7
   

Alternative to expanding universe theory

 
 
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 06:53 am
I'm not scientist in astrophysics, but I like this subject and I have some theory. I think that observed universe can be explained much better by time acceleration rather than expanding universe, dark matter and others. Let's assume static universe with time acceleration - time acceleration will create red-shift proportional to time that light traveled (original wavelength looks longer or red-shifted when sampled at higher rate), it may explain galaxies rotation phenomena that currently explained by dark matter (galaxies actually rotating slower, but we see them rotating faster due to time acceleration in period of time that their light traveled to us - it also complies with observation that more far galaxies have higher rotation rate), it also can explain giant black holes because then there is no limit on age of universe, it also can explain cool down of universe because same amount of energy spitted on shorter time will create a such effect, it also explains why we are limited by observable universe - very far objects were so red-shifted that we can't see them, it explains why we are observing more far galaxies than universe age according to big bang theory multiplied by speed of light - universe is older. It provides single explanation to all these effects, and I think it is better that separate explanation for every phenomena. I'm not familiar with numbers for making calculations to verify this assumption, so I would like ask your opinion on this - is it really possible to explain universe that we are observing by time acceleration?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 355 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 07:43 am
@Eli Genkin,
What is time acceleration exactly? How does it explain the things you say it explains? And how do you separate it from space-time since most physics treat space-time as a single thing.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 11:23 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
What is time acceleration exactly?
I assume it's something to do with relativity allowing time to pass at different rates for different objects.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 11:31 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
What is time acceleration exactly?
I assume it's something to do with relativity allowing time to pass at different rates for different objects.

Who knows. I’m a big fan of quantum elasticity as an alternate theory myself... as long as I don’t have to define it or explain how it works or anything. But man it sure sounds good doesn’t it.
0 Replies
 
Eli Genkin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 03:29 pm
@rosborne979,
Hi,
Good question - for my understanding time unit is period that some basic operation continues, or how fast universe ticks. I'm SW engineer, so I'm taking a lot of analogies from computer's world. For example, some basic operation, like addition in computers, or atomic decay in physics, takes 1 tick - it still be 1 tick when your processor (analogy of universe) runs at 1MHz clock or 2MHz clock, but time in seconds will be different. This increase in tick rate with reference to some absolute time unit (analogy of processor clock change from 1 to 2 MHz with reference to seconds in example above) is what I called time acceleration. Let's look what happens to signal (light) or video (rotation of galaxy) that were created at 1MHz clock when they are observed at 2MHz clock (after arrival to us) - light wavelength will look longer than at moment it was created or so called red-shift, and video (or galaxy rotation speed) will look faster - same frames are ticked twice faster, so we will need to assume some dark matter in order to explain why stars of this galaxy don't fly apart. There will be direct explanation to issues connected to age of universe, because there will be no 14 billion years limit. Anything else?
Regarding separation from space time - I'm not exactly following after what did you mean?
0 Replies
 
Eli Genkin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2018 03:55 pm
@oralloy,
I think this assumption can be verified - if it is true then connection between red shift and amount of "dark matter" should exist. And as I understand there is a such connection - they both proportional to distance from us. If its true then compensation of rotation rate of some galaxy proportional to size of its red shift should eliminate need for any dark matter for holding its stars together. It also means that speed of light isn't constant within time - as second becomes faster as distance passed by light during this second becomes shorter (means many years ago speed of light was higher).
0 Replies
 
Guy Pierrefeu
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2018 03:57 pm
@Eli Genkin,
Hoyle once showed that one could alternately
see the same process as a change of mass with time, and that this would result in all frequencies being red shifted as one looked back to earlier time. So from that perspective the redshift would be unreal.
The demonstration of true expansion of the universe would be to see the decrease of the angular diameter of bound objects with time. It is tiny - 1 part in 10^14 per year, so until we can make some incredibly precise measures of angular sizes, we are not going to be able to make this distinction.
0 Replies
 
NO-NAME
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2018 10:16 pm
As Allen watts said "time is only a social understanding and not a fundamental" outside of are awareness of time is just existence without measure .
0 Replies
 
simrangoyal
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2018 01:11 am
@Eli Genkin,
We know that our star, the Sun loses about 10^-14 of its mass per year as a result of electromagnetic radiation and particle emission. That reduction in mass should show up as a decreasing gravitational red shift. Same thing should happen to entire galaxies. But isn't it true that the galaxies we observe that are farther from Earth are also the younger we see (because light has taken millions of years more to come to us) and, as a consequence the more massive when we consider entire galaxies? (Because we cannot possibly see them as they are, but as they were millions of years ago.) Shouldn't we expect, correspondingly that the gravitational red shift of an observed galaxy will increase with its distance to Earth?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Saturn as seen by Cassini - Discussion by littlek
New Comet May Be Observers' Dream Come True - Discussion by Zarathustra
Are you ready for the solar eclipse Sunday? - Question by Lustig Andrei
Red dwarf stars and their planets - Discussion by gungasnake
Geology and astronomy combined - Question by Lapetus
Total Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 - Discussion by rosborne979
physics - Discussion by usmankhalid665
A Series of Humbling Pictures - Discussion by edgarblythe
The Early Universe - Question by piratejack5150
Universal Census of the Universe - Discussion by tsarstepan
More new planets in from ESO - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Alternative to expanding universe theory
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/24/2019 at 01:27:00