How the universe began and the future of life.

[snowflakeuniverse]

How the universe began and the future of life.

At the risk of loosing any scientific credibility, I thought it would be of interest to post some of the implications that the Uniform Expansion Theory predicts for life in the Universe.

First I must emphasize that my Uniform Expansion Theory is geometrically based and has so far addressed every “attack” given by those who have attempted to discredit it. I have introduced concepts such as “absolute” time and “absolute” measures that are the antithesis of the philosophy found in relativity, but are allowed in my model that requires an “Eye of God” perspective to describe the proper geometry. The model also predicts and establishes the relationships required in relativity in the first place. The model also makes predictions, such as the effect of gravity diminishes over the passage of absolute time, and that all physical processes slow down with the passage of absolute or historical time. These predictions are in accordance with observation. The Uniform Expansion Theory is a serious theory.

The future of mankind is interesting to consider in light of the predictions the Uniform Expansion Theory.

The physical description

Typically in any textbook describing the expansion of spacetime, galaxies are represented as pennies that are taped to an expanding balloon. In the uniform expansion theory, the penny-galaxies would be drawn on the balloon. As the balloon expands, so does every galaxy, every solar system, every star, every planet, every atom, every electron, and every photon. The expansion of spacetime is truly uniform.

If we “run the clock backwards” in such a model, instead of galaxies converging to a singularity, as found in the mainstream model, galaxies maintain their relative distance from each other. If the intergalactic distance between galaxies is 10 galactic diameters, then every galaxy maintains a relative spatial separation of 10 galactic diameters, (baring comparatively minor gravitational interaction effects).

If there were an “absolute” density limit to which matter can be compressed, then this would change the description of the beginning of the Universe. Instead of the one “singularity” as described in the mainstream “big bang” model, the universe starts off with some kind of highly compressed region of spacetime, and mass enters the universe at multiple “singularities”.

Instead of a super massive black hole at the center of galaxies, the cores of galaxies are like “white fountains” where matter is steaming into the universe. Since the effect of gravity is a function of an objects historical location in time, the effect of gravity at the cores of galaxies is much greater than presently assumed since the core is “young”. (The recent observation of stars so close to the core of our galaxy is no surprised in this model, but it was a surprise in the black hole model since tidal forces should have ripped apart any massive stellar formation).

A consequence of the theory is that newly formed stars are going to be at the cores of galaxies. All stars in the outer perimeter of our galaxy will eventually burn out and die. Since our sun is an outer perimeter star in the Milky Way System, if there is any hope for mankind to survive beyond the life of our sun, (which, according to the uniform expansion theory, there are only a couple of billion years left), then we will have to leave our Solar system and head towards the core of our galaxy in search for newly formed stars and planetary systems.

This fate would be true for all sentient life in our galaxy. If there were other civilizations out there, then we would all converge just outside the active core of our galaxy.

The future
Assuming that compassion is stronger character trait than aggression, and we survive as a species, the future is interesting to consider. If there were other sentient beings looking for a home, how would we deal with competition for habitable planets? What and who would we bring with us when we left Earth? Would we leave Earth as biological beings or as robots programmed to start life over when possible? What about those left behind to die in a burnt then frozen Earth?

Snowflake

[Faultline]

You don't have a theory, you have a conjecture. It would be a stretch to call it a hypothesis. It relies on too many assumptions, such as an absolute frame of reference for time and place. And you have no testable predictions.

Let me ask you this? Surely you know about falsification? What would utterly falsify your conjecture?

For instance, if light were not bent by the presence of the sun's gravitational field, then relativity would be out the window, for it made that prediction (which was observed to be correct down to the mathematical penny).

How about yours? What possible instance or discovery could falsify your idea?

[wollery]

Actually the theory (ahem) is easily falsifiable.

In the physical description given not only are the galaxies separating, but according to the given paradigm so are the stars within each galaxy, the atoms within each star and the subatomic particles within each atom. The paradigm states that "The expansion of spacetime is truly uniform."

Unfortunately this means that one of two things would happen. Either we would not see the speed of light as being constant (since the distance a photon was covering would be constantly increasing), or, if we did, we would not see the recession of the galaxies (ie the expansion of the Universe).

Since we see the speed of light as constant and the recession of the galaxies the above theory is false.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi fault line

The theory is based upon a geometric expansion of space time. The assumptions are consistent with the geometry.

The first test of a theory would be to make sure is geometrically consistent; It is
The second test of a theory is to see if it is conformant to observation; it is
The third test of a theory is to make predictions; I have.

One good test of the theory is that High red shift type 1a supernovas should show a reduction in the duration of the light curve. At a red shift factor of 2, the duration of the light curve should be about 2 days shorter. Unfortunately at the present time the scatter is so wide in the data the observation is not fully corroborated.

Another good test of the theory is that the cores of galaxies should show star formations ever closer to the alleged “event horizon”. Eventually these stars will be seen as being so close to the black hole they should be impossible to exist, forcing the search for some kind of new explanation.

Along the same lines of explaining properties of high red shift 1a supernovas, the supposed “acceleration of space” disappears, negating the need for “dark energy”.

Another good verification of the theory is that it can explain the lack of correlation of time dilation associated with the time variation in the energy output of quasars expected in relation to red shift. Hawkins considered this issue a major threat to the present standard model.

Another good verification of the theory is that in can explain the lack of correlation in the expected image size of radio galaxies in relation to the expected image size due to the expansion of spacetime.

Another good verification of the theory is that it resolves the issue in which stars appear to be older than the universe

Another good verification of the theory is that it explains how fully mature galaxies could exist when the universe was very young

Another good verification of the theory is that it explains the evidence that our sun blew up 5 billion years ago.(This reminds me to make a prediction. The neutrinos that are emerging from the sun are being collected, allowing a crude neutrino photograph of the sun. Presently the resolution is crude, but eventually it will be seen that the core of the sun, up to a radius of .05 R is not reactive. This is because the core is not composed of Hydrogen, but heavy metals, mostly Iron).

By far the best test of a theory is it’s simplicity. The theory allows one physical model to unite gravitational relationships with quantum relationships. This is the unified field theory.

Snowflake.

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi wollery

You have made an unfair assessment of the theory.

The speed of light is locally constant, as predicted by the model.

The recessional rate of galaxies is indicated by the cosmological red shift. This too is predicted by the geometry of the model.

Since the model predicts the locally observed speed of light to be constant, and it predicts the cosmological red shift, then by your criteria, the theory is valid.

Snowflake.

[Thanatos]

Explaining stable planetary orbits appears problematic. I admittedly have a knee-jerk 'not even wrong' reaction to just about any alternative theory that reproduces relativity without an experiment [proposed or already done] that favors the alternative model over relativity. I'm reminded of the old saying - you can put a dress on a dog, but it's still a dog.

[Nereid]

All quotes are from snowflakeuniverse, in this thread, unless otherwise noted.

First I must emphasize that my Uniform Expansion Theory is geometrically based and has so far addressed every “attack” given by those who have attempted to discredit it.

If this idea (it's hardly a theory) is the one being discussed in the Two dimensions of time describe the Universe thread, then we have a serious communication problem ... IMHO, not even the simplest aspects of your idea have survived mild questioning (so far).

These predictions are in accordance with observation.

I must have missed this ... where did you publish the details of the 'in accordance with'? I mean, quantitative matches, not handwaving.

The recent observation of stars so close to the core of our galaxy is no surprised in this model

Good; now please show us the math and the numbers - show, using the equations in your idea,
*how stars can form in such environments,
*what the rate of star formation would be,
*how that rate would vary, depending on the SMBH, distance, etc
*that the stars formed there would 'look like' the stars that we know a great deal about

A consequence of the theory is that newly formed stars are going to be at the cores of galaxies. All stars in the outer perimeter of our galaxy will eventually burn out and die.

So, if we find 'newly formed stars' 'in the outer perimeter of our galaxy', we would have an inconsistency between your idea and good observational results?

How about other galaxies - to what extent would finding 'newly formed stars' 'in the outer perimeter of [other] galax[ies]' be inconsistent with your idea?

The theory is based upon a geometric expansion of space time.

What are the equations?

The second test of a theory is to see if it is conformant to observation; it is

Maybe; I've already identified several possible inconsistencies.

Another good test of the theory is that the cores of galaxies should show star formations ever closer to the alleged “event horizon”. Eventually these stars will be seen as being so close to the black hole they should be impossible to exist, forcing the search for some kind of new explanation.

Ah, the common "mainstream has difficulty, THEREFORE my idea MUST be right! what? you want me to show you that my idea can account for the (troubling to the mainstream) observations?? But I just showed you that the mainstream can't account for these observations, what more do I need to show??"

So, SU, show us (I already asked the questions).

Along the same lines of explaining properties of high red shift 1a supernovas, the supposed “acceleration of space” disappears, negating the need for “dark energy”.

I must have missed it - where's your chart, showing the observations of high-z SNe and your predictions?

Another good verification of the theory is that it can explain the lack of correlation of time dilation associated with the time variation in the energy output of quasars expected in relation to red shift. Hawkins considered this issue a major threat to the present standard model.

I seem to have missed this too - where is your paper, re-analysing Hawkins' data in terms of your idea, and showing consistency?

Another good verification of the theory is that in can explain the lack of correlation in the expected image size of radio galaxies in relation to the expected image size due to the expansion of spacetime.

OK, please show it.

Another good verification of the theory is that it resolves the issue in which stars appear to be older than the universe

I didn't know there were any stars which 'appear to be older than the universe'; references please (and please, not the older papers with conclusions which later work has shown to be wrong).

One last set of questions: in your idea,
*what is the CMBR?
*how do you account for the x-ray observations of rich clusters?
*what is the primordial abundance of light nuclides (if this question makes sense)?
*is there an SZE (Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect)?
*is there a Sachs-Wolf effect?
*how well does your idea match the observed power spectrum of galaxies? (or, if you prefer, how well does your idea match the good observational results on the large-scale structure of the universe?)

[snowflakeuniverse]

Hi Nereid

Thank you for you interest.

First you stated that
IMHO, not even the simplest aspects of your idea have survived mild questioning (so far).

It is clear by the questions you have posed that you have not been carefully following the exchange. Examples of your not following the correspondence and rendering a hasty opinion is indicated by...

You said,
I didn't know there were any stars which 'appear to be older than the universe'; references please (and please, not the older papers with conclusions which later work has shown to be wrong).

This issue was also a concern expressed by Celestial Mechanic, who, interestingly enough, also felt that the issue is an old one,
The following is a copy of part of the post in which I state that there are two dimension of time

Celestial Mechanic said

Citations for stars older than the galaxy? And please, not something from the '60s.

I responded with,
I have posted on this topic previously in 2003 in this forum and if you follow the link http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=9052 and check out post number 21 you will see that I have summarized all the abstracts and papers on this issue I could find from 1986 to 2003, 55 total. I have separated them in terms of varies ages each party has determined for these globular cluster stars. After a careful review, I am convinced that the studies indicating that there is a real issue here..

I have also had the opportunity to review several of the papers and I am convinced that the more thorough analyses are done by those advocating that there are some stars that are older than the universe. These papers have to face the strongest scrutiny and are much more carefully analyzed and written. This is an opinion based upon hours of research, not just some superficial 30-second evaluation of a post.
When I stated

The theory is based upon a geometric expansion of space time.
You asked,
What are the equations?

I presented the mathematical development of this theory at . http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18805
You will see Kepler’s laws derived and the development of the formulas I call the Ratios of time. (Which predicts that the effect of gravity varies with time (As believed by Gamow and Dirac).

The application of the relationships illustrating the perseverance or establishment of relative measures of time is at http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32067

I posted a physical application of the theory in which I predicted of the energy output of quasars without resorting to matter falling into “super massive black holes” http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32808

I also noticed a large clump of issues that seem to indicate that you think I am not predicting the evidence of the “big bang” This is not the case. For example, You said,
what is the primordial abundance of light nuclides (if this question makes sense)?
Instead of all matter somehow appearing in one location, as assumed by the big bang model, matter streams in multiple locations in the universe with a given spatial separation that corresponds to galactic distances. When this process first begins, the density of spacetime is still very high and the energy state is enormous, “strings” of matter would stream into the universe and “fuse” with the same physical reactions that established the proportions of initial elements that comprise our universe. According to the model, comparitive clock rates would be very fast when the universe began, so our relative description of this process would be that it transpired in an “instant”. The proposed model produces all the physical characteristics and physical evidence of a big bang.

There are also a number of examples in which I have stated that I have correlated the theory to observation, I will be posting them as separate topics for everyone’s review but what I have presented so far should be enough to chew on.

I appreciate you comments and critiques.
Thank you
Snowflake.

[Nereid]

Hi Nereid

Thank you for you interest.

First you stated that
IMHO, not even the simplest aspects of your idea have survived mild questioning (so far).

It is clear by the questions you have posed that you have not been carefully following the exchange.

It's true that I hadn't read several other threads of yours, and was basing my comment on just the one to which I provided a link; in that thread, I feel you are having a tough time answering CM's questions.

Examples of your not following the correspondence and rendering a hasty opinion is indicated by...

You said,
I didn't know there were any stars which 'appear to be older than the universe'; references please (and please, not the older papers with conclusions which later work has shown to be wrong).

This issue was also a concern expressed by Celestial Mechanic, who, interestingly enough, also felt that the issue is an old one,
The following is a copy of part of the post in which I state that there are two dimension of time

Celestial Mechanic said

Citations for stars older than the galaxy? And please, not something from the '60s.

I responded with,
I have posted on this topic previously in 2003 in this forum and if you follow the link http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=9052 and check out post number 21 you will see that I have summarized all the abstracts and papers on this issue I could find from 1986 to 2003, 55 total. I have separated them in terms of varies ages each party has determined for these globular cluster stars. After a careful review, I am convinced that the studies indicating that there is a real issue here..

I have also had the opportunity to review several of the papers and I am convinced that the more thorough analyses are done by those advocating that there are some stars that are older than the universe. These papers have to face the strongest scrutiny and are much more carefully analyzed and written. This is an opinion based upon hours of research, not just some superficial 30-second evaluation of a post.

Thank you for the link.

To put it in a slightly different light, let me select only those which give an age of the oldest stars >13.7 bn years AND were published after 1997 (those before would not have had the benefit of the HIPPARCOS discoveries, as you noted) AND which have a lower bound (i.e. mid value - quoted error) > 13.7 bn years. There are only 5 (of 17 that you say give ages):
"2000=15 to 18.3…..VandenBerg, Don A. Uses Hipparcos, improves model for metalicity, resolves some conflicts appearing in models with age less than 13
2000=14.6 to 16…..Grundahl, F
2001=15.9 16.4……Rengel Miriam
2001=16……………Kravtsov, Valery V
2003=15.9 16.3……Rengel, Miriam"

Later in the same thread, dgruss23 commented on one of these specifically (Kravtsov), and generally.

So, while you claim "Another good verification of the theory is that it resolves the issue in which stars appear to be older than the universe", the 'issue' you are 'resolving' would seem to be quite some way (yet) from being a real issue at all.

Perhaps you could give us the full references for these five papers? That way we would have a chance to make our own minds up about how well founded your conviction is.

When I stated

The theory is based upon a geometric expansion of space time.
You asked,
What are the equations?

I presented the mathematical development of this theory at . http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18805
You will see Kepler’s laws derived and the development of the formulas I call the Ratios of time. (Which predicts that the effect of gravity varies with time (As believed by Gamow and Dirac).

The application of the relationships illustrating the perseverance or establishment of relative measures of time is at http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32067

I posted a physical application of the theory in which I predicted of the energy output of quasars without resorting to matter falling into “super massive black holes” http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32808

I see (now) that you did post a lot of material, in several different threads.

I'm wondering whether it would be sensible to merge the various threads which discuss your idea ... it might make discussion flow more easily.

I also noticed a large clump of issues that seem to indicate that you think I am not predicting the evidence of the “big bang” This is not the case. For example, You said,
what is the primordial abundance of light nuclides (if this question makes sense)?
Instead of all matter somehow appearing in one location, as assumed by the big bang model, matter streams in multiple locations in the universe with a given spatial separation that corresponds to galactic distances. When this process first begins, the density of spacetime is still very high and the energy state is enormous, “strings” of matter would stream into the universe and “fuse” with the same physical reactions that established the proportions of initial elements that comprise our universe. According to the model, comparitive clock rates would be very fast when the universe began, so our relative description of this process would be that it transpired in an “instant”. The proposed model produces all the physical characteristics and physical evidence of a big bang.

Thanks for answering this.

If I have understood you correctly, observations of the primordial abundance of light nuclides cannot be used to test your idea, because the answers will be the same as those from concordance models ("Big Bang theories"); is this so?

There are also a number of examples in which I have stated that I have correlated the theory to observation, I will be posting them as separate topics for everyone’s review but what I have presented so far should be enough to chew on.

Good, I'm looking forward to them ... especially the quantitative ones!