Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

bangstrom's Achievements


Baryon (4/13)



  1. Very true about GR, but relative to ‘What’ is the universe expanding? Or is it expanding at all? I had a goldfish that grew too large for its bowel, but from the perspective of a goldfish, the bowel must have been growing too small for the fish. When a woman puts on a pair of old pair of pants and the pants are too tight, she thinks she must be getting fat. When a man puts on a pair of old pair of pants and the pants are too tight, he thinks the pants must have shrunk. With the universe as a whole, we don’t have a god’s eye view of events where we can view the universe from the great beyond and watch it expand or contract or remain the same so we have no external scale to tell us if the universe is truly expanding or if all the material within is growing smaller. We are like goldfish in a bowel where our only perspective is that of what the universe looks like from the inside and our choice of absolutes is arbitrary because the laws of physics and math are blind to perspective and they do work both ways.
  2. The value of having an equivalent but alternative model to the Standard BB expansion theory is that we can compare one model with the other looking for consensus and also looking for inconsistencies that suggest there may be something wrong with our interpretation of one or both models. I think your model of shrinking matter model suggests some serious problems with the expansion theory but it works both ways. I hope I understand how you find speed of light to be varying in your model but if you apply the same thinking the SMBB you should find that the speed of light is also varies from reference frame to reference frame in the Standard Model. If space expands while time remains the same, the speed of light must necessarily be slowing. My understanding of this is that your model is no more a model of changes in the speed of light than is the SMBB, since in both models, the speed of light should be measured the same in each and every individual reference frame. So how is your model any different from the SMBB? A little known mathematician named Russel Ryerson had a model of contracting matter essentially the same as yours and he said one model is the conceptual and mathematical inverse of the other. This is why they are equivalent and he called his model “Inverse Expansion.” In the SMBB, space is expanding while time remains the same. In your model, matter is contracting, while space remains the same. I explained earlier in my comment of “little meaning” that the measured value of c remains the same in every reference frame and this should apply to your model just as it does to the SMBB. So your model is one of shrinking matter rather than a changing speed of light. As particles in the material world grow smaller, they spin faster, and our perception of time quickens. In the SMBB model, space expands while time remains the same and the speed of light slows from one reference frame to another. In your model, space remains the same while matter contracts and the speed of light quickens from one reference frame to another. One is the simple inverse of the other but we can't go back in time and measure light speed in these older reference frames so the variations are safely ignored. Our observation of c remains the same in both models so neither one can be considered a model of a variable speed of light. The real difference is that the SMBB is a model of expanding space and yours is a model of quickening time.
  3. It is clear that light waves are not “stretched out” in your model but I was asking if light wave emissions are growing shorter with time? That is, progressively shorter starting with the CMB and up to the present time.
  4. That's not an actual rebuttal. You disprove a conjecture by showing that it's not consistent with what we observe. My statement was a comment and not an “actual rebuttal” because the OP makes sense. The “speed of light” can vary from one reference frame to another but the observed value for c should be the same in all individual reference frames. If c is a constant, then (ε0μ0) is also a constant. Separately, e0 and μ0 may be variables but their multiples and ratios should be a constant, just as when c= d/t. Distance and time may be variables but their observed ratio is a constant. This implies that c can serve as a conversion factor for converting between units of distance and units of time. The value of c is essentially the length of a standard meter expressed in seconds. If the sizes of the EM waves have remained constant, then why do present day emissions appear shorter than primal emissions from the CMB? Your model doesn’t have an expanding space to explain why light waves from distant sources have become “stretched out.” Unless, by constant you mean proportional to the shrinking atomic scale.
  5. The “speed of light” is a constant by definition and therefore can’t change. Our standard units of length and time and the ratio c are all mutually defined which makes it impossible to measure the speed of light as anything other than what it is defined to be. But you have the right idea that if matter shrinks, the nature of spacetime must change. The value of c is a constant ratio of distance to time and not necessarily a speed. C can remain a constant if both time and distance remain as the same ratio. The standard length of a meter is defined as the distance light travels in approximately 1/3x10^8 m/s and a light year is defined as the distance light travels in a year. Consider the impossibility of trying to measure the speed of light in meters or over the distance of a light year. This is simple logic that needs no explanation but it is impossible to explain it to anyone who doesn’t immediately find it intuitive. The more one tries to explain it, the more incomprehensible it becomes. If you haven’t discovered this yet... you will. The Doppler shift is no longer considered the cause of distant redshifts. The current explanation is that space itself is expanding and light waves are being stretched out by the expansion of space which is a much different explanation but conventional thinking and calculations remain rooted in the Doppler shift paradigm. Light speed can vary from one reference frame to another, but within all reference frames, the value of c as a ratio of distance to time should remain the same.
  6. The spheres are called “framboids” and here is an extensive article speculating about their possible origins. Large framboids are collections of smaller framboids rather than true crystals. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313528873_Framboids_From_their_origin_to_application
  7. An old WWII RAF pilot became a commercial airline pilot when he retired from the military. The airport at Frankfort was notorious for its mix of runways and complicated landing patterns. On the pilot’s first flight from London to Frankfort, he was having difficulty following the complicated instructions he was getting from the tower so the frustrated Air Traffic Control officer asked, “Haven’t you ever flown to Frankfort before?” The pilot answered, “Yes, but I never had to land.”
  8. Why would the space travelers 1kg mass be hardly any greater than the same mass for the man in the park? And, why would a material object, either a clock or a weight, moved from one reference frame to another not rescale to its local environment? Also, your scenario would work better with a time traveler than a space traveler. Movement through space slows time so the two aren’t entirely different. Light can’t be detected by any means in the space between signal and receiver so how do we know that light energy even exists in the space between? Mach asked this question as did Berkley long before him. Currently, Carver Mead along with a litany of others are convinced that energy never exists separate from matter.
  9. That is a matter for the Big Bang experts. That is my interpretation of the theory so I am not the person to ask. I find it a strange idea when I think about it.
  10. How does space expand beyond the galaxies? If matter and galaxies both were to expand along with the expansion of space, we would have no observation of an expanding universe. Since we observe galactic redshifts and interpret that as evidence of an expanding universe, the implication is that the galaxies must be remaining the same size while space expands beyond the perimeter of the galaxies. The galaxies are not expanding because they are gravitationally bound and are not affected by expanding space. In the contracting matter theory, the universe is interpreted as being enormous in size from the beginning but not expanding. Instead of expanding space, the entire material world, from atoms to galaxies, is growing smaller so we have the illusion of expansion together with the observation of galactic redshifts because atoms are progressively growing smaller with time. Going back in time, earlier atoms were larger and emitted light in longer wavelengths proportional to their larger size. In the BBT, space is expanding past non-expanding matter, but in the shrinking matter theory, matter is uniformly growing smaller within a background of static space while remaining proportional in size to the rest of the material world. The first is a model of expanding space and the second is a model of quickening time but the picture works the same from either perspective. You are right, they are cousins. I wasn't aware that Joan Baez had such an ilustrious father.
  11. I said mass remains the same. I never said anything about a reduction in mass. Losing empty space increases density but no mass is lost since empty space has no mass. I never proposed a decrease in mass or keeping density the same. You are reading nonsense into what I wrote. Think about what happens in the BBT. When space expands within a galaxy while the galaxy remains the same size, the fields don’t expand with space, they remain with the galaxy. In a “shrinking matter” theory, when matter contracts, the fields contract. The fields remain with matter. What an amazing family! John and Joan Baez are brother and sister. I don’t see the scenario playing out that way but your conclusion is right. In the “shrinking matter” model, at the time of recombination, planets had not yet formed but there were H atoms so let’s follow the progress of the atoms. If the atoms downscale by 1000, they would be 1000 times smaller and no less massive but with far greater densities. They would be the normal atoms we see today except that they were 1000 times larger and therefore less dense in the remote past. In another 13 billion years, there could be some black hole issues. Normally physical laws don't change but matter itself could be vastly different at the extremes
  12. What I have written has been largely in response to considered problems. What has not been addressed?. Are you saying they don't scale or they do scale? I see space and time scaling in both 3D and 4D and matter scaling proportionally which is why the physics remains unchanged. Your claim is not my claim. But I do agree conservation laws hold locally because all changes remain proportional from one reference frame to the next. Why would the laws of gravity be any different. For convenience, we are justified in considering gravitational sources as single points. If particles become a smaller it should make no difference to gravity or changes in shape. But it should involve all material in the universe growing hotter with time and we observe this as a rise in temperature from the primal temperature of 3.73K. For a long time I thought it was simply a “What if ?” that helped my understanding of the BBT but now I see it as the answer to several problems with the Standard Model. But that is another story. I wrote my response without taking time to consider it properly. That is why I asked for your expertise to take a look at it. Not because I was trying to explain away something I didn’t understand. I favor a Machian approach to physics which tries to eliminate as many “metaphysicals” as possible and modify or remove any laws of physics that do not hew closely to experiment and observation. That is a good matter for consideration.
  13. Does this make sense? Caracal gave the example of two men in two jars with time varying at different rates in each jar. Neither man notices a change in his own jar but they can look out and see that their clocks are running at different rates and their units of length no longer match. The radius r of an atom in both jars is r = ℏ2/me2 and the value of e in both jars is e=L3/2M1/2/T. The atoms in the jar with the faster rate of time should be smaller than in the jar with the slower time because the value of e is greater where e= L3/2M1/2/T when the length L is shorter, and momentum M is greater, and the rate of time T is greater.
  14. (My emphasis.) Who gave it? And are you a co-author? x-posted with Swansont. In any case, mass and length scale together due to relativity and quantum mechanics, so no, you can't pull this off. Unless you explain very good reasons why ℏ and c (speed of light) are irrelevant in physics. The “given” of an expanding universe began with the interpretation of Hubble’s observation of distant galactic redshifts as recessional velocities. Hubble himself was never convinced that the universe was expanding because he could see other possible explanations. I am not a co-author of anything. What do you mean by “mass and length” scale together? Did you intend to say time and length scale together? It has never been my claim that ℏ and c are irrelevant. My interpretation is that the space traveler could know he has been transformed if he can observe an increase in the rest mass of a massive body. However, if his atoms are smaller and therefore more dense and time has quickened, there should be an increase in the objects inertial mass but he would not be able to observe the change because his rate of time is faster When you say mass has increased, do you mean rest mass or inertial mass or both? Also, Wetterich has a contracting model with quickening time where he claims that mass increases with time but I don’t know enough about the model to claim I understand it. https://bigthink.com/articles/the-universe-may-not-be-expanding/ arXiv:1912.00792v4 [gr-qc] 30 Apr 2021 The great emptiness at the beginning of the Universe “The beginning is vacuum, characterized only by average values of fields and their fluctuations. This is a very quiet epoch with only a very slow increase of particle masses. In the infinite past all particles become massless.”-Wetterich Wetterich also has this to say, “For standard inflationary models we find that the big bang singularity of homogeneous solutions is an artifact of a singular choice of fields.”
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.