Romao Mota

The equivalence between these two points of view is a mere apparent kinematic similarity changing the reference frame, to introduce the reader in the scope of the new theory. This apparent similarity is not a new idea, as with Arthur Eddington said in 1933 in his classic book “The expanding universe”; “All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common material standards; our material standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the “expanding universe” might also be called the theory of the shrinking atom”. Important problems in the BBT are solved in the Shrinking Matter Theory as shown below in the comparative table. The laws of physics are mathematical arrangements of constants that are products of human observations. This theory allows the variation of parameters that we consider constant, but which can vary so slowly over time, which is difficult in human lifetime that we notice any change. Light speed is very sensitive to the variation of the medium. In this theory, the shrinkage of matter is accompanied by an increase in the energy of the electrons in the ground state and in the mass energy of atoms, which steal this energy from free space, resulting in a decrease in its permittivity, which causes an increase in the speed of light which in a looping behavior causes the shrinkage of matter, increasing again its overall energy. The redshift is the observational phenomenon of this. The variation in the speed of light would currently be only 7.25 mm/s per year and the standard meter would shrink 4.84 nanometers per century, with corroborate the difficulty of perception in our lifetime. ---------------------- Thanks for the comment.

The overall strategy of the equation is correct, but the gravitational potential energy is a negative value and delta E should be positive, so, the equation needs to be multiplied by (-1), or invert the positions of r1 and r2. or When r2>>>r1, the influence of r2 can be neglected and delta E is exactly equivalent to the absolute value of the potential energy on the surface of the neutron star, then:

Poor rebuttal without showing any inconsistencies. Dark phenomena are pseudosciences. But, thank you for expressing your opinion / feeling.

The graphic 04 presented below represents the synthesis of “Shrinking Matter Theory with Variable Speed of Light”, (SMTwVSL), breaking the BBT paradigm in a way never before approached. The behavior of the cyclical evolution of the universe is fully explained in a simple graphic, however supported by all the mathematics involved. My thanks for the 5k views.

The “Graphic 01” is a compilation of several aspects that emerged after the discovery of the relationship between redshift and distance. It presents a comparative evolution of distance (Gly) and time (Gyr), in function of redshift “Z” from 0 to 14. For the ΛCDM_SN1A distance ladder in squared blue points. For the theoretical ΛCDM linear function in blue line. For the Time SMTwVSL hypothesis A in violet. For the Distance SMTwVSL hypothesis A in red. For the Time SMTwVSL hypothesis B in yellow. For the Distance SMTwVSL hypothesis B in green. For Time and Distance in the Hubble law in black. The Graphic 01_1 is a zoom at low redshift to visualize the insignificant differences in the local frame.

This time we posted the graph that shows the evolution of time as a function of redshift, in a cyclic universe, in the “Schrinking Matter Theory with Variable Speed of Light (SMTwVSL)”.

After a long absence, I am back. In 1933, when the propaganda of the BBT was in its peak, Arthur Eddington, published the classic book “The expanding universe”. In the IV chapter, in a fit of lucidity he wrote:[1] “All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common material standards; our material standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the “expanding universe” might also be called the theory of the “shrinking atom”. It is our instinctive outlook that we are always the same; it is our environment that changes. As with Anatole France’s dog Ricquet-“Les hommes , Les animaux, les pierres grandissents, en s'approchant et deviennent énormes quand ils sont sur moi. Moi non. Je demeure toujours aussí grand partout où je suis.” “Is not the expanding universe another example of distortion due to our egocentric outlook? Surely, the universe should be the standard and we should measure our own vicissitudes by it. We see a relative change, and cry out that the universe is dissolving; as well might the growing child, who sees familiar home becoming smaller, be dismayed at the vanishing property of houses and furniture.” Free translation of the French text: The men, the animals, the stones grow, approaching and become enormous when they are on me. Me no. I always remain so great wherever I am. The clarity and sincerity of his words is impressive, but as he himself admitted, he did not deem it true, and his book was reprinted again in 1933, 1944, 1946, 1952, and in 1987. The lobby in the scientific community at that time was such that no one could get a job in the scientific area if they did not defend the idea of the BBT. Einstein himself last ten years to accept this idea, but in 1931[2], he finally was convinced due the unquestionable observations of the redshift distance relationship, that Hubble himself called “apparent” velocities. The following year he joined Hubble on a new research "$job$". "Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953)."[3] In 1931 he wrote a letter to the Dutch cosmologist Willem de Sitter expressing his opinion on the theoretical interpretation of the redshift-distance relation:[4][5] "Mr. Humason and I are both deeply sensible of your gracious appreciation of the papers on velocities and distances of nebulae. We use the term 'apparent' velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority."[5] References: 1) https://books.google.com.br/books?id=KHyV4-2EyrUC&pg=PA90&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false 2) Einstein’s aborted attempt at a dynamic steady-state universe. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4099.pdf 3) https://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html 4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314128/ 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble ---------------------------- The new discoveries provided by the new JWST telescope are an opportunity for us to reflect and perhaps take a step back and get the right path, instead of inventing a new crutch to keep the theory of the accelerated expansion of the universe standing. The problems encountered in the big bang theory in the last century are enough to make us look for another way out of the insoluble dilemmas detected so far. Humanity needs to free itself from the indoctrination provided by a century of BBT propaganda, which intentionally or unintentionally produced a false consensus that prevents the analysis of new theories for fear of being excluded from the scientific community. The absence of doubts regarding this new theory is impressive, it seems that almost everyone understands its consistency, but prefers to blindly follow the “consensual majority”, avoiding controversy. Bellow we have two tables, the first is a comparison of the efficiency of the Big Bang Theory versus the Shrinking Matter Theory with Variation of the Speed of Light (SMTwVSL), the second presents the main equations used in physics and its variations in function of the observed redshift and in function of time, in the new theory.

Approximately 100 MegaParsecs ( +/- 50 ), and depending on the distribution of its component galaxies. Great!! Report this to the Shapley Supercluster. It is at 200 mpc. Baseless data. Data with high tolerance and still with undetermined fudge leak factor is unusable. Link, please. That is, at best, a pseudoframe. GR does not allow for a universal, or 'special', frame. Wrong premises of outdated ancient theories, followed by grumpy old. The mechanism was described in the June 16 post. The table, (not copied here), is the complement of it. Childish insult of old gaga when arguments run out.

I will not fall for your insulting provocation. This is for children and frustrated people. Rubbish is your unfounded protest. Why can’t we assume the universe as the reference frame? NASA uses the UNIVERSAL CMB RADIATION as reference frame in its space ship, to determine its REAL speed. You are attached to outdated concepts. See: https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10854.html I agree!!! You contradicted your own previous statement. You cannot use wrong premises of the old outdated BBT to confront the theory opposite to it. At what distance is gravity trivial? Give me a number in Gly or mpc. If you give that number, (which I doubt you do), we could say that a body at half that distance would would still be gravitationally counted, both by us and for a body at that supposed distance of gravitational triviality. That is why there is not such distance, the universe is fully connected. BBT is a dogma. No, the increment in the mass energy of the atom due its shrinkage is neglected when compared with the total energy of atoms. Nice but failed attempt to bring the subject of gravity into this thread. Gravity is a controversial topic that should be, (and already is), addressed in a specific thread. For now, I can say that gravity is the property of energy to concentrate.

The SMT-VLS, "Shrinking Matter Theory with Variable Speed of Light", is the only one that presents simple equations to calculate time, distance and sizes of objects observed at deep distances. The simple adoption of a scalar parameter, like the Hubble constant as shrinking parameter, is not enough to justify the shrinkage of matter. There must be a reason for that, as said in the OP. In principle, we have two paths to follow, vary the Planck constant, or vary the speed of light. The variation of Planck’s constant has the same effect on time and on the shrinkage speed of matter, presenting equivalence between distance and time, due the constancy of the speed of light, but it has limitations in the variance of important constants, such as the Coulomb constant, " ke", and the Vacuum permittivity, “ε(0)”, which are fundamental to the functioning of the universe on large scale and at atomic level. That's why I, personally, preferred the variation of the speed of light, due its sensitivity to the variation of the medium. The energy of free space plays the rule of the shrinking behavior, and this behavior plays the rule of how free space evolve. This is similar to the “chicken and egg” situation. The expanding universe is the illusion caused by this looping behavior, which is strictly the evolution of the universe itself. Below, we have a table with the main constants used in physics and its variations in function of the redshift and in function of time

Criticisms are welcome and help a lot to correct errors and to increase the deployment of information that only others can see. This theory follows a line of thought where whenever the constant "c" appears in an equation, it is followed by the constant of variation (1+Z)-1/3. This is simple math. The next step is to rewrite the equation as a function of time. Constants “ε” and "c" have different variables because they appear with different exponentials in that equation, that's all. I just wanted to clarify information that might not have been noticed. No one is forced to like or approve of any theory. Every theory starts from the assumption of the possibility that the event can happen. If someone does not accept the premises, there is nothing to be done.

To measure changes in the properties of atoms along the time, no one can use a clock that also varies with time, since it is made atoms and also varies over time. Variation of ”ε” was explained in the answer of Sunday, may/08/22 9:54 PM. The equation c=1/√(ε0μ0) was rewritten in another form: The end result in that post was: ε(f)= ε(0)(1+Z)2/3 This rate is the same of the variation of the size of bodies and atoms “r”, then, in function of time, ε(f) also would be: ε(f)= ε(0) (t+K(A)) / K(A) Below, I have re-edited the two images posted in the previous post, including epsilon ε . The main formulas used in SMT-VSL, and a partial image of an excel plan with some numbers:

You were right, μ0 really is not dimensionless, μr is. In the research by Rosenband et al 2008they used atomic clocks to measure atomic properties of aluminum and mercury. Aluminum, Mercury and Cesium133 are made up of atoms that are made of the same stuff, protons, neutrons and electrons. Considering that both the three are increasing the frequency of their emissions at the same rate, the best expected result would be a null value, (zero) variation in α, which in this case is consistent with the result, since the tolerance is greater than the median variation. The work of Rosenband et al 2008 would makes sense to test the accuracy of the equipment used, because, for a predicted result of null variation, the result of (−1.6±2.3)×10−17 per year is very close to the expected null value. Atomic clocks are very accurate and important, but to measure variations in atomic behavior, it is necessary to calibrate the clock to an invariant frequency in the universe. In SMT-VSL, we have two frequencies that are immutable, which are the PEAK of the CMBs and the PEAK of the unresolved CXRBs. Below we have a table with the main formulas used in SMT-VSL, and a partial image of an excel plan with some “numbers” you asked for.

In the first post, I said “In the SMT-VSL, the universe is the reference frame, so there is not expansion to cause redshift (except in the systemic local movements like rotation, orbits, binary systems, turbulence, ejection, gravitational effect and gravitational falling), so, the longer wavelengths observed are actually longer emission lines due the bigger size of the atoms in the past.” They are not "stretched out". CMB is not a consensus in the scientific community. It is “almost” impossible for anyone to know its origin, which material emitted this energy. I don't know of any research indicating CMB emission in wavelenght "shorter than primal emissions" in our local frame.

The rate of change of α is described in the answer edited later. α(f) = α(o) (1+Z)-1/3. This rate is the same of the variation of “c”, then, in function of time, this rate also would be: If there are any errors, please let me know and I will correct them. The permeability of free space (a vacuum ) is a physical constant equal to approximately 1.257 x 10 -6 henry per meter . It is symbolized µ o . Permeability in general is symbolized µ, and is a constant of proportionality that exists between magnetic flux density and magnetic field strength in a given medium.[1] µ o is a dimensionless constant. μ0 = 4 π (10) -7 Vacuum permittivity, commonly denoted ε0 (pronounced as "epsilon nought" or "epsilon zero") is the value of the absolute dielectric permittivity of classical vacuum. Alternatively may be referred to as the permittivity of free space, the electric constant, or the distributed capacitance of the vacuum. It is an ideal (baseline) physical constant. Its CODATA value is: [2] ε0 = 8.8541878128(13)×10−12 F⋅m−1 So, ε(f) in a past frame would be: But, c(f)=c(0)(1+Z) -1/3 => ε(f)= ε(0)(1+Z)2/3 This rate is the same of the variation of the size of bodies and atoms “r”, then, in function of time, ε(f) also would be: ε(f)= ε(0) (t+K(A)) / K(A) The change in the vacuum permittivity is what allows “c” to vary along the time. This variation is actually the evolution of the universe. The redshift of the emissions in the past is the observational data of that. References: 1) https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/permeability-of-free-space-a-vacuum 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity