept!_ Constancy is not fundamental. _Change_ is fundamental! _Change_ is the most fundamental concept! Laws of physics do not describe what the world *is*, but they describe _relationships between changes!_ Laws of physics describe _that what does not change in changes!_ Or _that what different kinds of changes _have in common!_ A 'thing' is nothing else than 'a change' that either changes so rapidly into itself, that we cannot follow the canges, _or_ it is a change that happens _so slowly_ that we cannot see it changing at all! From this theory follows, that something like time machines that transport us into the past _cannot exist!_ This is because _there is no such thing as a really existing past!_ There is only _now and change!_ We can _observe_ 'the past' only by its remnants, by what it leaves behind. If we look at the Andromeda nebula, for example, we 'see' a picture of what it was a million years ago. We therefore _do not see_ its present existence. We can surmise that there must be something we can call 'the andromeda nebula' because we do not know of any reason to think that between now and the next million of years it takes the light to reach us which it is transmitting now, it will disappear. Therefore we can speak of the tremendous complex of changes we now call 'the Andromeda nebula' as some-thing existing _now!_ In the same way, we do not see any reason why our own galaxly would be gone after a million years. Almost all changes that 'make up' our galaxy are periodic, and there is no reason for such drastic changes to occur, as far as we know, that our galaxy would be gone in a million years. And that is where the illusion of a 'really existing past and future' or an 'independently existing time, apart from change' comes from. We observe the effects reaching us of many periodic processes which happened in the past. And that is what the past _is!_ And our laws of nature are basically causal, if only because the particles of QM our matter consists of, have no reason to lose their coherence in change, so that they all explode. Rationally speaking, there are no reasons why those periodic processes would not exist a day, a week, a year, hundreds of years, thousands of years, or billions of years ago. Any _real existence_ therefore consists _only_ of _presenty occuring processes!_ Be it periodic or non-periodic. Time, as a 'some-thing' existing independently of change, does not exist. In that sense, time itself is 'not real'. A last thing. I can put the relationship between change and time in the following simple formula: T = 1/S, whereby T stands for time, and S stands for change. But since the speed of light is the fastest change in (linear) position possible, it is better to put c, the speed of light, into the numerator of this simple equation. This leads to: T = c/S. And _that_ is then, in the end, _my_ definition of time!
I was 12 year old when I first heard of this theory, and it simply fascinated me. If the speed of light is variable (from the slowest speed of 300km/sec to infinity), then how much of problems in theoretical physics would it solve? Perhaps quantum mechanic needs to be re-calibrated to adopt the variability of light - perhaps, just perhaps, 11 dimensions of string theory is 11 different states of light. Just wondering...
"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains two problems relating Electrodynamics and Cosmology. Problem 4-22 starts with: "In 1959 Lyttelton and Bondi [Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A, vol. 232, p.313] suggested that the expansion of the Universe could be explained on the basis of Newtonian Mechanics if matter contained a [tiny] net electric charge." A follow-on problem, Problem 10-11, mentions that correction terms to curlB and divE due to the creation of this charge should be on the order of R^-2 where R is on the order of the radius of the Universe, so that the new terms would be negligible at all length scales but cosmological situations. This hypothesis is consistent with the linear velocity-distance observations. Rather thought-provoking questions from an Undergraduate E&M textbook!
I feel like this idea has a lot of potential. How would you describe basic gravity though? the force that holds us down or causes us to fall, if masses do not attract each other? Could it possibly be electrical forces doing all the work all this time?
I agree with your thoughts on this subject. If the ridiculous "expansion" band-aid has to be accepted and we must face 96% of all energy unaccounted for, maybe it's because we are trying to make observations fit with a flawed and unproven base assumption.
I suppose, if cosmological evolution is taken into account, I guess the variable speed of light idea does make sense. Light moves slower in glass and water, simply because it's bouncing between more atoms; surely, just after the Big Bang, light would have been moving slower for the same reason.
I'd want to know the expected angular distribution of galaxies by distance for the expansion theory versus the static model and then compare it to the deepest field available from JWST.
Is it kind of like how we see a illusion of bending light waves on the horizon when there is a hot surface? But obviously in a totally different manner
With an expanding universe your frequencies (energies) of photons decrease with stretching. Would the photon also lose energy because they are traveling from a more gravitationally dense place to a less gravitationally dense place? Are they climbing out of a gravitational well? Or are the two effects equivalent?
It depends what camp you are in. Mainstream physics that believe that light is affected by gravity say light gains energy as it falls into a gravity well and therefore blue shifts, and people that have read the "Extinction Shift Principle" generally believe that mater under high gravity has a timing slowdown giving light a blue shift.
It is peculiar how people can accept the "stretching" of photons but cannot wrap their head around the idea that they may lose energy traversing gravitational potential wells. They are not masses and do not have to behave like points of mass that do not lose kinetic energy if they have enough to escape the well after entering it. The Machian concept of the collection of masses in the universe controlling the speed of light brings up the idea for a universal mass field where all the elementary masses are quantum localizations. This is like the field theory view of electromagnetism. The mass field would be bound with the space "fabric" and space may be an aspect of this field. Current science is stagnant and 100 year old theories are still being pushed like they are the final word. There are way too many basic questions these theories cannot answer for them to be any sort of final word.
Cosmology, circa 1900, included William MacMillan's idea that stellar radiation would be gradually absorbed into the ether, and used to create matter. The aim was to produce a stationary universe in which entropy does not increase to produce heat death. In the 1930s, this idea was developed further by Walther Nernst who saw the discovery of the galactic redshift as something he had been actively seeking to avoid this fate - evidence of energy dissipation - and realized quantum energy loss would be associated with exponential decay of photon energy. Although Nernst had been awarded a Nobel in 1921 for his work on low temperature physics and the concept of absolute zero, sometimes known as the third law of thermodynamics, his cosmological work may not have been given the attention it deserves. Here is what Nernst had found about the redshift. It works out that all photons would lose an amount of energy, hH, per cycle. Fritz Zwicky noted this as well. This implies (from Planck's hypothesis) that electromagnetic radiation would be quantized with zero-point energy, hH/2. The significance of the Hubble constant is that it would be the natural frequency of a quantum harmonic oscillator. I expect Nernst would have seen the zero-point energy as a superfluid. He won the 1921 Nobel for his work on low temperature physics sometimes known as the third law of thermodynamics. In his view, the zero-point energy would form a well of potential energy from which photons and matter are created and recycled, somehow getting around the second law, and avoiding the heat death of the universe, which was a problem for the cosmology of the day. The quantum structure would be the same with or without heat death. The zero-point energy may form a kind of compressible ether which is the underlying basis for gravitation and its influence on light. Let Hubble's law be given by c d / D = H x, c is speed of light, d is change in wavelength, D is wavelength, H is Hubble's constant, x is distance traveled by photon. The energy of the photon at the source is h c / D, h is Planck's constant. After traveling a distance x = D + d, the energy falls to h c / (D + d), losing hH in the process which results in the observed exponential decay of photon energy, interpreted as "tired light".
I think u're right and I'm writing something that is leading to a static universe that seems to be in contrast with the actual model of the universe and I found an interesting relation to explain the Lorentz factor. The point is how to write Einstein field equations expressing G as a function of the mass and the radius of the universe? Please let me know any suggestion I can't really wait. It's very exciting this idea
Actually, gravitation both increases and decreases the speed of light. The Pound Snider experiment concluded that it was the same exact effect as a mass falling. So the light's speed will actually increase as it approaches a massive object and will decrease as it leaves the massive object the same exact way that if you shot a bullet towards the earth the bullet's speed would increase as it approached earth, but if you shot the bullet straight up in the air, it would slow down as it traveled away from earth's surface. So gravitational accelerations directly affect light the same way they effect material objects. This means that light that leaves a star end ends up being observed on earth must necessarily be red shifted because the star has a much greater mass than earth and this greater mass causes a greater acceleration in the opposite direction of the light's velocity which slows down the light. Then as the light approaches earth, it is accelerated and gains back a small fraction of the speed that was lost. The overall result is a redshift. If you went to the surface of a star and observed light that had reflected off of earth, that light would be blueshifted.
Gravity does the opposite of what u say -- according to Conrad Ranzan. However, u & he are talking about 2 very different effects. Ranzan is talking about the acceleration of aether flowing into the Earth (& stars) -- which stretches photons as they approach a star, & stretches photons as they depart -- 2 doses of stretching -- 2 doses of redshift -- giving a nett cosmological redshift. He is correct. Hence the BB is krapp. U are talking about the slowing of light as per Shapiro Delay -- which shortens photons as they approach a star, & stretches photons as they depart -- a positive dose of blueshift, plus a positive dose of redshift -- nett result being zero shift. U are correct. Shapiro Delay is not due to gravity, it is due to the nearness of mass. I might explain in a future comment. Ranzan's aetheric stretching can be said to be due to gravity. I might explain in a future comment.
@@atheistaetherist2747 "U are talking about the slowing of light as per Shapiro Delay -- which shortens photons as they approach a star, & stretches photons as they depart -- a positive dose of blueshift, plus a positive dose of redshift -- nett result being zero shift. U are correct." I do not particularly subscribe to the photon model of light myself, though it may appear that I do from my prior post. With that said, if you contrasted the photon model with a wave model you could say that the particle frequency would be comparable to the wave frequency and the length of the photon would be comparable to wavelength of a wave. The Pound Snider Experiment found that the frequency of light increases as it approaches earth and decreases as it leaves earth and that these changes could be Doppler shifted to be nullified. However, they did not actually measure the wavelength. I certainly wish they had. I myself do not thing the wavelength changes, under all circumstances. I think the wavelength can be compressed or rarefied due to relative motion of the emitter with the aether, but I do not think the wavelength is compressed or rarefied due to the relative motion of the observer with the wave. As such, there should be a type of wavelength asymmetry caused by motion of the source with the medium vs motion of the observer with the medium. "Shapiro Delay is not due to gravity, it is due to the nearness of mass. I might explain in a future comment. Ranzan's aetheric stretching can be said to be due to gravity. I might explain in a future comment." I'll look into these topics. Thanks for the info.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 The redshifting of light as it approaches a star (due to stretching)(due to acceleration of aether inflow)(due to aether stretching) will i suppose give less frequency in the aether. But an observer on the star will i think see no change (compared to an observer located a long distance earlier). The blueshifting of light as it approaches a star (due to slowing of light near mass)(as observed by an observer a long way away) will i suppose too give no change for an observer near the star. Hmmmmm -- i think it depends on how u measure. Different kinds of clocks (atomic)(tuning fork)(balance wheel) will be affected in different ways by the 2 different effects (aetherwind)(slowing near mass). In aether theory we have absolute values (aetherwind is zero km/s), & we have apparent values (depending on the aetherwind). And, aether theory has no values for the slowing of light near mass. Such slowing is a GTR thing. And, the slowing of light near mass is not relevant for some clocks, the critical thing is the speed of em radiation, which is more or less the same thing, just saying.
@@atheistaetherist2747 "The redshifting of light as it approaches a star (due to stretching)(due to acceleration of aether inflow)(due to aether stretching) will i suppose give less frequency in the aether." That is not what is empirically observed locally. The light is blue shifted as it approaches the earth and it is red shifted as it leaves the earth. Both the red shifting and the blue shifting, which are a measure of the light's frequency, can be completely nullified by a relative acceleration of the observer with the light source equivalent to the predicted gravitational effects. "The blueshifting of light as it approaches a star (due to slowing of light near mass)(as observed by an observer a long way away) will i suppose too give no change for an observer near the star." No offense, but you have it a bit backwards. A redshift is caused by a decrease in the observed frequency of light. A blue shift is caused by an increase in the observed frequency of light. If light slowed near a mass, we would observe a local redshifting of light as it enters earth's gravitational field. However, that is not what is observed. What is observed is a noticeable blueshifting of the light equivalent to gravitational acceleration of a mass that is free falling towards earth. This frequency increase can be completely negated with the Doppler effect by moving the source and the detector with the same exact acceleration opposite the effects of the acceleration of gravity. The exact opposite occurs when the source is on earth's surface and the light beam is pointed away from earth. A red shift is observed and can be completely negated by a relative acceleration between the source and the detector in the exact opposite that of the direction of gravity. "The blueshifting of light as it approaches a star (due to slowing of light near mass)(as observed by an observer a long way away) will i suppose too give no change for an observer near the star." Still backwards. Increasing frequency is increasing detected speed of light and decreasing frequency is decreasing detected speed of light. "Hmmmmm -- i think it depends on how u measure. Different kinds of clocks (atomic)(tuning fork)(balance wheel) will be affected in different ways by the 2 different effects (aetherwind)(slowing near mass)." Actually, it is a bit worse than that. Different clocks will change rates differently under different conditions depending on which process they use to measure time and how those various processes are affected by an almost infinite amount of variables. There is no known absolute time measurement, contrary to what the liars of academia tell everyone. We are all just comparing relative rates of various processes and trying to claim they mean the same thing when they do not. "In aether theory we have absolute values (aetherwind is zero km/s), & we have apparent values (depending on the aetherwind). And, aether theory has no values for the slowing of light near mass." Actually, I have studied aether theory myself and subscribe to it, though it is no doubt a different aether theory than what you support. With that said, many aether theories do not comport with observation and must be discarded and/or altered to fit observation. "And, the slowing of light near mass is not relevant for some clocks, the critical thing is the speed of em radiation, which is more or less the same thing, just saying." It doesn't slow down, it speeds up, and I agree that for some clocks it is not relevant.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 Reading these comments remind me of watching the Big Bang Theiry as they talk about comic books. There isn't enough data to come to an exact conclusion and all the unsolved questions to fill in the blanks are bantered back and forth. Of course, there is a cool million dollars that goes with a Nobell if anyone figures it out.
How come we have not been able to measure a decelerating speed of light “c”? How is it possible to measure redshift/blue shift within the galaxy ie the Milky Way is spinning but then not be able measure larger systems up to and including the universe? When does redshift measurements go from correct to incorrect in your opinion or is there empirical evidence you have? Thanks.
I think that for matter in the universe to be stationary, the universe would either have to be infinite in extent or closed so that the mass density is constant and there's no net attraction in any direction. But the next question is why didn't the stars all die out eons ago? The stready state model would require an eternal universe and a constant influx of new energy.
I am only half way trough but if i get this right, smaller wavelength as time passes. do not have higher energy in this modell because the plank konstant changes with time? Else we have an ultraviolet cathastrophy in future.
This stationary universe, how would it be created and how do you explain its proportions of H and He and Li. Also how old is the universe and how do you explain the microwave background?
You miss a much more simpler explanation too, if the universe is equally dense everywhere infinitum, for a galaxy, all long distance gravity forces cancel each other, leaving local effects only.
Good video. Would like to see the following expansion of your work. 1. Is the theory equivalent to general relativity so that GPS works. 2. Would Gravity waves exist as currently measured. 3. Senarios should exist for test of your theory with radio signals with the parker and juno probes as the sun and jupiter are massive objects.
They are virtually identical. The difference lies in what the speed of light would come out to be, as we always measure distances, times, and speeds using our apparently constant length and time scales. If the latter aren't really constant, neither is the speed of light.
@@wafikiri_: The point is that they're exactly equivalent. If the length scales are contracting instead, then the speed of light is in fact constant again.
@@wafikiri_: Yes, exactly under those conditions. Again, the point is that a contraction of length scales is the exact equivalent of expansion of space. There's literally zero difference. They are the exact same thing. Length scales contracting while time scales remaining the same is no different from space expanding while time scales remain the same, which they do under that interpretation. So I really don't get at all what Unzicker is trying to say here. He's all, "man, those dumbasses don't get that expansion is stupid; instead length scales are contracting!", as if that's somehow a genius observation, and not exactly equivalent.
@@hoon_sol No, no, you don't understand the difference. It is not physical but mental. If length and time scales contract, for instance, we cannot notice: only an observer that were external to the universe could notice, and then only relative to its own scales. That the said scales vary differently would then yield different ratios of lengths to time intervals along time, whose respective ratio could be constant if measured by such an external observer across all occassions.
The dispensing of a super fine, super dense, yet fluid, medium makes any model of the atom impossible. Various couplets of neutrinos, as two single vortices in face to face rolling contact, result in two different entities that probably correspond to an electron and a proton. Three such rings could be seen as a neutron. All are capable of being polarized with respect to each other. There is no reason to doubt various ages and proportions of these could exist and progress in growth, i.e. size, and decay or separate into components. The progress of waves and particles would naturally be impeded, diffracted depending on states of such in suspension in various zones of space. Krafft and Hilgenberg expanded on these ideas extensively.
Though my videos are terrible, I did make on describing fine, super dense, yet fluid, medium making an electron. ruclips.net/video/V0VSvGp5HDs/видео.html Even did one on double vortex giving the amplitude of a photon. ruclips.net/video/ZTBnF3WQqFs/видео.html
I don't think it's clear (and I don't remember other videos addressing it): why don't we see the universe collapsing due to gravity? What makes it stable
What is, if (accelerated) movements in our 3D space world would generate quantized time units and if (accelerated) movement in the 3D time world would generate quantized space (mass) units. Think at recently discovered time crystals
could it be the universe is shaped as donught and the "gravity" is in the center of the donught eg outside the universe eg dragging everything to the center - this expansion is actually the big crounch happening - ( just a thought i had)
What we observe is exactly what you would expect. If something accelerates at a constant rate it will get faster and faster, no need to postulate some force. Electricity is drawn towards potential and the universe as a whole behaves the same way.
How can you explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with variable speed of light hypothesis? The constancy of speed of light postulate depends on the output of this experiment.
If the speed of light is constant around the experiment there is nothing measurable. Even if the speed of light changed 3 months later for the second part the experiment itself couldn't measure the change.
I heard as space "expands" our rulers (Planck scale?) stays the same(?) so that light shifts to the red while our rulers become smaller. Did I hear right?
I did have the similar thoughts as this related to Dark Energy and Dark Matter and may have an idea to try prove it but don't have the equipment etc. Maybe one day.
By inverting the "expanding" universe model, red shifts, "dark" energy & matter, along with "time frame dilation" in GR, and "favorable genome selection" in Biology, are all understood as a "requantization" function holding between prior states (mappings) and subsequent states/mappings. Where quantum-level state-attribution processes via generic systemic utility, while past & future are reflexively aligned (parallel processed), future states are determined via systemic self utility with perception as the model of any/all states, and are not determined by either random chance or by so-called "forces" (demigods). "...whereas it is ordinarily assumed that the sizes of material objects remain fixed while that of the whole universe “ectomorphically” changes around them, conspansion holds the size of the universe changeless and endomorphically changes the sizes of objects. Because the universe now plays the role of invariant, there exists a global standard rate of inner expansion or mutual absorption among the contents of the universe (“cinvariance”), and due to syntactic covariance, objects must be resized or “requantized” with each new event according to a constant (time-independent) rescaling factor residing in global syntax. Second, because the rate of shrinkage is a constant function of a changing size ratio, the universe appears from an internal vantage to be accelerating in its “expansion”, leading to the conspansive dual of a positive cosmological constant." CTMU
Hi, I greatly enjoying your videos, though I'm not a physicist. One thing I'm missing though is your stance on the evolution of the universe as a whole, given VSL. I mean, if red shift can be explained by the theory you are promoting, rarher than by the expanding universe theory, does this mean that the universe as a whole is, and always was, stationaty, in steady state? Does it mean the big bang never happened, and the CMB radiation has nothing to do with a "beggining event", as claimed by Dr. Robitaille and others?
If the univese is eternal and in perpetual steady state then what is the meaning of change in horizon, which brings more snd mases to within scope? What's the meaning of universe evolution?
@@zvikabar-kochva3641 The Universe is eternal and infinite but it is not stationary, it is endlessly evolving. The Universe recycles itself by converting radiation into mass and mass into radiation.There is neither a begining nor an end because the total entropy of the Universe is maintained at zero by the black holes.
Universe expanding theory proposes that the most distant galaxies (MDG) are moving away faster than those that are closer. Therefore the longer we observe MDG, we would expect to see them becoming more measurably faint and smaller until eventually they disappear completely from view. If on the other hand, VSL was true, then the MDG would not become more faint and disappear. Then would this be a plausible experiment to test the VSL theory?
No, because VSL is saying light is slowing down more over time, so the evidence would look exactly the same as material acceleration. The 'solution' must come from another angle or Occam's Razor.
@@alexdevisscher6784 It is said that Shapiro Delay is in accord with GTR, ie in accord with spacetime stuff. That might be so. It might satisfy some people, if u believe in spacetime. One problem is that equivalence can only give a half of the bending of light near the Sun, which suggests that it can only give a half of the slowing. Yet Shapiro is happy that his equation gives the full value of slowing. The only acceptable explanation around of SD is my own photaeno drag theory (actually its the only theory that i know of, outside of GTR).
If "expansion" is an illusion, then one would expect that "inflation" is also. However: What might be the consequences of the growth in the size of the visible universe?
VSL is explained by my photaeno drag. Mach's gravity ideas are explained by my aether theory. Aether, having no mass itself, transfers the aetheric tension from star to star. If there is no other mass in the vicinity then an atom has zero gravitational mass, & zero inertial mass.
Serious question, perhaps for another video who knows: In your opinion, is there or is there not a serious problem with the big CMB surveys as claimed by Robataille?
Good question, good luck getting an answer though. Unzicker seems still too deeply attached to a number of fundamental assumptions that he hasn't looked at critically yet.
The whole point of Einstein's relativity is that speed of light is constant. However, that's actually only in the context of comparing it with space-time. I wouldn't be surprised if some university administrators would be so obtuse that they would throw this out because they don't understand that, but I wouldn't know if that's how the politics work in academic physics. If it happens to be the case, you can make them stupid by asking them if Einstein thought lightspeed varied. I did that to a freshman who wouldn't believe me about null pointers being 'nullified' as a good idea (I'm more of a computer science person than physics) Just like time (assumed to be constant by Newton) was found to be relative, I think it would only really make sense if light (and pretty much everything else) also was at some level. Keep up the research. If the model matches the typical redshift observations, my bets are that you are definitely on to something fundamental. Just keep in mind that a 'singularity,' in math, is just a point where the model breaks down, and lots of models may have singularities and that's ok as long as we understand that. I think it's funny how I have a friend who majored in physics and I never took a single physics college class, and he doesn't even know how to start talking with me about physics.
Simply return to the time after you paid tuition but before your attendance began for your full refund for their not predicting developments after your matriculation was to be end at some future time now past.
It could be true that the universe is static, but there is still the expansion of the light. If it is at a certain distance then it did have a start time. So there is still the question of what started our observable universe.. consciousness?
It did not start, it has always been there, that is infinity and this is what this absolutely correct theory is saying, The Universe is infinite, it was always and will always be. There was no Big Bang
The speed of light doesn’t change. The rate of time changes and the measure of distance changes… which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it *over great distances.* Time runs faster in outer space where there is no matter and much less gravity. This is the reason the outer spiral arms of the galaxies move much faster than expected. It’s because events take place at a faster rate the less gravity there is. Time doesn’t run at the same rate everywhere in the universe. Time runs faster in outer space. It just dawned on me the other day that a thousand years and a single day happen at the same time in different places in the universe. It's simple (observed) general relativity. Time slows down and distance is contracted because of gravity where there is a lot of matter. Conversely, time speeds up and distance is expanded where there is no matter in outer space. This eliminates the need for dark matter since time is sped up in the outer spiral arms of a galaxy where there is not nearly as much matter. It eliminates the need for dark energy where space is expanded in outer space where there is no matter. So the result of general relativity is that billions of years pass by in outer space (13 billion years) at the same time as thousands of years pass by where we are inside of the Milky Way galaxy. ...! Billion of years and mere thousands of years are the same thing *at the same time* in deep outer space and where we are, according to physics and according to relativity. In review, time slows down where we are. Time speeds up with less gravity so the outer spiral arms of galaxies move faster. There is no need for dark matter. Distance increases where there is no matter in outer space. There is no need for dark energy to expand space since the expansion of space is from not having any matter far away from the galaxies. Deep time (billions of years) and thousands of years exist simultaneously in this universe where there is no single rate of time or measure of distance! Just think what could be the reality when the photons register with our eyes or our cameras/detectors and there is a collapse of the wave function as seen or detected by us within our dilated time and distance. Conclusion: The time it took for Creation and since Creation in the Bible is absolutely true! Time itself is a (real) fabrication.
U are correct that the nearness of mass affects the SOL. It also affects the speed of em radiation. The speed of em radiation affects many processes, ie it affects the ticking of many processes. But it does not affect time. Nothing affects time. What most of us call time is simply ticking, not time. But now i come to your real error. U assume that the ticking of gravitational processes are affected similarly to the ticking of em processes. No. Gravity is due to the acceleration of aether flowing into matter, where aether is annihilated. The speed of gravity is at least 20 billion c. Hence there is little that the cosmos can do that appreciably affects gravity, or the ticking of gravitational processes, eg orbits etc.
@@atheistaetherist2747 You need a grid to understand the differing rates of time and measures of distance. The speed of light is slower where gravity is stronger because there is more distance and a slower rate of time where there is more gravity.
@@JungleJargon Yes, i agree that GTR for example gives the full 1.75 arcsec of bending near the Sun. But, Einstein's reasoning was wrong. The bending (& the slowing) of light is not due to gravity. But i am being praps too semantic. Einstein links the bending (& slowing) to the gravitational potential, ie to the escape velocity. And that indeed gives the correct numbers. I understand the differing rates of time in GTR, & the differing measures of distance. I made an Excel that verified the bending near the Sun. I can send it to u if u like. But all of that GTR stuff is nonetheless nonsense.
@@atheistaetherist2747 If can get the same results you must be defining things differently. The result is the same. It could be semantics. It took me a while to understand general relativity and if you have another explanation with the same results it might take me a while to understand what your terms are.
@@JungleJargon No, i do have another explanation for slowing & for bending, but the Excel that i referred to used the GTR explanation, ie the 2 of them, ie dilation of time as a scalar, & contraction of length as a vector.
I am open to all possibilities on concerning red shift / dark energy.. A quantised variable spatial scale put into more classical mechanical terms would be +ve charge quanta (balls / cells) close-packed by -ve electro-gas. Matter-energy field and wave medium. All matter is made from positrons (out of place cell) and electrons (-ve gas left behind). Higher concentrations of gas means higher concentrations of cells, but (inward) flow velocity (acceleration) can be an added stretch factor.. -- This allows for extremely gradual intergalactic and galaxy-wide charge density gradients, as well as steep stellar and black hole gradients, with an exponentially steep gradient from the (vibrating) boundary to the focal point of each Proton and Neutron. Incrasingly stretched shells with max-packed core cells forming the hard, massive core. -- In this model free electrons and positrons vibrate which disrupts the inward flow force. They are roughly 99% electric energy, 1% mass energy. When 2 positrons bind to 1 electron to form a Proton the result is 1/3 electrical energy, 2/3 mass energy, with 3 particles added together. 1836 times heavier than one positron or electron, but only the same electrical energy as 1 positron or electron. -- The question of expansion is interesting. The model means an UNBOXED SPHERE COULD GROW as more matter forms due to each particle attracting -ve gas away from voids. that expand.. A boxed universe would stay the same size but the gradients will be steeper..If expansion occurs it could take ages and be ongoing. However, even in an unboxed sphere, it could be the case that the sphere stays the same size too, and essentially is a box.
Also. the idea of a 'variable speed of light' in a charge-quantised but variable sized cell wave medium is confusing. Should the light absolutely travel at the same speed, or travel from cell to cell in a FIXED, ABSOLUTE TIME? If this is the case there could be an absolute clock, which could explain some quantum phenomena... -- I don't really buy this fixed time idea but it's interesting. I'm not sure if it can really explain red shift without some form of 'cell skipping' going on. The problem with a variable speed is each photon in the a collection has to slow down more than the one in front to preserve the equal distance required by Red Shift? I think.. Confirmation one way or another would be helpful. Without this you'd get bunched up light (blue shift), or simply no shift.
Do 'Tired Matter' theories exist where older stars get redder..... Yep, it's even predicted for our sun - but I was thinking in terms of number of galaxies passed through, which could be wrong; Perhaps stars were simply redder in the past?... Perhaps matter was 'more tired' (vibrating slower) when the universe was younger?.. and perhaps both expansion and contraction happened as a form of 'Dark Gravity'... It think that's the basics covered of some of the consequences and other possible explanations.. I missed 'Shrinking Universe' that we can only see a tiny slither of, shrinking to Greater and Greater attractors... ANY MORE!?
When Unzicker talks about the variable speed of light what he really means is the slowing of light over time as it travels through space. He hypothesises that this could be due to the effect of gravity but personally I am not convinced of this though I am certain that light does indeed slow down and this explains redshift. I had this concept about 6 or 7 years and it works so well that it cannot not be correct. There is no data to support it. But think about this; where is the data to support Einstein's generally accepted assertion that the speed of light is constant, even between moving gravitational frames of reference, which is what Special is based upon. Could we measure the speed of light from different sources in the universe? I doubt it.
The first support to the slowing down of the speed of light is the redshift of light from distant stars. It is an observed fact. That there are other hypotheses like expansion of the universe does not mean that the redshift does not support the hypothesis of variable speed of light.
It has always seemed weird to me to, in one hand, claim a variance in the gradient of spacetime in response to gravity and, in the other, insisting that the speed of massless particles (aka speed of light), that is said to result from the very nature of the fabric of spacetime, remain the same. Am I missing something, professor?
@@gamerfortynine Well, I can understand as much (I think), that is standard relativity. From what I collect from the explanation for the universal speed limit is that it is a consequence of the structure of spacetime itself, that perhaps at the smallest indivisible level space is composed of plank-scale quantum of volumes, that photons traverse in quantized hops. But relativity postulates spacetime stretches and contracts in response to the presence of gravitational sources. If so how can this speed limit remain constant? Also the proven theory of gravitational lensing states that light bends in the presence of strong gravitational masses. How can that reconcile with its speed being unaffected? I am talking here about quantities in local inertial frameworks and not in relation to distant observers.
@@danieladmassu941 Well, I would say that the speed of light says something about the density of the medium through which light travels and that the lensing effect is evidence that mass increases the density of that medium. Think of a car driving down the road at a constant speed when the tyres on the left side encounter a puddle of water. The wheels on the right maintain their speed but the ones on the left slow down causing you to veer left, right? I think it is the same with photons. The side of the photon closest to the mass experiences a dragging force causing it to veer slightly in that direction. So, yeah. :)
Sub-quantum particulates exist in Dark Energy (Aether) and those "2" levels of the electrino and the smaller graviton have their own photino, of less-than-light speed velocity and smaller energy. This -IS- the only variable light speed definition versus photons that have (and maintain) full ight speed - whether flying free or flying and bypassing a gravitational object, having gravitational lensing - AND THE PHOTON DOES NOT SLOW DOWN as Einstein (or you ?) say. The direct flight path of the photon is diverted, and slightly longer, but the photon is always retains its light speed velocity. Thus, only the sub-quantum particulates can only exist in Dark Energy as the Aether -- which negates the video title as not existing,
@DSUM it’s ok, no need to apologize. I promise I’ll read it if i can find it. I’m compiling references to all alternative concepts of the origin of gravity.
@@TheMachian Well but it wouldn't matter if you don't share the same view, what I think is at the crux of the matter is to communicate that there are alternative cosmologies that deviate from the mainstream and therefore do not receive funding or research grants.
Putting a different twist on this topic, the speed of light can be calculated from the permeability and permittivity of the vacuum. Who's to say that these "constants" did not vary with the evolution of the universe? I've always disliked the inflationary model since it implies that the very fabric of space-time "inflated". Could it be possible that permeability and permittivity were quite different during that epoch?
Where even this idea gets tricky is that gravity waves have been shown to travel at the same speed as light (LIGO experiment). I don't know of any equation for the speed of gravity waves or for that matter one that depends in any way on the permittivity or permeability of the vacuum.
what makes you believe that the two constants, permeability and permittivity, are actually correct? Or actually play any part in Lights propagation? As far as I can see, these constants, and most other Physics constants are just math fudges.
@@everythingisalllies2141 C=1/sqrt(epsilon_nought X mu_nought) and this begs the question, why should gravity wave propagation velocity have anything to do with electrical constants??? As far as the question of e0 and u0 being correct, they have been measured to many decimal places LOCALLY but there's no way to say that these constants were "correct" in the epoch before and during inflation. So, the authors point is well taken. The constants are somehow the result of the fabric of local space-time. Space-time was in flux during "inflation" so it would seem to follow that any constants that are a function of this "fabric" could be variables and not constants during inflation.
@@chestercurtis7548 I don't think you understand what Im getting at. Mu and epsilon are NOT measures of the properties of "free space". They are NOT measuring ANYTHING related to "space", because space is not an object that can have a property. What they are measuring is how easily or hard it is for an electric or magnetic field to still influence another object, (the measuring apparatus) at a distance, where no physical matter can be influencing the result. They are measuring the magnetic field, and the electrical field, which is also NOT an object. "the field" is not a physical object, its just a series of measured values of locations in a defined region surrounding a magnet or an electrical source. So you should classify these measures at certain distances as "constants" whose values can be inserted into other equations. At what precise separation distance is the value of MU true? How about Epsilon? My point is (and others elsewhere have pointed out the issues) is that all these scientific terms, such as Kg, Amp, etc are all relying on each other for validity. Much of it is circular reasoning. The Planck constant for example is just another math fudge to allow conversion between different standards, yet its referred to as if it were a magic physical entity that has properties. The Kibble balance relies on a whole set of other assumptions and standards. But beyond all that is the massive problem that should you believe that Einstein is correct, then all these measure standards are invalid. Why? Because all our scientific standards demand consistency of these three properties: Time, Mass and Distances. But as you believe Einstein, then you can't have such constancy. No one can claim to be stationary, or to claim to be inertial. Your second is not the same second I experience. So you cant be intellectually honest and accept Einstein AND also any Science that uses the second, Meter and Kilo as stable measures. Its one or the other, not both. And what the hell is "the fabric of Spacetime"? Please show me where I can find a sample of this "fabric", as I want to weigh it, see how hard it is, and how malleable, how dense it is..... You see, you have reified a concept, and in the case of the concept called "spacetime" its a particularly stupid concept. Because Space is simply the regions between objects, where no other objects exist, and Time is simply the observance of the relative motions of objects. So its IMPOSSIBLE to unite the two, and think its some new physical entity that can be curved by the nearby presence of some massive object. Its all nonsense.
@@everythingisalllies2141 Reasonable argument. I have the same concern regarding the "presence" of quantum fields for every known particle somehow permeating the "fabric of spacetime". The very reason that I believe that spacetime IS somehow a "thing" is that the speed of light and the speed of propagation of gravity waves is the same yet gravity does not interact at all with electromagnetic properties that govern the "local speed of light" (other than so called gravitational warping of spacetime which if not a "thing" cannot possibly be warped). So, light (photons) and gravity waves (gravitons?) are causing ripples in some common "stuff" like ripples in a pond which propagate at the same speed whether caused by an earthquake, or a rock hitting the surface. They used to call it the "ether". In classical physics wave propagation velocity is related to density of the medium. When two completely ununified (for now) properties like the speed of light and the speed of gravity waves match, I'd say that there's density at play. For now I think they call that the "energy of the vacuum".
Conspansion FTW. If the universe is "expanding" at light speed, then what is the speed of light (from a bulb) relative to the expanding edge of the universe? It makes just as much sense to suppose the bulb is contracting at rate "C", and its ambient images are static, overlapping with other such images and parallel-processed to create "force at distance". If you haven't read the CTMU, you're already on the right track of thinking.
So we are living in an "on average" static universe? Static "forever"? On average? What stops local perturbations from positive feedback loops? They never happen, or what? How do you explain extremely uneven matter distribution, hopefully in a better way than the Inflation hypothesis? With that said, I'd love it if this VSL thing could be used to reduce at least some of this late Star Wars physics.
If there's no expansion in the Universe, so what's Dark Energy good for? And also... Its only a length scale, that contracts but not the physical distance itself. This happens, if you measure length on a time base with a constant signal speed like with light or radar beams. You don't have such a constant signal speed in VSL. Now you assume the redshifts would come from a VSL and therefore the movement of light can't be constant in the vacuum of the whole universe. The movement of light *is* constant in the whole universe, but for the measurement of it's speed, we need clocks and clocks are influenced by speed. The faster we move with our clocks, the higher would become our measured light speed. The red shifts are there, because light diffracts while it moves through the plasma of galaxies or galaxiy clusters. Seeing Red, Halton Arp. And we don't see more of the universe every new day. At some point we'll notice, that the CMB blocks our sight - light from stars and galaxies far far away is defracted to CMB on its way toward us. The night isn't that black as we can see it with our human eyes. It's very very dark red and you'll see this, if you analyse some deep field photos made by Hubble or Webb telescopes.
It has always seemed to me that Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and an expanding universe were supremely silly, and without any sense, and without any mechanisms which could support these things. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS, HOW FAR AWAY THE GALAXIES ACTUALLY ARE!
Discrete quantum systems have zero total entropy. Any observation upon such a system "collapses" it into a classically oriented system with non-zero entropy, namely by "ignoring" one or more particles in the system. See Ron Garrett's paper or lecture (on YT) "Quantum Mysteries Disentangled". The term "expansion" isn't even wrong when describing the universe.
I was very into astrophysics until I got into college. When I started learning more advanced stuff I don;t want to say I didn't accept it because it didn't make sense to me, but rather, that it didnt' seem to have internal consistency. This whole thing of inflation is much more galling to me than dark matter. C is inviolable, except that one period of time it wasn't?! Dark Matter seems to me to be more a problem that gravity behaves differently at larger scale? Perhaps there is strong and weak gravity the same way there is the strong and weak nuclear force. Or that our frame of reference is not penetrating the time dilation affects of gravity they way we think it is at larger displacements of space time. Either way Ochams razor is not being applied here.
Imagine a grenade goes off in space. After a very short period of time, the shrapnel has organized itself so that from the perspective of any piece, the most distant pieces are all moving away at the fastest speed. After the initial acceleration, all objects are not accelerating.
Why does a photon travel at C ? Making the speed of light variable defeats the purpose of the calculations in the first place. It is a relativity point. Photons' accelerate from zero to the speed of light from the proton depth in our weight space, using the standard model of general relativity we get 300,000,000 meters per second from a depth of 10C^3 Or an implied acceleration of 1.1111111111111111111111111111111e-20 meters per meter traveled. caused by an dark energy tensor from the proton weight to photon weight. (1c/10c^3) (Edit: Based on the latest Higgs Velocity thinking, I should change the above to 1c/10c or .1 meters per meter but we haven't proved the removal of the other two superposed spaces is valid as yet) I.E. The Sun exhibiting light. General Relativity says that photon will travel at C even if the space is compressed. I.E. If it takes ten seconds to cross a space , it will still take 10 seconds if the space is compressed. Electrical resistance and capacitance is an example, or the speed of light modified by the cables time dilation ratio which we call resistance is how long the cable needs before the electron potential is visible at the far end. To say "Just make the speed of light variable" defeats the ground those observations are made from. Space can only replenish itself at the speed of light, is also an observational reality, because of permanent wormholes and "low density" plasma bubbles we have created using radium and high temperature experiments leaving exotic particle bubbles all over the Earth.
The universe is not expanding. It is expanded in outer space where there is no matter and it is contracted by the matter in a galaxy and it’s super massive black hole. Time also speeds up in outer space where there is no matter and time slows down where there is matter.
Time is a constant. It doesn't change, that will be a consequence of this theory when it is fully worked through. Unzicker adores Einstein, as do I, but both theories of relativity were almost entirely wrong.
Thank for the presentation Dr. Unsicker. A question comes to mind and I wonder if you could offer a comment: Would all masses in the universe not still be acting on one another, and thus accelerating toward one another? If, as in the Zwicky quote, there is no evidence for the attraction of galaxies, why not? How could they remain stationary?
@@Arag0n Ok, that answers one question but raises another. How long has light been travelling through the infinite universe? If for only a limited amount of time, why? If forever, why is there a limit to the observable universe? Or perhaps isn't there, and our telescopes just need to improve? The prospect of an alternative formulation that reduces the number of free parameters is very attractive, especially if it can get rid of the dark fudge summands (dark matter and energy). Incidentally, these aren't my questions, they arose naturally before the paradigm shift to big bang cosmology.
@@Arag0n Possibly, so you mean that the observable universe is just the sum of all light that is able to reach us without losing energy to the point of disappearance? Would this also be an explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation? That's testable, is it in the right wavelength range? Shouldn't the most distant and dim light we see be in the longest wavelength (relative to us) range?
@@karlheber23 pretty much, microwave radiation background is just low energy light, so we might be looking into what lays beyond not the start of the universe. Again, I'm not an astrophysicist, just saying what would be the explanation if indeed, universe doesn't expand nor contract. It's up to real scientist to decide if that model makes more sense than current one.
Brilliant point about the acceleration-intelligent life coincidence being an artefact of an improbable model. Do you remember the quote about whether there is alien life, or not, both ideas are equally terrifying? You must take into account the psychological dimension. A population raised on a Big Bang picture will be terrified by the prospect of an eternal fixed universe, since the former model seems to be nature showing us an answer to everything scientifically, whereas the latter model leaves us with nothing but mystery without any possible measurement or comsmological model that could tell a story about humans discovering God. This will be like a social bomb if it ever replaced the Standard Model in the mandatory public schools, and will be opposed by every major religion, including dialectical materialists and otherwise vanilla Darwinians, as well as by the common people. There is only so much hopeless mystery any society can take without sending it straight back into the chaos of paranoid superstition. Without an overarching process political authorities and scientific experts can point to that we intend to explain what is thought to be observed cosmological change from the simple to the complex, every localized process will be considered suspect too. Perhaps a middle path could allow for reasonable new research paths to proceed without distrupting the status quo -- i.e. there is a variable speed of light and there is also expansion (but less) simultaneously, and, therefore, an older cosmos that makes a little more sense.
@Vornamed Nachnamed Yes, it's a story that necessarily transcends the rational, scientifically, by definition, but at least it points to a process that can be understood teleologically should a society choose or require such a picture in order to function constructively. A static universe, on the other hand, is more peculiar and subverts human expectations of there being evolutionary states overarchingly in nature in the manner of a fractal, as opposed to cosmic eternity juxtaposed to local flux in the direction of complexity. It's deeply troubling.
Variable speed of light? or constant speed? Can I ask what is actually doing the "speeding"? Dont say a Photon, as that is only a component in a conceptual MODEL of Light. Photons do not exist in reality. Please don't get stupid and ask "what is real?". So what is doing the moving with Light that we measure as its speed?
Much simpler than that. No need for dark matter if you take electromagnetism and magnetohydrodynamics into account. After all - it's 10-to-the-39th more powerful than gravity. AND, we've already detected it, and understand an awful lot about it, and don't need to bend any "laws."
the universe cannot be just 14 billion years old. that's what I affirm, now to prove it, it's gonna be something else but well. look, it's 3am i stop here.
Do you know why light has a variable speed is the question. I DO! Presence of a mass increase or decreases the speed of light. But how does it do this? I KNOW! DO YOU? LET ME EXPLAIN IT TO YOU MR. UNZICKER!
@@simonhawkins386 Kind of. Photaenos propagate away from the central body of the photon. The speed of the propagation is slowed by congestion due to other photaenos. This congestion is greater near mass. Koz, mass is bottled light (Jeans). The slowed photaenos feed that slowing back to the main central helix body of the photon -- the photon slows. Yes -- aetheric friction.
speed of light is not and could not be constant, that what i was told decades ago and repeat over and over on the internet, but there are morons who say opposite... so guys DO YOUR MAT AGAIN from very beginning ...
3:13 Excuse me, if the wavelength decreases, isn't that a blue shift? What am I misunderstanding? 5:13 If we take a picture of the universe as far away as possible, and then do it again, if we start seeing objects disappear, wouldn't that demonstrate the expansion of the universe? If it's just a question of variable speed of light, the farthest objects would never wink out of existence. So, demonstrating this claim should be extremely easy, no? 9:25 Typo in Zwicky's year of birth.
@@phildurre9492 No, I disagree. You'd see them in different stages even over s ahort period of time. Remember, the way current cosmology has it, we are mnoving away faster from each other the farther away we are. So...
This is of course beautiful. But I have been through this movie before. You are correct and have done more of the Maths than I did, and it all just falls out neatly doesn't it. But when are you going to say it ? There was no Big Bang. You have the answer to Hubble's riddle, he never believed in the Big Bang either. But this opens a whole world of problems which are going to have to be dealt with. It will totally change Physics, no more string theory for example, it will all become much simpler and so many careers will be destroyed. Are you ready for that, I wasn't. So for starters Special Relativity is wrong, based on a false premise. So does E=mc2? I very much doubt it, though there are alternative proofs in Nelkon & Parker. And if there was no Big Bang, what about the CMBR and the evidence that provides. You will have to deal with that, but don't worry, I have been there done that, not particularly difficult. BTW why is the sky blue? think you will find that needs some attention as well.
there is no speed of light, light is not emmitted, it is transmitted, it's a rate of induction through a medium, change the medium from a vacuum to glass, the rate changes... nothing is moving, photons don't exist, they are units of measurement... it's like saying sound travels by soundtons... something cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time... this is a contradition of logic. particles don't exists they are standing waves created by high energy light from black holes... it's already been proven that high energy light forms neutrons, which decompose into protons and electrons in 14 minutes after they are created.... everything is made of light, light is energy, energy, not mass, something that can make mass or move it, something that does anything, something that has power and influence on the ultimate foundation of this reality, the fundemental medium of which light travels: the Aether... Check out the worls of TESLA if youy think I am full of nonesense. I am not saying I understand the ultimate foundations of reality but he did invent the modern world.
How do physicists know that it's the universe that's expanding though rather than the field of photonic energy itself? Of course: Where would it expand to? and the answer can only be: To the creation of new stars and planets.
It is illogical to assume that the speed of light is a constant. Think of a photon as a comet, it will speed up as it aproaches a massive object and slow down as it leaves. It will travel for an eternity unless it crashes into an object and create heat. That heat is also created when it hits your eye and skin and are also the reason in leaves a pattern on a photograf. Think about the fact that light is invisible all the time until it actually hit something! If you could see light perpendicular from it's travel, everything would just be a constant white blur and the evolution of eyes would never have occured! Back to the speed of light. All light we see inside a space ship therefor is slowed down because it is leaving a massive object but increased when we stand on a massive object like the planet earth. Through out history people have created "proof" for their theories that defy logic and at the moment it is dark energy and matter that is a creation om desparation to "prove" an faulty theory.
Well as there is no such object as a Photon, (its an imaginary component of a conceptual MODEL of light, and that model is very poor) so no, a "Photon" wont act like a ball of matter which behaves according to Newtons laws of Kinematics. So try again. If we claim that a photon acts in accord to kinematic laws for massive bodies, then we MUST also say that any Photon MUST accelerate from zero to its final velocity, and also experience deceleration as it passes a planet, and also can never actually travel in a straight trajectory. But is you accept these conclusions, then 100% of Einstein's theories about Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong. Hint, Einstein's theories are wrong, but not because of this contradiction about a photon having mass.
@@everythingisalllies2141 There are no such thing that does not have mass. That would imply magic. I can maybe agree that photons does not exists. Quantum spin can prove that. Together with the fact that light is invisible and you can only see the effects of it's interactions with other matter. If light had mass wouldn't the need for eyes be unnecessary, since everything would be obscured by light mass. Maybe gravity is the mass of quantum spins instantaneous energy transfer. Like electricity is not conducted by the wire but outside of it in proximity of it. Thus the further the distance the less energy transfer. That would make the red shift the resistance of the transfer. A larger object would heat up due to the resistance of transfer to smaller objects. A black hole would be an object that have ceased to transfer quantum spin with other objects.
@@mossig you are mixing up actual objects and real forces in with make believe imaginary concepts and fantasies. There's no way you can figure out Physics with that mix. Yes, nothing can exist physically unless it has mass. But something that exists can have a property of energy, which cant manifest without the parent object. Magnetism is a real energy, but it cant manifest without a real magnet. Light cant exist on its own, it must have a parent source, and I also think it also requires another mass to act as a receiver, like, to complete the circuit. "Quantum spin" is fantasy. Everything Quantum is fantasy. There is no such cosmic entity as a Black Hole, all such talk and even pictures are fraud. The "black hole" is only a result of bad Math equations, it exists in Math alone, and only due to the math issue of infinity not being defined. There can be no such thing a "instant energy transfer". Every physical process occurs step by step, so there is always delay involved. We call that unfolding of processes, time. FIrst this happened, which made that happen, next that made that happen, and that sequence is time passing. So Time is NOT a physical process itself. not some sort of energy, it cant make things happen. Its absolutely not part of some magical place called "SpaceTime". There is only one "dimension" we call it "the Universe". In it, we take measurements using any convenient method. One such method is called "cartesian coordinates", which is commonly called 3Dimensions. There is no possibility that the Universe has less or more than these 3 dimensions. Time is NOT a Dimension. Its a comparison of relative motion of objects that have a repetitive nature.
@@everythingisalllies2141 At one time it was believed that the earth revolved around the sun was also fantasy. Magnetism is also invisible. You can only feel it, it does not glow like light does when it interacts with an object. Like a planet reflects light so does a piece of iron transfer magnetism even if it's not magnetic in it self. If there are no photons there should not be anything that transfer magnetism as well.
Наука
Thank you. I have always felt like the preconceived notion that we have to find dark matter, dark energy, describe why the expansion is speeding up faster and faster.. just has gotten us no where in many years now. Science has been at a stand still. I was hoping more people would be like you and think "hey maybe we should reassess how we look at this? Maybe we are getting it all wrong and we are digging ourselves a deeper and deeper hole that doesn't have any answers because it's not the right perspective? " I'm just glad your channel and mind is even open to considering that. I appreciate your channel and just subscribed.
Actually, scientists reassess things all the time. Dark energy is still a hypothesis, and every scientist understands this, hence the name "dark" meaning 'unknown, undiscovered'. No one keeps you from publishing alternative ideas and proving something new.
I agree. This whole dark matter/energy thing has always been a preconceived 'fact'. Mainstream scientists talk about it as if it is an established theory, just without any proof. In my untrained opinion a type of matter so prevalent as to account for more than 90% of the gravitational masses of galaxies should be readily apparent for investigative proof. For example in our own solar system every orbit of bodies within the system is accounted for using classical and relativistic mechanics, without the need for any other exotic source of gravitational attraction. How come such a necessary and supposedly prevalent gravitational source be absent from anywhere?
Well they've been doing it that's why MOND theories even exist
It's just that with time the unseen particle explanation has been found to be much more favourable wrt new evidence
This explanation does seem to be new though. But doesn't mean scientists are so dogmatic
Edit: nvm, VSL theories are old and haven't found much favour with evidence either
I had a conversation with a 20-year old the other day who stated that 'Dark Energy and Dark Matter are facts and are proven, as everybody knows.' - This attitude is, of course, because of the media.
This guy didn't even understand the term 'red shift'.
@@allesindwillkommen No, the term "dark" just means that it does not interact with electromagnetism.
Dr Mike McCulloch, Quantised Inertia explains away dark energy, have you seen his work? It is based on the Casimir effect and the idea of an event horizon of Relativity.
I find your lectures facinating and thought provoking. Thank you very much for your wonderful channel.
amd completely full of crap. his basic understanding of ligfht is flawed and you know what they say.... bad data in, bad data out. Plus we DO NOT see the light we only see the illumination. they are not the same. It is impossible to see the light.
This guy is really good. I was really skeptical of him at first but now I fully agree with his criticizm of those current strange cosmology theories!
How can you say „agree“ in the context of an objective science like physics? You can „agree“ on the outcome of a calculation if both of you got the same result. But „agreeing“ with unmotivated guesses like „dark energy is wrong“ or even „dark energy is correct“ exceeds what an individuum (even a sceptic one) can afford. Just stick to the data, nobody asks for interpretation.
@@tomfritz2431 You expect me to get some cosmological data to verify his claim? That is a lot to ask on a video sharing site.
I expect you to do the opposite: have no „opinion“ on something you can not judge.
@@tomfritz2431 I expect you to learn some manners in your kindergarten.
I love your work very much. Dont understand them very well but they give a lot new entrance points to discover science. Gonna rewatch them lots of times. Thanks.
What about also watching videos from real (established) physicists? Might be the better choice.
@@tomfritz2431 like who
Basically everything but this channel and related ones (that is flat earth and other conspiracy theory)
@@tomfritz2431 Right...
Excellent video.
We have an observation that places the universe as being younger the further we look from us. This suggests that the universe is expanding very slowly when I look at the double vortex model with the two vortexes being made of quantum dots. This is to say that something set off the timing of galaxies to be made at nearly the same time and in all directions from us we see younger and younger galaxies as we look back in time (ie, distance). Even though I am a proponent of photon drag to explain red shift, I also like to add possibilities to the list, this one didn't make my list. I do however agree with the idea that variable speed works with density of material that light is traveling through. But again, for that one, I would have to go with a different reason for the speed dif.
I don't remember a single moment in history when mainstream thinking was right regarding controversial subjects.
I don't know if this theory is more accurate, but makes much more sense to me.
And I say "accurate" and not "right" because there are not theories that are right, there are theories that work better than others and that's it. None describe (or could do) the "truth" about how the Universe works, and none ever will do. They are all "models" that make approximations that can be used in practice. They are just useful.
God's the ONLY truth. Science will never go against God's word
@@parkertheprophet True, but what does that has to do?
And as you touched the subject, also in religion mainstream was never right in history (and not now).
And the reason is very simple: it is the god of this world who manages de information (actually the propaganda).
well said sir, all physical theories are simplified closed systems with defined limits of applicability that enable us to do engineering, they are not and never will be a complete description of the totality of reality. Furthermore some things are just unknowable.
Many scientists these days fail to understand this point and seem to think that their theories actually create the reality they claim to describe. Then they go searching for proof by filtering noise through computer algorithms that assume the theory to be true and ignoring any anomalous observations.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
I'm by no means an expert in physics and cosmology, but I've always felt when reading about cosmology and its models that science is becoming more and more religious, a faith based approach where any alternate theory/explanation is fervently shot down.
If we accept the variable speed of light then do we need to also accept that magnetic permeability and electric permittivity are also variable, since by Maxwell's Equations speed of light = 1/(magnetic permeability * electric permittivity)^(1/2), ?
Also, should we assume that the speed of light [and magnetic permeability and electric permittivity] was different at the time of the “Big Bang” than now?
Also, do you propose a function which describes the rate of change of the speed of light over time?
See my video on VSL and Maxwell's equations.
How much Dark Energy is there?
Precisely the amount that make my equation to balance, no more and no less.
If universe expands, relative to what does it expand? What becomes smaller relative to the universe?
I have another "theory". One that _also_ leads to a variable speed of light!
Length scales do not shrink, but _time_ runs faster and faster, as time passes. That is why we see a red shift from far away objects, because the farther away we look, the more we look into the past, and the slower time runs, the slower all processes occur, and therefore the more red-shift we see!
So, which is it, Mr. Unzicker?
I am working on a book about spacetime. I have been working on it on and off for the last 10 years, after I discovered the definition of time. This happened about 40 years ago, when I was a student of physics, and didn't find a proper definition of time in any of the textbooks. When I found my own definition I hadn't realized that it was new!
The reason why it took so long to start writing, is because when I finally realized that it was new, and I submitted a paper, it was rejected. The main reason was that it seemed to be in conflict with the special theory of relativity.
It took me about 30 years to resolve this issue. During that time I have investigated the special theory of relativity from all sides, and found a principle all laws of physics have to satisfy, which I am still working on.
In any case, I _did succeed_ to derive from my definition of time not only the Lorentz transformations, but even the three-dimensionality of space! I know _why_ space is three-dimensional!
I have _finally_ found the time and opportunity to write it all down!
My _real opinion_ on what Mr. Unzicker says, is that he has it wrong. He is the so-many'th physicist who is not able to 'see through' the equations, and confuses them with reality. It wouldn't surprise me that Mr. Unzicker believes also that he can know reality as it is. But I haven't seen enough of him to conclude that he hasn't understood Popper's solution to the Induction Problem.
Mr. Unzicker only looks at length scales. Strictly speaking, the Lorentz transformations already tell us that there is no such thing as length and time in an absolute sense. Philosophically speaking, the special theory of relativity is a much greater breakthrough than the general theory of relativity of Einstein. According to the special theory of relativity there is only 'spacetime'.
When I step into a rocket to travel to the Andromeda nebula with a constant acceleration that is large enough, I will succeed to reach that destiny in my lifetime, even though it is about one million light years away. When I am in that rocket I can 'explain' that, because I see the Andromeda nebula come towards me with an ever-increasing speed, so that the time to cover that immense distance becomes less and less according to the clocks on board. It becomes so small that I will reach the Andromeda nebula within my lifetime.
But an observer from earth explains my ability to reach the Andromeda nebula from looking with a (very, very powerful) telescope to the inside of my rocket, and he sees that time is running slower and slower, until he sees my time running so slow, that he understands I will reach the Andromeda nebula within my lifetime, even though I shall need to travel during more than one million years according to _his _ clock!
According to the state of development my theory about spacetime now, the speed of light must be _the only thing_ that _must be_ constant. It _must be_ constant, because the speed of light is _the fundamental thing_ from which both space and time follow!
To be exact. If we measure the speed of light to be constant in all directions, we are in an inertial frame of reference. When the speed of light _is not_ constant according to our measurements, we are in an _accelerating_ frame of reference. But the speed of light itself _is always constant!_ That is, constant in _any_ frame of reference that is either not accelerating or is not in a gravitational field, or is in a gravitational field whereby the frame of reference is falling.
Therefore, if it is indeed the case that the speed of light varies, this statement is equivalent to the universe either expanding or contracting. _Or_ time runs faster or slower, or any combination of this. These three magnitudes are not independent but are all connected. This means, that whether you say that the unit of measurement is shrinking _because_ the speed of light becomes faster, _or_ you say that time runs faster, but the distances remain the same and the speed of light is slowing dow, _or_ you say that the speed of light is constant, but the universe is expanding, all three statements are completely equivalent! It just depends on what you _choose_ to be the most fundamental magnitude.
In my theory I have chosen the speed of light to be the fundamental magnitude. And that is because from that I can explain why space is three dimensional, _and_ I can explain where the Lorentz transformations come from! Also, the speed of light is a fundamental magnitude, because it follows _directly from_ the Maxwell equations, while the choice of units of time and units of length are arbitrary. Therefore choosing the speed of light to be constant by definition is the most elegant choice to make.
I believe that spacetime is just an abstract concept and time is not a real dimension. We, humans, define what is time.
@@joseluisfernandez7117 If you understand Popper, then you also understand that you say NOTHING with this remark!
ALL our theories are based on abstract concepts which START as fantasies, which we then compare with our experiences.
If our concepts are NOT in violation of our experiences, the only thing we can say is that they are NOT WRONG! But we can NEVER say that something is a 'real' dimension, because we cannot observe reality 'as it is', but only as it APPEARS to us. (Quote from Immanuel Kant: 'Although all knowledge BEGINS with experience, it does not arise OUT OF experience.
Popper adds to this (after the big revolution of Gauss, Boljay, Lobatschewski, Riemann, and Einstein) that since all our theories begin as conjectures, which is just a fancy name for fantasies, they can never correspond to reality as it is.
As Popper said: no matter how many white swans you encounter, the sheer number of them will NEVER be enough to prove that the statement: 'All swans are white' is universally valid. But a SINGLE black swan is enough to REFUTE the universal validity of this statement.
So, you cannot prove the reality of ANY abstract concepts. They are all compactifications of experiences. This means that as long as you encounter NO black swan, and all the swans you have seen ARE white, you CAN say, that, as far as you know, all swans ARE white.
So, if you say that 'spacetime is just an abstract concept', you are saying NOTHING!
However, the very fact that you MAKE such a statement, shows that you have not put any serious thought into what it means if you say that 'something is just an abstract concept'. ALL the concepts we use begin as definitions WE make. That is not relevant What IS relevant, whether you can, on the basis of such definitions, DERIVE other statements which tell you what kind of experiences follow from them if you set up an experiment. That is, you try to find domains within which you can make predictions with certainty.
That is how we, although ALL our concepts are 'just inventions of the human mind' can be proved to be useful, because they can give us tools to create consequences, which then can materialize in all the technologies we can realize.
To gain a deeper understanding of this point. I suggest, read 'The Fabric of Reality' of David Deutsch. That book is a nice introduction to Popperian epistemology.
@@konradswart4069 You make an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy. And you have missed something that is fundamental as a result. 'Spacetime' _assumes_ the existence of energy. Right? In order for _any_ process of change to occur, there _must_ necessarily have been an exchange of energy. You would agree with that, I am sure? And therefore, without any energy, 'time' could not 'flow', could it? I mean, in order for something to flow, it must constantly change its configuration and any change in configuration requires an expenditure of some amount of energy. Right?
In a Universe devoid of energy, the concept of 'time' becomes meaningless. Without energy, a clock will not tick.
Personally, I think that this is where Physics went wrong. By postulating 'spacetime' we are actually referring to a particular configuration of energy whilst at the same time 'sidelining' the energy that 'permeates' it. As a result, we have developed a science that investigates 'spacetime' and how it interacts with energy. By doing so, we have come to _assume_ that the universe consists of a 4-dimensional spacetime _and_ a conserved quantity of energy and this distracts us from the fact that 'spacetime' itself represents an energy configuration and that this amount of energy is not being included in our assessment of how much energy there _is_ to be conserved.
So, we have this model that explains the behaviour of energy moulded by 4-dimensional spacetime and this has generated a huge amount of new mathematics which seems to hold true in the majority of situations. But why? Why does this theory not hold true in _all_ circumstances? I say it's because our assumptions are slightly off.
Think of 'buoyancy'. Theoretically, one could observe the phenomenon of 'buoyancy' and derive an entire mathematics and physics that relates 'displacement' and 'density' in relation to a 'real' force called 'buoyancy', i.e., there is a real force, 'buoyancy' which gives rise to 'density' and 'displacement'. And for boat-builders around the world, the theory would hold true, right? However, investigations into 'gravity' would introduce contradictions to the 'buoyancy theory'. It would soon be shown that 'buoyancy' is an 'effect' and _not a 'cause', right?
Similarly; by assuming that 'spacetime' moulds energy, we mischaracterize 'spacetime' as a cause when it's actually an effect. If our Physics assumed the existence of _only_ energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we would find that 'space' and 'time' are a bit like 'buoyancy' in that _their_ existence is underpinned by some missing part of the equation.
Just my two penneth. ;)
So, what's your definition of time?
@@juandiegoparales9379 Time is a different way to formulate change but is not the same as change. Time is _the dual of change!_
Have you ever noticed, that in all the laws of physics where time appears, it always appears in the denominator, as some form of dt? Speed for example, is given by
v =dr/dt.
acceleration
a = dv/dt = d2r/dt2.
Newton's basic law is
F = m (d2r/dx2)
My theory is: there is no such thing as a time independent of change. Time is a derived concept, derived from change in the following manner.
Look at the rotation of a second hand of a clock. Do we see seconds? _No!_ We see _a moving hand!_ We see a hand _that is rotating, therefore changing!_ We see an instance _of change!_
If a change is periodic, then, by definition, we see a change which, if we look' long enough, (which can either be extremely short or extremely long) we see that it consists of a series of states, to each of which it returns. (Changes with periods.)
If this happens regularly, we can use it as a basis for counting. And then we can compare those periodic changes with other periodic changes.
If we then compare the periodic change of a second hand with the periodic change of the earth turning around its axis, we can see that the change of a second-hand making a rotation happens 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 times _faster_ than the periodic change of the earth revolving around its axis.
But we can also formulate this differently. We can say that the rotation, or, precisely, the periodic rotational _change_ of the eart is 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 times _slower_ than the rotation = the periodic rotational _change_ of the second hand.
This causes me to introduce a new concept, which happens to be _exactly equivalent_ to the concept of time.
I can say, that _the slowness of change of the earth revolving around its axis is 86,400 times larger than the slowness of change of the second hand of a clock!_
You can also say that _the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate around its own axis is 86,400 times _*_larger_*_ than the amount of time it takes for the second hand to rotate once around its center of rotation!_
We can also say that we must _keep watching both the second hand of our clock and the rotation of the earth!_ We _count_ then the total number of the same rotational changes_ the second-hand makes around its axis of rotation needed for the earth to make just _one_ rotation. And this _waiting_ until the earth has finished one rotation we call _duration!_ But 'duration' is, psychologically speaking, nothing else as just 'waiting and counting' (and being bored!)
And this brings me to _my_ definition of time.
Time is _the slowness of change!_
You can also, say, that time is _the dual_ of change. Or time is _the reciprocal_ of change.
The relationship between change ant dime is quite simple.
If the amount of time needed for a process to change from state A to state B is, say, 5 seconds, then its corresponding _amount of change_ is 1/5 = 0.2 s^(-1) The change from state A to state B, by the way, doesn't have to be periodic.
Of course, this is only the case when we choose the second as our counting unit. That is, if we choose our counting mechanism some process we _define_ as the second. One can use _any_ periodic change as our basis of measuring change.
The point is, however, that time and change are not two different concepts but are juist _two ways_ to look at any process. One can look at processes in terms of how fast one is, compared to the oter, or how slow it is, compared to the other. We can speak of 'the fastness' of a process, or of 'the slowness' of a process. But both are just two equivalent ways to look at processes. As Aristotle said: 'time is a measure of change'. To which I add: 'time is a measure of _the slowness of change!_
If an object moves from A to B in 5 seconds, and another moves from A to B in 10 seconds, we can say that _the amount of time_ it took for the second object to move from A to B is 10 seconds, while the first needed 5 seconds. Therefore, one can say that the second object moved 2x slower than the first, and therefore it took it 2x the _amount of time_ to move from A to B compared to the first. So, the faster a process goes through different states, the less time it takes to 'move through' these states. Conversely, the greater the amount of time it takes some process to move from some beginning to some end state, (defined by us as beginning and end) the slower the process happens it consists of, when compared to our 'standard change', which is the 1/second.
That is why I say that time and slowness of change are the same.
There is nothing deeper than change!
Every-thing _consists of_ change!
This follows from the general form of Einstein's most general equation of special relativity, which is _not just_ E = mc^2, which, by the way, already implies that every-thing consists of energy = chage, but which is
E^2 = (cp)^2 + (mc^2)^2
So, to return to Newton's equation:
F = m(d2r/dt^2), it says that the amount of force imposed on an object with energy content m to have a change of change in its position, is equal to its energy content 'at rest, its mass', which is m times the change in change of position.
And since in _all_ fundamental equations of physics time appears as a denominator, what we are talking about _is not time!_ No, we are talking about _relationships between changes!_
From this deep consequences follow. For example, that the basis of metaphysics, as understood by philosophers, is not fundamental. Metaphysics asks: 'what _is!' But 'is-ness' _is not the most fundamental concept!_ Constancy is not fundamental.
_Change_ is fundamental!
_Change_ is the most fundamental concept! Laws of physics do not describe what the world *is*, but they describe _relationships between changes!_
Laws of physics describe _that what does not change in changes!_ Or _that what different kinds of changes _have in common!_ A 'thing' is nothing else than 'a change' that either changes so rapidly into itself, that we cannot follow the canges, _or_ it is a change that happens _so slowly_ that we cannot see it changing at all!
From this theory follows, that something like time machines that transport us into the past _cannot exist!_ This is because _there is no such thing as a really existing past!_
There is only _now and change!_ We can _observe_ 'the past' only by its remnants, by what it leaves behind. If we look at the Andromeda nebula, for example, we 'see' a picture of what it was a million years ago. We therefore _do not see_ its present existence. We can surmise that there must be something we can call 'the andromeda nebula' because we do not know of any reason to think that between now and the next million of years it takes the light to reach us which it is transmitting now, it will disappear. Therefore we can speak of the tremendous complex of changes we now call 'the Andromeda nebula' as some-thing existing _now!_
In the same way, we do not see any reason why our own galaxly would be gone after a million years. Almost all changes that 'make up' our galaxy are periodic, and there is no reason for such drastic changes to occur, as far as we know, that our galaxy would be gone in a million years.
And that is where the illusion of a 'really existing past and future' or an 'independently existing time, apart from change' comes from. We observe the effects reaching us of many periodic processes which happened in the past. And that is what the past _is!_ And our laws of nature are basically causal, if only because the particles of QM our matter consists of, have no reason to lose their coherence in change, so that they all explode. Rationally speaking, there are no reasons why those periodic processes would not exist a day, a week, a year, hundreds of years, thousands of years, or billions of years ago.
Any _real existence_ therefore consists _only_ of _presenty occuring processes!_ Be it periodic or non-periodic. Time, as a 'some-thing' existing independently of change, does not exist. In that sense, time itself is 'not real'.
A last thing. I can put the relationship between change and time in the following simple formula:
T = 1/S, whereby T stands for time, and S stands for change.
But since the speed of light is the fastest change in (linear) position possible, it is better to put c, the speed of light, into the numerator of this simple equation.
This leads to:
T = c/S.
And _that_ is then, in the end, _my_ definition of time!
I was 12 year old when I first heard of this theory, and it simply fascinated me. If the speed of light is variable (from the slowest speed of 300km/sec to infinity), then how much of problems in theoretical physics would it solve? Perhaps quantum mechanic needs to be re-calibrated to adopt the variability of light - perhaps, just perhaps, 11 dimensions of string theory is 11 different states of light. Just wondering...
So if I got this right... the universe isn't expanding; light is slowing, clocks are slowing, and astronomers are shrinking.
"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains two problems relating Electrodynamics and Cosmology. Problem 4-22 starts with: "In 1959 Lyttelton and Bondi [Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A, vol. 232, p.313] suggested that the expansion of the Universe could be explained on the basis of Newtonian Mechanics if matter contained a [tiny] net electric charge."
A follow-on problem, Problem 10-11, mentions that correction terms to curlB and divE due to the creation of this charge should be on the order of R^-2 where R is on the order of the radius of the Universe, so that the new terms would be negligible at all length scales but cosmological situations. This hypothesis is consistent with the linear velocity-distance observations.
Rather thought-provoking questions from an Undergraduate E&M textbook!
I feel like this idea has a lot of potential. How would you describe basic gravity though? the force that holds us down or causes us to fall, if masses do not attract each other? Could it possibly be electrical forces doing all the work all this time?
I agree with your thoughts on this subject. If the ridiculous "expansion" band-aid has to be accepted and we must face 96% of all energy unaccounted for, maybe it's because we are trying to make observations fit with a flawed and unproven base assumption.
It's funny to read that Unzicker wrote "Accelererated" because he was in a hurry.
only problem is that the presence of mass doesn't decrease the speed of light.
Super....!!
I suppose, if cosmological evolution is taken into account, I guess the variable speed of light idea does make sense. Light moves slower in glass and water, simply because it's bouncing between more atoms; surely, just after the Big Bang, light would have been moving slower for the same reason.
I'd want to know the expected angular distribution of galaxies by distance for the expansion theory versus the static model and then compare it to the deepest field available from JWST.
Is it kind of like how we see a illusion of bending light waves on the horizon when there is a hot surface? But obviously in a totally different manner
With an expanding universe your frequencies (energies) of photons decrease with stretching. Would the photon also lose energy because they are traveling from a more gravitationally dense place to a less gravitationally dense place? Are they climbing out of a gravitational well? Or are the two effects equivalent?
It depends what camp you are in. Mainstream physics that believe that light is affected by gravity say light gains energy as it falls into a gravity well and therefore blue shifts, and people that have read the "Extinction Shift Principle" generally believe that mater under high gravity has a timing slowdown giving light a blue shift.
It is peculiar how people can accept the "stretching" of photons but cannot wrap their head around the idea that they may lose energy traversing gravitational potential wells. They are not masses and do not have to behave like points of mass that do not lose kinetic energy if they have enough to escape the well after entering it.
The Machian concept of the collection of masses in the universe controlling the speed of light brings up the idea for a universal mass field where all the elementary masses are quantum localizations. This is like the field theory view of electromagnetism. The mass field would be bound with the space "fabric" and space may be an aspect of this field. Current science is stagnant and 100 year old theories are still being pushed like they are the final word. There are way too many basic questions these theories cannot answer for them to be any sort of final word.
Cosmology, circa 1900, included William MacMillan's idea that stellar radiation would be gradually absorbed into the ether, and used to create matter. The aim was to produce a stationary universe in which entropy does not increase to produce heat death.
In the 1930s, this idea was developed further by Walther Nernst who saw the discovery of the galactic redshift as something he had been actively seeking to avoid this fate - evidence of energy dissipation - and realized quantum energy loss would be associated with exponential decay of photon energy.
Although Nernst had been awarded a Nobel in 1921 for his work on low temperature physics and the concept of absolute zero, sometimes known as the third law of thermodynamics, his cosmological work may not have been given the attention it deserves.
Here is what Nernst had found about the redshift. It works out that all photons would lose an amount of energy, hH, per cycle. Fritz Zwicky noted this as well. This implies (from Planck's hypothesis) that electromagnetic radiation would be quantized with zero-point energy, hH/2. The significance of the Hubble constant is that it would be the natural frequency of a quantum harmonic oscillator.
I expect Nernst would have seen the zero-point energy as a superfluid. He won the 1921 Nobel for his work on low temperature physics sometimes known as the third law of thermodynamics. In his view, the zero-point energy would form a well of potential energy from which photons and matter are created and recycled, somehow getting around the second law, and avoiding the heat death of the universe, which was a problem for the cosmology of the day. The quantum structure would be the same with or without heat death.
The zero-point energy may form a kind of compressible ether which is the underlying basis for gravitation and its influence on light.
Let Hubble's law be given by c d / D = H x, c is speed of light, d is change in wavelength, D is wavelength, H is Hubble's constant, x is distance traveled by photon. The energy of the photon at the source is h c / D, h is Planck's constant. After traveling a distance x = D + d, the energy falls to h c / (D + d), losing hH in the process which results in the observed exponential decay of photon energy, interpreted as "tired light".
@@rheticus5198 Conrad Ranzan's DSSU theory explains tired light, & explains why no heat death.
I think u're right and I'm writing something that is leading to a static universe that seems to be in contrast with the actual model of the universe and I found an interesting relation to explain the Lorentz factor. The point is how to write Einstein field equations expressing G as a function of the mass and the radius of the universe? Please let me know any suggestion I can't really wait. It's very exciting this idea
Actually, gravitation both increases and decreases the speed of light. The Pound Snider experiment concluded that it was the same exact effect as a mass falling. So the light's speed will actually increase as it approaches a massive object and will decrease as it leaves the massive object the same exact way that if you shot a bullet towards the earth the bullet's speed would increase as it approached earth, but if you shot the bullet straight up in the air, it would slow down as it traveled away from earth's surface. So gravitational accelerations directly affect light the same way they effect material objects. This means that light that leaves a star end ends up being observed on earth must necessarily be red shifted because the star has a much greater mass than earth and this greater mass causes a greater acceleration in the opposite direction of the light's velocity which slows down the light. Then as the light approaches earth, it is accelerated and gains back a small fraction of the speed that was lost. The overall result is a redshift. If you went to the surface of a star and observed light that had reflected off of earth, that light would be blueshifted.
Gravity does the opposite of what u say -- according to Conrad Ranzan. However, u & he are talking about 2 very different effects.
Ranzan is talking about the acceleration of aether flowing into the Earth (& stars) -- which stretches photons as they approach a star, & stretches photons as they depart -- 2 doses of stretching -- 2 doses of redshift -- giving a nett cosmological redshift. He is correct. Hence the BB is krapp.
U are talking about the slowing of light as per Shapiro Delay -- which shortens photons as they approach a star, & stretches photons as they depart -- a positive dose of blueshift, plus a positive dose of redshift -- nett result being zero shift. U are correct.
Shapiro Delay is not due to gravity, it is due to the nearness of mass. I might explain in a future comment.
Ranzan's aetheric stretching can be said to be due to gravity. I might explain in a future comment.
@@atheistaetherist2747 "U are talking about the slowing of light as per Shapiro Delay -- which shortens photons as they approach a star, & stretches photons as they depart -- a positive dose of blueshift, plus a positive dose of redshift -- nett result being zero shift. U are correct." I do not particularly subscribe to the photon model of light myself, though it may appear that I do from my prior post. With that said, if you contrasted the photon model with a wave model you could say that the particle frequency would be comparable to the wave frequency and the length of the photon would be comparable to wavelength of a wave. The Pound Snider Experiment found that the frequency of light increases as it approaches earth and decreases as it leaves earth and that these changes could be Doppler shifted to be nullified. However, they did not actually measure the wavelength. I certainly wish they had. I myself do not thing the wavelength changes, under all circumstances. I think the wavelength can be compressed or rarefied due to relative motion of the emitter with the aether, but I do not think the wavelength is compressed or rarefied due to the relative motion of the observer with the wave. As such, there should be a type of wavelength asymmetry caused by motion of the source with the medium vs motion of the observer with the medium.
"Shapiro Delay is not due to gravity, it is due to the nearness of mass. I might explain in a future comment.
Ranzan's aetheric stretching can be said to be due to gravity. I might explain in a future comment." I'll look into these topics. Thanks for the info.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 The redshifting of light as it approaches a star (due to stretching)(due to acceleration of aether inflow)(due to aether stretching) will i suppose give less frequency in the aether. But an observer on the star will i think see no change (compared to an observer located a long distance earlier).
The blueshifting of light as it approaches a star (due to slowing of light near mass)(as observed by an observer a long way away) will i suppose too give no change for an observer near the star.
Hmmmmm -- i think it depends on how u measure. Different kinds of clocks (atomic)(tuning fork)(balance wheel) will be affected in different ways by the 2 different effects (aetherwind)(slowing near mass).
In aether theory we have absolute values (aetherwind is zero km/s), & we have apparent values (depending on the aetherwind).
And, aether theory has no values for the slowing of light near mass. Such slowing is a GTR thing.
And, the slowing of light near mass is not relevant for some clocks, the critical thing is the speed of em radiation, which is more or less the same thing, just saying.
@@atheistaetherist2747 "The redshifting of light as it approaches a star (due to stretching)(due to acceleration of aether inflow)(due to aether stretching) will i suppose give less frequency in the aether." That is not what is empirically observed locally. The light is blue shifted as it approaches the earth and it is red shifted as it leaves the earth. Both the red shifting and the blue shifting, which are a measure of the light's frequency, can be completely nullified by a relative acceleration of the observer with the light source equivalent to the predicted gravitational effects.
"The blueshifting of light as it approaches a star (due to slowing of light near mass)(as observed by an observer a long way away) will i suppose too give no change for an observer near the star." No offense, but you have it a bit backwards. A redshift is caused by a decrease in the observed frequency of light. A blue shift is caused by an increase in the observed frequency of light. If light slowed near a mass, we would observe a local redshifting of light as it enters earth's gravitational field. However, that is not what is observed. What is observed is a noticeable blueshifting of the light equivalent to gravitational acceleration of a mass that is free falling towards earth. This frequency increase can be completely negated with the Doppler effect by moving the source and the detector with the same exact acceleration opposite the effects of the acceleration of gravity. The exact opposite occurs when the source is on earth's surface and the light beam is pointed away from earth. A red shift is observed and can be completely negated by a relative acceleration between the source and the detector in the exact opposite that of the direction of gravity.
"The blueshifting of light as it approaches a star (due to slowing of light near mass)(as observed by an observer a long way away) will i suppose too give no change for an observer near the star." Still backwards. Increasing frequency is increasing detected speed of light and decreasing frequency is decreasing detected speed of light.
"Hmmmmm -- i think it depends on how u measure. Different kinds of clocks (atomic)(tuning fork)(balance wheel) will be affected in different ways by the 2 different effects (aetherwind)(slowing near mass)." Actually, it is a bit worse than that. Different clocks will change rates differently under different conditions depending on which process they use to measure time and how those various processes are affected by an almost infinite amount of variables. There is no known absolute time measurement, contrary to what the liars of academia tell everyone. We are all just comparing relative rates of various processes and trying to claim they mean the same thing when they do not.
"In aether theory we have absolute values (aetherwind is zero km/s), & we have apparent values (depending on the aetherwind). And, aether theory has no values for the slowing of light near mass." Actually, I have studied aether theory myself and subscribe to it, though it is no doubt a different aether theory than what you support. With that said, many aether theories do not comport with observation and must be discarded and/or altered to fit observation.
"And, the slowing of light near mass is not relevant for some clocks, the critical thing is the speed of em radiation, which is more or less the same thing, just saying." It doesn't slow down, it speeds up, and I agree that for some clocks it is not relevant.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 Reading these comments remind me of watching the Big Bang Theiry as they talk about comic books. There isn't enough data to come to an exact conclusion and all the unsolved questions to fill in the blanks are bantered back and forth. Of course, there is a cool million dollars that goes with a Nobell if anyone figures it out.
How come we have not been able to measure a decelerating speed of light “c”? How is it possible to measure redshift/blue shift within the galaxy ie the Milky Way is spinning but then not be able measure larger systems up to and including the universe? When does redshift measurements go from correct to incorrect in your opinion or is there empirical evidence you have? Thanks.
I think that for matter in the universe to be stationary, the universe would either have to be infinite in extent or closed so that the mass density is constant and there's no net attraction in any direction. But the next question is why didn't the stars all die out eons ago? The stready state model would require an eternal universe and a constant influx of new energy.
Or it just needs to be a closed universe, so even not infinite, it appears so
I am only half way trough but if i get this right, smaller wavelength as time passes. do not have higher energy in this modell because the plank konstant changes with time? Else we have an ultraviolet cathastrophy in future.
awesome sauce
If the universe is in a steady state then how did all the other planets and stars end up millions and billions of miles away from us?
This stationary universe, how would it be created and how do you explain its proportions of H and He and Li. Also how old is the universe and how do you explain the microwave background?
You miss a much more simpler explanation too, if the universe is equally dense everywhere infinitum, for a galaxy, all long distance gravity forces cancel each other, leaving local effects only.
Good video. Would like to see the following expansion of your work.
1. Is the theory equivalent to general relativity so that GPS works.
2. Would Gravity waves exist as currently measured.
3. Senarios should exist for test of your theory with radio signals with the parker and juno probes as the sun and jupiter are massive objects.
GPS doesn't use relativity, nor does anything else.
See the work of Ron Hatch
How is "shortening of length scales" not the exact same thing as "expansion of space" phrased in a different way?
They are virtually identical. The difference lies in what the speed of light would come out to be, as we always measure distances, times, and speeds using our apparently constant length and time scales. If the latter aren't really constant, neither is the speed of light.
@@wafikiri_:
The point is that they're exactly equivalent. If the length scales are contracting instead, then the speed of light is in fact constant again.
@@hoon_sol Not if length and time scales vary differently.
@@wafikiri_:
Yes, exactly under those conditions. Again, the point is that a contraction of length scales is the exact equivalent of expansion of space. There's literally zero difference. They are the exact same thing. Length scales contracting while time scales remaining the same is no different from space expanding while time scales remain the same, which they do under that interpretation.
So I really don't get at all what Unzicker is trying to say here. He's all, "man, those dumbasses don't get that expansion is stupid; instead length scales are contracting!", as if that's somehow a genius observation, and not exactly equivalent.
@@hoon_sol No, no, you don't understand the difference. It is not physical but mental. If length and time scales contract, for instance, we cannot notice: only an observer that were external to the universe could notice, and then only relative to its own scales. That the said scales vary differently would then yield different ratios of lengths to time intervals along time, whose respective ratio could be constant if measured by such an external observer across all occassions.
The dispensing of a super fine, super dense, yet fluid, medium makes any model of the atom impossible. Various couplets of neutrinos, as two single vortices in face to face rolling contact, result in two different entities that probably correspond to an electron and a proton. Three such rings could be seen as a neutron. All are capable of being polarized with respect to each other. There is no reason to doubt various ages and proportions of these could exist and progress in growth, i.e. size, and decay or separate into components. The progress of waves and particles would naturally be impeded, diffracted depending on states of such in suspension in various zones of space. Krafft and Hilgenberg expanded on these ideas extensively.
Though my videos are terrible, I did make on describing fine, super dense, yet fluid, medium making an electron. ruclips.net/video/V0VSvGp5HDs/видео.html
Even did one on double vortex giving the amplitude of a photon. ruclips.net/video/ZTBnF3WQqFs/видео.html
I don't think it's clear (and I don't remember other videos addressing it): why don't we see the universe collapsing due to gravity? What makes it stable
What is,
if (accelerated) movements in our 3D space world would generate quantized time units
and
if (accelerated) movement in the 3D time world would generate quantized space (mass) units.
Think at recently discovered time crystals
So energy is not conserved? If c decreases then E = mC^2 decreases. What causes this?
Is the loss of synchronicity between two Atomic Clocks on an airplane and on the Earth due to gravity or due to Time?
could it be the universe is shaped as donught and the "gravity" is in the center of the donught eg outside the universe eg dragging everything to the center - this expansion is actually the big crounch happening - ( just a thought i had)
What we observe is exactly what you would expect. If something accelerates at a constant rate it will get faster and faster, no need to postulate some force. Electricity is drawn towards potential and the universe as a whole behaves the same way.
How can you explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with variable speed of light hypothesis? The constancy of speed of light postulate depends on the output of this experiment.
That experiment was flawed (they were even anomalies in their basement experiments!) - witness Dayton Miller's constant refinement of that experiment
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
If the speed of light is constant around the experiment there is nothing measurable. Even if the speed of light changed 3 months later for the second part the experiment itself couldn't measure the change.
How the VSL explaines the Olbers Paradox?
The scientific illiteracy combined with big scienc-y words in this comment section is astounding.
I heard as space "expands" our rulers (Planck scale?) stays the same(?) so that light shifts to the red while our rulers become smaller. Did I hear right?
I did have the similar thoughts as this related to Dark Energy and Dark Matter and may have an idea to try prove it but don't have the equipment etc. Maybe one day.
By inverting the "expanding" universe model, red shifts, "dark" energy & matter, along with "time frame dilation" in GR, and "favorable genome selection" in Biology, are all understood as a "requantization" function holding between prior states (mappings) and subsequent states/mappings. Where quantum-level state-attribution processes via generic systemic utility, while past & future are reflexively aligned (parallel processed), future states are determined via systemic self utility with perception as the model of any/all states, and are not determined by either random chance or by so-called "forces" (demigods).
"...whereas it is ordinarily assumed that the sizes of material objects remain fixed while that of the whole universe “ectomorphically” changes around them, conspansion holds the size of the universe changeless and endomorphically changes the sizes of objects. Because the universe now plays the role of invariant, there exists a global standard rate of inner expansion or mutual absorption among the contents of the universe (“cinvariance”), and due to syntactic covariance, objects must be resized or “requantized” with each new event according to a constant (time-independent) rescaling factor residing in global syntax. Second, because the rate of shrinkage is a constant function of a changing size ratio, the universe appears from an internal vantage to be accelerating in its “expansion”, leading to the conspansive dual of a positive cosmological constant." CTMU
Can you expand on what you mean by matter is at rest, but light spreads? I find it very difficult to understand this concept.
Hi, I greatly enjoying your videos, though I'm not a physicist. One thing I'm missing though is your stance on the evolution of the universe as a whole, given VSL. I mean, if red shift can be explained by the theory you are promoting, rarher than by the expanding universe theory, does this mean that the universe as a whole is, and always was, stationaty, in steady state? Does it mean the big bang never happened, and the CMB radiation has nothing to do with a "beggining event", as claimed by Dr. Robitaille and others?
We live in an infinite eternal universe. There was no BB.
Yes that is correct. the Universe is infinite and eternal. The Big Bang is a myth put about by Catholic priests to promote the idea of creation.
If the univese is eternal and in perpetual steady state then what is the meaning of change in horizon, which brings more snd mases to within scope? What's the meaning of universe evolution?
@@zvikabar-kochva3641 Have a gander at Conrad Ranzan's DSSU.
@@zvikabar-kochva3641 The Universe is eternal and infinite but it is not stationary, it is endlessly evolving. The Universe recycles itself by converting radiation into mass and mass into radiation.There is neither a begining nor an end because the total entropy of the Universe is maintained at zero by the black holes.
Universe expanding theory proposes that the most distant galaxies (MDG) are moving away faster than those that are closer. Therefore the longer we observe MDG, we would expect to see them becoming more measurably faint and smaller until eventually they disappear completely from view. If on the other hand, VSL was true, then the MDG would not become more faint and disappear. Then would this be a plausible experiment to test the VSL theory?
No, because VSL is saying light is slowing down more over time, so the evidence would look exactly the same as material acceleration. The 'solution' must come from another angle or Occam's Razor.
There will be another video on the BB in about 2 weeks.
VSL has been proven by Shapiro Delay.
Or have i missed your meaning?
@@atheistaetherist2747 My understanding is that Shapiro delay can be explained equally well by curved space and by variable speed of light.
@@alexdevisscher6784 It is said that Shapiro Delay is in accord with GTR, ie in accord with spacetime stuff. That might be so. It might satisfy some people, if u believe in spacetime.
One problem is that equivalence can only give a half of the bending of light near the Sun, which suggests that it can only give a half of the slowing. Yet Shapiro is happy that his equation gives the full value of slowing.
The only acceptable explanation around of SD is my own photaeno drag theory (actually its the only theory that i know of, outside of GTR).
If "expansion" is an illusion, then one would expect that "inflation" is also.
However: What might be the consequences of the growth in the size of the visible universe?
How to explain Mach's Principle? Why does the speed of light depend on the amount of mass visible?
VSL is explained by my photaeno drag.
Mach's gravity ideas are explained by my aether theory. Aether, having no mass itself, transfers the aetheric tension from star to star. If there is no other mass in the vicinity then an atom has zero gravitational mass, & zero inertial mass.
Serious question, perhaps for another video who knows:
In your opinion, is there or is there not a serious problem with the big CMB surveys as claimed by Robataille?
Good question, good luck getting an answer though.
Unzicker seems still too deeply attached to a number of fundamental assumptions that he hasn't looked at critically yet.
the CMB is like looking at an ocean and claiming you can locate the source of a 2mm high ripple on top of the waves.
We'll see.
Do these ideas imply that the Universe is much older than thought or there was no Big Bang?
The whole point of Einstein's relativity is that speed of light is constant.
However, that's actually only in the context of comparing it with space-time.
I wouldn't be surprised if some university administrators would be so obtuse that they would throw this out because they don't understand that, but I wouldn't know if that's how the politics work in academic physics. If it happens to be the case, you can make them stupid by asking them if Einstein thought lightspeed varied. I did that to a freshman who wouldn't believe me about null pointers being 'nullified' as a good idea (I'm more of a computer science person than physics)
Just like time (assumed to be constant by Newton) was found to be relative, I think it would only really make sense if light (and pretty much everything else) also was at some level.
Keep up the research. If the model matches the typical redshift observations, my bets are that you are definitely on to something fundamental.
Just keep in mind that a 'singularity,' in math, is just a point where the model breaks down, and lots of models may have singularities and that's ok as long as we understand that.
I think it's funny how I have a friend who majored in physics and I never took a single physics college class, and he doesn't even know how to start talking with me about physics.
Everything I learned is college was wrong. I want a refund.
Simply return to the time after you paid tuition but before your attendance began for your full refund for their not predicting developments after your matriculation was to be end at some future time now past.
It could be true that the universe is static, but there is still the expansion of the light. If it is at a certain distance then it did have a start time. So there is still the question of what started our observable universe.. consciousness?
It did not start, it has always been there, that is infinity and this is what this absolutely correct theory is saying, The Universe is infinite, it was always and will always be. There was no Big Bang
The speed of light doesn’t change. The rate of time changes and the measure of distance changes… which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it *over great distances.* Time runs faster in outer space where there is no matter and much less gravity. This is the reason the outer spiral arms of the galaxies move much faster than expected. It’s because events take place at a faster rate the less gravity there is.
Time doesn’t run at the same rate everywhere in the universe. Time runs faster in outer space. It just dawned on me the other day that a thousand years and a single day happen at the same time in different places in the universe. It's simple (observed) general relativity. Time slows down and distance is contracted because of gravity where there is a lot of matter. Conversely, time speeds up and distance is expanded where there is no matter in outer space.
This eliminates the need for dark matter since time is sped up in the outer spiral arms of a galaxy where there is not nearly as much matter. It eliminates the need for dark energy where space is expanded in outer space where there is no matter.
So the result of general relativity is that billions of years pass by in outer space (13 billion years) at the same time as thousands of years pass by where we are inside of the Milky Way galaxy. ...!
Billion of years and mere thousands of years are the same thing *at the same time* in deep outer space and where we are, according to physics and according to relativity.
In review, time slows down where we are. Time speeds up with less gravity so the outer spiral arms of galaxies move faster. There is no need for dark matter.
Distance increases where there is no matter in outer space. There is no need for dark energy to expand space since the expansion of space is from not having any matter far away from the galaxies.
Deep time (billions of years) and thousands of years exist simultaneously in this universe where there is no single rate of time or measure of distance!
Just think what could be the reality when the photons register with our eyes or our cameras/detectors and there is a collapse of the wave function as seen or detected by us within our dilated time and distance.
Conclusion: The time it took for Creation and since Creation in the Bible is absolutely true! Time itself is a (real) fabrication.
U are correct that the nearness of mass affects the SOL. It also affects the speed of em radiation. The speed of em radiation affects many processes, ie it affects the ticking of many processes. But it does not affect time. Nothing affects time. What most of us call time is simply ticking, not time.
But now i come to your real error. U assume that the ticking of gravitational processes are affected similarly to the ticking of em processes. No.
Gravity is due to the acceleration of aether flowing into matter, where aether is annihilated.
The speed of gravity is at least 20 billion c. Hence there is little that the cosmos can do that appreciably affects gravity, or the ticking of gravitational processes, eg orbits etc.
@@atheistaetherist2747 You need a grid to understand the differing rates of time and measures of distance. The speed of light is slower where gravity is stronger because there is more distance and a slower rate of time where there is more gravity.
@@JungleJargon Yes, i agree that GTR for example gives the full 1.75 arcsec of bending near the Sun. But, Einstein's reasoning was wrong.
The bending (& the slowing) of light is not due to gravity. But i am being praps too semantic.
Einstein links the bending (& slowing) to the gravitational potential, ie to the escape velocity. And that indeed gives the correct numbers.
I understand the differing rates of time in GTR, & the differing measures of distance. I made an Excel that verified the bending near the Sun. I can send it to u if u like.
But all of that GTR stuff is nonetheless nonsense.
@@atheistaetherist2747 If can get the same results you must be defining things differently. The result is the same. It could be semantics. It took me a while to understand general relativity and if you have another explanation with the same results it might take me a while to understand what your terms are.
@@JungleJargon No, i do have another explanation for slowing & for bending, but the Excel that i referred to used the GTR explanation, ie the 2 of them, ie dilation of time as a scalar, & contraction of length as a vector.
I am open to all possibilities on concerning red shift / dark energy.. A quantised variable spatial scale put into more classical mechanical terms would be +ve charge quanta (balls / cells) close-packed by -ve electro-gas. Matter-energy field and wave medium. All matter is made from positrons (out of place cell) and electrons (-ve gas left behind). Higher concentrations of gas means higher concentrations of cells, but (inward) flow velocity (acceleration) can be an added stretch factor..
--
This allows for extremely gradual intergalactic and galaxy-wide charge density gradients, as well as steep stellar and black hole gradients, with an exponentially steep gradient from the (vibrating) boundary to the focal point of each Proton and Neutron. Incrasingly stretched shells with max-packed core cells forming the hard, massive core.
--
In this model free electrons and positrons vibrate which disrupts the inward flow force. They are roughly 99% electric energy, 1% mass energy. When 2 positrons bind to 1 electron to form a Proton the result is 1/3 electrical energy, 2/3 mass energy, with 3 particles added together. 1836 times heavier than one positron or electron, but only the same electrical energy as 1 positron or electron.
--
The question of expansion is interesting. The model means an UNBOXED SPHERE COULD GROW as more matter forms due to each particle attracting -ve gas away from voids. that expand.. A boxed universe would stay the same size but the gradients will be steeper..If expansion occurs it could take ages and be ongoing. However, even in an unboxed sphere, it could be the case that the sphere stays the same size too, and essentially is a box.
Also. the idea of a 'variable speed of light' in a charge-quantised but variable sized cell wave medium is confusing. Should the light absolutely travel at the same speed, or travel from cell to cell in a FIXED, ABSOLUTE TIME? If this is the case there could be an absolute clock, which could explain some quantum phenomena...
--
I don't really buy this fixed time idea but it's interesting. I'm not sure if it can really explain red shift without some form of 'cell skipping' going on. The problem with a variable speed is each photon in the a collection has to slow down more than the one in front to preserve the equal distance required by Red Shift? I think.. Confirmation one way or another would be helpful. Without this you'd get bunched up light (blue shift), or simply no shift.
Do 'Tired Matter' theories exist where older stars get redder..... Yep, it's even predicted for our sun - but I was thinking in terms of number of galaxies passed through, which could be wrong; Perhaps stars were simply redder in the past?... Perhaps matter was 'more tired' (vibrating slower) when the universe was younger?.. and perhaps both expansion and contraction happened as a form of 'Dark Gravity'... It think that's the basics covered of some of the consequences and other possible explanations.. I missed 'Shrinking Universe' that we can only see a tiny slither of, shrinking to Greater and Greater attractors... ANY MORE!?
I am not a proponent of dark matter and energy BUT ---> Where does the data and testing support variable speed of light?
When Unzicker talks about the variable speed of light what he really means is the slowing of light over time as it travels through space. He hypothesises that this could be due to the effect of gravity but personally I am not convinced of this though I am certain that light does indeed slow down and this explains redshift. I had this concept about 6 or 7 years and it works so well that it cannot not be correct. There is no data to support it. But think about this; where is the data to support Einstein's generally accepted assertion that the speed of light is constant, even between moving gravitational frames of reference, which is what Special is based upon. Could we measure the speed of light from different sources in the universe? I doubt it.
The first support to the slowing down of the speed of light is the redshift of light from distant stars. It is an observed fact. That there are other hypotheses like expansion of the universe does not mean that the redshift does not support the hypothesis of variable speed of light.
It has always seemed weird to me to, in one hand, claim a variance in the gradient of spacetime in response to gravity and, in the other, insisting that the speed of massless particles (aka speed of light), that is said to result from the very nature of the fabric of spacetime, remain the same. Am I missing something, professor?
Speed can stay constant, yet it can be perceived as changing due to gravities time dilation effects. Its a matter of perspective.
@@gamerfortynine Well, I can understand as much (I think), that is standard relativity. From what I collect from the explanation for the universal speed limit is that it is a consequence of the structure of spacetime itself, that perhaps at the smallest indivisible level space is composed of plank-scale quantum of volumes, that photons traverse in quantized hops. But relativity postulates spacetime stretches and contracts in response to the presence of gravitational sources. If so how can this speed limit remain constant? Also the proven theory of gravitational lensing states that light bends in the presence of strong gravitational masses. How can that reconcile with its speed being unaffected? I am talking here about quantities in local inertial frameworks and not in relation to distant observers.
@@danieladmassu941 Well, I would say that the speed of light says something about the density of the medium through which light travels and that the lensing effect is evidence that mass increases the density of that medium. Think of a car driving down the road at a constant speed when the tyres on the left side encounter a puddle of water. The wheels on the right maintain their speed but the ones on the left slow down causing you to veer left, right? I think it is the same with photons. The side of the photon closest to the mass experiences a dragging force causing it to veer slightly in that direction.
So, yeah. :)
Sub-quantum particulates exist in Dark Energy (Aether) and those "2" levels of the electrino and the smaller graviton have their own photino, of less-than-light speed velocity and smaller energy. This -IS- the only variable light speed definition versus photons that have (and maintain) full ight speed - whether flying free or flying and bypassing a gravitational object, having gravitational lensing - AND THE PHOTON DOES NOT SLOW DOWN as Einstein (or you ?) say. The direct flight path of the photon is diverted, and slightly longer, but the photon is always retains its light speed velocity.
Thus, only the sub-quantum particulates can only exist in Dark Energy as the Aether -- which negates the video title as not existing,
Could use links to papers referenced near the end
@DSUM it’s ok, no need to apologize. I promise I’ll read it if i can find it. I’m compiling references to all alternative concepts of the origin of gravity.
This is scientific heresy.
Would it be possible for you to contact Eric Lerner and the two of you to make a video on alternative cosmology?
I have read his book and I appreciate his efforts, yet we probably do not have the exact same view on cosmology.
@@TheMachian
Well but it wouldn't matter if you don't share the same view, what I think is at the crux of the matter is to communicate that there are alternative cosmologies that deviate from the mainstream and therefore do not receive funding or research grants.
It is funny that Zwicky was born fifteen years after his death.
Is the idea that the presence of masses decreases the speed of light universally or just locally?
Putting a different twist on this topic, the speed of light can be calculated from the permeability and permittivity of the vacuum. Who's to say that these "constants" did not vary with the evolution of the universe? I've always disliked the inflationary model since it implies that the very fabric of space-time "inflated". Could it be possible that permeability and permittivity were quite different during that epoch?
Where even this idea gets tricky is that gravity waves have been shown to travel at the same speed as light (LIGO experiment). I don't know of any equation for the speed of gravity waves or for that matter one that depends in any way on the permittivity or permeability of the vacuum.
what makes you believe that the two constants, permeability and permittivity, are actually correct?
Or actually play any part in Lights propagation? As far as I can see, these constants, and most other Physics constants are just math fudges.
@@everythingisalllies2141 C=1/sqrt(epsilon_nought X mu_nought) and this begs the question, why should gravity wave propagation velocity have anything to do with electrical constants??? As far as the question of e0 and u0 being correct, they have been measured to many decimal places LOCALLY but there's no way to say that these constants were "correct" in the epoch before and during inflation. So, the authors point is well taken. The constants are somehow the result of the fabric of local space-time. Space-time was in flux during "inflation" so it would seem to follow that any constants that are a function of this "fabric" could be variables and not constants during inflation.
@@chestercurtis7548 I don't think you understand what Im getting at.
Mu and epsilon are NOT measures of the properties of "free space". They are NOT measuring ANYTHING related to "space", because space is not an object that can have a property.
What they are measuring is how easily or hard it is for an electric or magnetic field to still influence another object, (the measuring apparatus) at a distance, where no physical matter can be influencing the result.
They are measuring the magnetic field, and the electrical field, which is also NOT an object. "the field" is not a physical object, its just a series of measured values of locations in a defined region surrounding a magnet or an electrical source.
So you should classify these measures at certain distances as "constants" whose values can be inserted into other equations. At what precise separation distance is the value of MU true?
How about Epsilon? My point is (and others elsewhere have pointed out the issues) is that all these scientific terms, such as Kg, Amp, etc are all relying on each other for validity. Much of it is circular reasoning. The Planck constant for example is just another math fudge to allow conversion between different standards, yet its referred to as if it were a magic physical entity that has properties.
The Kibble balance relies on a whole set of other assumptions and standards.
But beyond all that is the massive problem that should you believe that Einstein is correct, then all these measure standards are invalid.
Why? Because all our scientific standards demand consistency of these three properties: Time, Mass and Distances.
But as you believe Einstein, then you can't have such constancy. No one can claim to be stationary, or to claim to be inertial.
Your second is not the same second I experience.
So you cant be intellectually honest and accept Einstein AND also any Science that uses the second, Meter and Kilo as stable measures. Its one or the other, not both.
And what the hell is "the fabric of Spacetime"?
Please show me where I can find a sample of this "fabric", as I want to weigh it, see how hard it is, and how malleable, how dense it is.....
You see, you have reified a concept, and in the case of the concept called "spacetime" its a particularly stupid concept.
Because Space is simply the regions between objects, where no other objects exist, and Time is simply the observance of the relative motions of objects. So its IMPOSSIBLE to unite the two, and think its some new physical entity that can be curved by the nearby presence of some massive object.
Its all nonsense.
@@everythingisalllies2141 Reasonable argument. I have the same concern regarding the "presence" of quantum fields for every known particle somehow permeating the "fabric of spacetime". The very reason that I believe that spacetime IS somehow a "thing" is that the speed of light and the speed of propagation of gravity waves is the same yet gravity does not interact at all with electromagnetic properties that govern the "local speed of light" (other than so called gravitational warping of spacetime which if not a "thing" cannot possibly be warped). So, light (photons) and gravity waves (gravitons?) are causing ripples in some common "stuff" like ripples in a pond which propagate at the same speed whether caused by an earthquake, or a rock hitting the surface. They used to call it the "ether". In classical physics wave propagation velocity is related to density of the medium. When two completely ununified (for now) properties like the speed of light and the speed of gravity waves match, I'd say that there's density at play. For now I think they call that the "energy of the vacuum".
wouldn't "things are getting smaller" be mathematically equivalent to space expanding?
Conspansion FTW. If the universe is "expanding" at light speed, then what is the speed of light (from a bulb) relative to the expanding edge of the universe? It makes just as much sense to suppose the bulb is contracting at rate "C", and its ambient images are static, overlapping with other such images and parallel-processed to create "force at distance". If you haven't read the CTMU, you're already on the right track of thinking.
So we are living in an "on average" static universe? Static "forever"? On average?
What stops local perturbations from positive feedback loops? They never happen, or what? How do you explain extremely uneven matter distribution, hopefully in a better way than the Inflation hypothesis?
With that said, I'd love it if this VSL thing could be used to reduce at least some of this late Star Wars physics.
Read Conrad Ranzan's DSSU.
0:21 I’m gonna guess the speed of light varies depending on how far away an object is.
So can we travel faster than light? Can we render objects weightless? Is time travel possible?
No.No. Only one-directional, not in the past.
@@TheMachian Thank you. That'll prevent a lot of wasted curiosity
If there's no expansion in the Universe, so what's Dark Energy good for? And also... Its only a length scale, that contracts but not the physical distance itself. This happens, if you measure length on a time base with a constant signal speed like with light or radar beams. You don't have such a constant signal speed in VSL. Now you assume the redshifts would come from a VSL and therefore the movement of light can't be constant in the vacuum of the whole universe. The movement of light *is* constant in the whole universe, but for the measurement of it's speed, we need clocks and clocks are influenced by speed. The faster we move with our clocks, the higher would become our measured light speed. The red shifts are there, because light diffracts while it moves through the plasma of galaxies or galaxiy clusters. Seeing Red, Halton Arp.
And we don't see more of the universe every new day. At some point we'll notice, that the CMB blocks our sight - light from stars and galaxies far far away is defracted to CMB on its way toward us. The night isn't that black as we can see it with our human eyes. It's very very dark red and you'll see this, if you analyse some deep field photos made by Hubble or Webb telescopes.
dark matter and dark energy are for making an otherwise broken theory unsupported by observations sort of work.
It has always seemed to me that Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and an expanding universe were supremely silly, and without any sense, and without any mechanisms which could support these things.
WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS, HOW FAR AWAY THE GALAXIES ACTUALLY ARE!
Discrete quantum systems have zero total entropy. Any observation upon such a system "collapses" it into a classically oriented system with non-zero entropy, namely by "ignoring" one or more particles in the system. See Ron Garrett's paper or lecture (on YT) "Quantum Mysteries Disentangled". The term "expansion" isn't even wrong when describing the universe.
I was very into astrophysics until I got into college. When I started learning more advanced stuff I don;t want to say I didn't accept it because it didn't make sense to me, but rather, that it didnt' seem to have internal consistency.
This whole thing of inflation is much more galling to me than dark matter.
C is inviolable, except that one period of time it wasn't?!
Dark Matter seems to me to be more a problem that gravity behaves differently at larger scale?
Perhaps there is strong and weak gravity the same way there is the strong and weak nuclear force.
Or that our frame of reference is not penetrating the time dilation affects of gravity they way we think it is at larger displacements of space time.
Either way Ochams razor is not being applied here.
Imagine a grenade goes off in space. After a very short period of time, the shrapnel has organized itself so that from the perspective of any piece, the most distant pieces are all moving away at the fastest speed. After the initial acceleration, all objects are not accelerating.
Why does a photon travel at C ?
Making the speed of light variable defeats the purpose of the calculations in the first place.
It is a relativity point.
Photons' accelerate from zero to the speed of light from the proton depth in our weight space, using the standard model of general relativity we get 300,000,000 meters per second from a depth of 10C^3
Or an implied acceleration of 1.1111111111111111111111111111111e-20 meters per meter traveled. caused by an dark energy tensor from the proton weight to photon weight.
(1c/10c^3)
(Edit: Based on the latest Higgs Velocity thinking, I should change the above to 1c/10c or .1 meters per meter but we haven't proved the removal of the other two superposed spaces is valid as yet)
I.E. The Sun exhibiting light.
General Relativity says that photon will travel at C even if the space is compressed.
I.E. If it takes ten seconds to cross a space , it will still take 10 seconds if the space is compressed.
Electrical resistance and capacitance is an example, or the speed of light modified by the cables time dilation ratio which we call resistance is how long the cable needs before the electron potential is visible at the far end.
To say "Just make the speed of light variable" defeats the ground those observations are made from.
Space can only replenish itself at the speed of light, is also an observational reality, because of permanent wormholes and "low density" plasma bubbles we have created using radium and high temperature experiments leaving exotic particle bubbles all over the Earth.
How does this explain the cosmic event horizon
also global change in light speed would be a non local phenomena.
The universe is not expanding. It is expanded in outer space where there is no matter and it is contracted by the matter in a galaxy and it’s super massive black hole. Time also speeds up in outer space where there is no matter and time slows down where there is matter.
Time is a constant. It doesn't change, that will be a consequence of this theory when it is fully worked through. Unzicker adores Einstein, as do I, but both theories of relativity were almost entirely wrong.
Thank for the presentation Dr. Unsicker. A question comes to mind and I wonder if you could offer a comment:
Would all masses in the universe not still be acting on one another, and thus accelerating toward one another? If, as in the Zwicky quote, there is no evidence for the attraction of galaxies, why not? How could they remain stationary?
Because the universe is infinite and you have equal amounts of attraction from all directions except.for masses at close proximity
@@Arag0n Ok, that answers one question but raises another. How long has light been travelling through the infinite universe? If for only a limited amount of time, why? If forever, why is there a limit to the observable universe? Or perhaps isn't there, and our telescopes just need to improve?
The prospect of an alternative formulation that reduces the number of free parameters is very attractive, especially if it can get rid of the dark fudge summands (dark matter and energy). Incidentally, these aren't my questions, they arose naturally before the paradigm shift to big bang cosmology.
@@karlheber23 if light looses energy as travels, doesn't that explain why we can only see a fraction?
@@Arag0n Possibly, so you mean that the observable universe is just the sum of all light that is able to reach us without losing energy to the point of disappearance? Would this also be an explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation? That's testable, is it in the right wavelength range? Shouldn't the most distant and dim light we see be in the longest wavelength (relative to us) range?
@@karlheber23 pretty much, microwave radiation background is just low energy light, so we might be looking into what lays beyond not the start of the universe.
Again, I'm not an astrophysicist, just saying what would be the explanation if indeed, universe doesn't expand nor contract.
It's up to real scientist to decide if that model makes more sense than current one.
Brilliant point about the acceleration-intelligent life coincidence being an artefact of an improbable model.
Do you remember the quote about whether there is alien life, or not, both ideas are equally terrifying? You must take into account the psychological dimension. A population raised on a Big Bang picture will be terrified by the prospect of an eternal fixed universe, since the former model seems to be nature showing us an answer to everything scientifically, whereas the latter model leaves us with nothing but mystery without any possible measurement or comsmological model that could tell a story about humans discovering God. This will be like a social bomb if it ever replaced the Standard Model in the mandatory public schools, and will be opposed by every major religion, including dialectical materialists and otherwise vanilla Darwinians, as well as by the common people. There is only so much hopeless mystery any society can take without sending it straight back into the chaos of paranoid superstition. Without an overarching process political authorities and scientific experts can point to that we intend to explain what is thought to be observed cosmological change from the simple to the complex, every localized process will be considered suspect too. Perhaps a middle path could allow for reasonable new research paths to proceed without distrupting the status quo -- i.e. there is a variable speed of light and there is also expansion (but less) simultaneously, and, therefore, an older cosmos that makes a little more sense.
@Vornamed Nachnamed Yes, it's a story that necessarily transcends the rational, scientifically, by definition, but at least it points to a process that can be understood teleologically should a society choose or require such a picture in order to function constructively. A static universe, on the other hand, is more peculiar and subverts human expectations of there being evolutionary states overarchingly in nature in the manner of a fractal, as opposed to cosmic eternity juxtaposed to local flux in the direction of complexity. It's deeply troubling.
Variable speed of light? or constant speed? Can I ask what is actually doing the "speeding"? Dont say a Photon, as that is only a component in a conceptual MODEL of Light. Photons do not exist in reality. Please don't get stupid and ask "what is real?". So what is doing the moving with Light that we measure as its speed?
9:20 -- Zwicky died before he was born?????
ups... sorry for that. I corrected in the description.
The speed of light does not vary.
Much simpler than that. No need for dark matter if you take electromagnetism and magnetohydrodynamics into account. After all - it's 10-to-the-39th more powerful than gravity. AND, we've already detected it, and understand an awful lot about it, and don't need to bend any "laws."
the universe cannot be just 14 billion years old. that's what I affirm, now to prove it, it's gonna be something else but well.
look, it's 3am i stop here.
The speed of light in a vacuum has been proven to be constant, not variable. VACUUM is the keyword.
Do you know why light has a variable speed is the question. I DO! Presence of a mass increase or decreases the speed of light. But how does it do this? I KNOW! DO YOU? LET ME EXPLAIN IT TO YOU MR. UNZICKER!
The VSL is due to photaeno drag.
@@atheistaetherist2747 Otherwise known as aetheric friction.
@@simonhawkins386 Kind of. Photaenos propagate away from the central body of the photon. The speed of the propagation is slowed by congestion due to other photaenos. This congestion is greater near mass. Koz, mass is bottled light (Jeans). The slowed photaenos feed that slowing back to the main central helix body of the photon -- the photon slows.
Yes -- aetheric friction.
speed of light is not and could not be constant, that what i was told decades ago and repeat over and over on the internet, but there are morons who say opposite... so guys DO YOUR MAT AGAIN from very beginning ...
3:13 Excuse me, if the wavelength decreases, isn't that a blue shift? What am I misunderstanding?
5:13 If we take a picture of the universe as far away as possible, and then do it again, if we start seeing objects disappear, wouldn't that demonstrate the expansion of the universe? If it's just a question of variable speed of light, the farthest objects would never wink out of existence. So, demonstrating this claim should be extremely easy, no?
9:25 Typo in Zwicky's year of birth.
if wavelength decreases it means it was larger in the past. Cosmological images are from the past so larger wavelength.
2. no object move over the event horizon in timespans like 1 billion “so not “extremely easy
@@phildurre9492 No, I disagree. You'd see them in different stages even over s ahort period of time. Remember, the way current cosmology has it, we are mnoving away faster from each other the farther away we are. So...
@@phildurre9492 Right, so blue shifting. Not red shifting.
So the constant speed of light is not a measurement , it is just a postulate, a dogma
This is of course beautiful. But I have been through this movie before. You are correct and have done more of the Maths than I did, and it all just falls out neatly doesn't it.
But when are you going to say it ? There was no Big Bang. You have the answer to Hubble's riddle, he never believed in the Big Bang either.
But this opens a whole world of problems which are going to have to be dealt with. It will totally change Physics, no more string theory for example, it will all become much simpler and so many careers will be destroyed. Are you ready for that, I wasn't.
So for starters Special Relativity is wrong, based on a false premise. So does E=mc2? I very much doubt it, though there are alternative proofs in Nelkon & Parker.
And if there was no Big Bang, what about the CMBR and the evidence that provides. You will have to deal with that, but don't worry, I have been there done that, not particularly difficult.
BTW why is the sky blue? think you will find that needs some attention as well.
If there wasn't a Big Bang, what/how was the beginning then? At one time hydrogen would have been the only thing in existence. What was before that?
there is no speed of light, light is not emmitted, it is transmitted, it's a rate of induction through a medium, change the medium from a vacuum to glass, the rate changes... nothing is moving, photons don't exist, they are units of measurement... it's like saying sound travels by soundtons... something cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time... this is a contradition of logic. particles don't exists they are standing waves created by high energy light from black holes... it's already been proven that high energy light forms neutrons, which decompose into protons and electrons in 14 minutes after they are created.... everything is made of light, light is energy, energy, not mass, something that can make mass or move it, something that does anything, something that has power and influence on the ultimate foundation of this reality, the fundemental medium of which light travels: the Aether... Check out the worls of TESLA if youy think I am full of nonesense. I am not saying I understand the ultimate foundations of reality but he did invent the modern world.
How do physicists know that it's the universe that's expanding though rather than the field of photonic energy itself? Of course: Where would it expand to? and the answer can only be: To the creation of new stars and planets.
It is illogical to assume that the speed of light is a constant. Think of a photon as a comet, it will speed up as it aproaches a massive object and slow down as it leaves. It will travel for an eternity unless it crashes into an object and create heat. That heat is also created when it hits your eye and skin and are also the reason in leaves a pattern on a photograf. Think about the fact that light is invisible all the time until it actually hit something! If you could see light perpendicular from it's travel, everything would just be a constant white blur and the evolution of eyes would never have occured! Back to the speed of light. All light we see inside a space ship therefor is slowed down because it is leaving a massive object but increased when we stand on a massive object like the planet earth.
Through out history people have created "proof" for their theories that defy logic and at the moment it is dark energy and matter that is a creation om desparation to "prove" an faulty theory.
Well as there is no such object as a Photon, (its an imaginary component of a conceptual MODEL of light, and that model is very poor) so no, a "Photon" wont act like a ball of matter which behaves according to Newtons laws of Kinematics. So try again. If we claim that a photon acts in accord to kinematic laws for massive bodies, then we MUST also say that any Photon MUST accelerate from zero to its final velocity, and also experience deceleration as it passes a planet, and also can never actually travel in a straight trajectory. But is you accept these conclusions, then 100% of Einstein's theories about Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong. Hint, Einstein's theories are wrong, but not because of this contradiction about a photon having mass.
@@everythingisalllies2141 There are no such thing that does not have mass. That would imply magic. I can maybe agree that photons does not exists. Quantum spin can prove that. Together with the fact that light is invisible and you can only see the effects of it's interactions with other matter. If light had mass wouldn't the need for eyes be unnecessary, since everything would be obscured by light mass. Maybe gravity is the mass of quantum spins instantaneous energy transfer. Like electricity is not conducted by the wire but outside of it in proximity of it. Thus the further the distance the less energy transfer. That would make the red shift the resistance of the transfer. A larger object would heat up due to the resistance of transfer to smaller objects. A black hole would be an object that have ceased to transfer quantum spin with other objects.
@@mossig you are mixing up actual objects and real forces in with make believe imaginary concepts and fantasies.
There's no way you can figure out Physics with that mix.
Yes, nothing can exist physically unless it has mass. But something that exists can have a property of energy, which cant manifest without the parent object.
Magnetism is a real energy, but it cant manifest without a real magnet.
Light cant exist on its own, it must have a parent source, and I also think it also requires another mass to act as a receiver, like, to complete the circuit.
"Quantum spin" is fantasy. Everything Quantum is fantasy.
There is no such cosmic entity as a Black Hole, all such talk and even pictures are fraud.
The "black hole" is only a result of bad Math equations, it exists in Math alone, and only due to the math issue of infinity not being defined.
There can be no such thing a "instant energy transfer". Every physical process occurs step by step, so there is always delay involved. We call that unfolding of processes, time. FIrst this happened, which made that happen, next that made that happen, and that sequence is time passing.
So Time is NOT a physical process itself. not some sort of energy, it cant make things happen. Its absolutely not part of some magical place called "SpaceTime".
There is only one "dimension" we call it "the Universe".
In it, we take measurements using any convenient method. One such method is called "cartesian coordinates", which is commonly called 3Dimensions.
There is no possibility that the Universe has less or more than these 3 dimensions.
Time is NOT a Dimension.
Its a comparison of relative motion of objects that have a repetitive nature.
@@everythingisalllies2141 At one time it was believed that the earth revolved around the sun was also fantasy. Magnetism is also invisible. You can only feel it, it does not glow like light does when it interacts with an object. Like a planet reflects light so does a piece of iron transfer magnetism even if it's not magnetic in it self. If there are no photons there should not be anything that transfer magnetism as well.
@@mossig there are no photons, and magnetism does not need anything to have an effect at a distance.
I think dark energy is real for a very obvious reason as is dark matter for the same obvious reason.