tmdarkmatter

If this model works, I think you should be able to tell me where this galaxy was 13.5 billion years ago, where the light was emitted, where the galaxy is now and how fast this light travelled what distance to reach us to see if it makes sense. And why we are seeing tiny dots instead of clusters like the neighboring clusters of our milky way. But how is it possible that this light travels for 13.5 billion years if the galaxy was only 2.8 billion light years away?

It is now at 34 billion and back then was at 2.8 billion? So what are the 13.5 billion we are talking about??? If your model is perfect, I think it should be easy for you to answer my questions, instead of cuestioning my understanding of this model. I would prefer to have answers. It is much easier to say that somebody simply does not understand.

Bufofrog said this previously, so I am confused: Don't forget that the light from a galaxy that is 13 billion years old was a emitted a lot closer to us than 13 light years! So please tell me what was the distance of this galaxy 13.5 billion years ago. but the distance would never stretch faster than the speed of light because we would never see this light. The light coming from these furthest galaxies would never be farther away than the initial distance of these galaxies. The galaxies would keep moving away, but the light needs to move into our direction.

That´s correct, I never saw my car. I only saw light coming from it. Ok, what I want to say is that once the light from a galaxy that is further away reaches the observer, the light obviously becomes smaller and dimmer. But if we are currently watching the first sheets of light coming from these distant galaxies, we should still observe a much bigger galaxy and the image should correspond to a galaxy just 30-40 million light years away, if the galaxy was at that position 13.5 billion years ago and the light needed these 13.5 billion years to reach us.

Imagine we stand on a field and a 1x1x1 meter box about 100 meters away is a galaxy we are observing. Now the galaxy expands moving the box 1 meter away to a distance of 101 meters, but at the same time a sheet of carton of exactly 1x1 meter is positioned about 1,1 meter away from the box, at a distance of 99,9 meters. This would be the light coming from the box (galaxy). Now imagine we make our universe expand another meter. The box is moved another meter to a distance of 102 meters and in front of the box you have two cartons of the size of 1 x 1 meter each, one at a distance of 99,8 meters and one at a distance of 100,9 meters. You can continue doing this until you have the box at a distance of 1100 meters, with 1100 different sheets of carton positioned in between you and the box and the first sheet of carton finally reaching you at distance 0. What would this carton look like? Would it be a tiny spot in the distance? I think it is confusing for us that we are only seeing light coming from galaxies, we do not see the galaxies themselves. Of course you would say that these sheets of cartons should get smaller when seeing them from far away, when the galaxy moves away. Even the carton sheets approaching us should get smaller while travelling, but the area of the first sheet should always have the same proportion of the entire area we can see. The sheets would only get smaller once the galaxy moves away. Maybe the best way to imagine the shrinking of the cartons while travelling into our direction is to use some ropes at each corner of the box that would be uniting when the carton reaches us. But we would see thess ropes just as four dots from our perspective. The further away the galaxy is, the closer these 4 ropes would be and therefore we would see the galaxy smaller once these cartons reach us. But when we observe a galaxy very far away, we are still watching the first cartons.

Maybe "unnatural" is the wrong term. "Highly concentrated in the center and therefore not evenly distributed at all" would be better. Let me think about all the things mentioned here. I will come up with a better experiment later today so I can show you my point of view regarding an expanding universe. So what does the universe currently look like according to this concept?

I think there is a huge difference between "visible universe" and "currently estimated universe taking into account that expansion is real". If we suppose that we can see the microwave background at a distance of 46 billion light years and the furthest galaxy at a distance of 13.5 billion light years, then taking these distances as radios we would get to the result that almost 96% of the universe is empty. But if the visible galaxies should now be 33.6 billion light years away, I am wondering how far the microwave background should be away now. Maybe 200 billion light years? This would finally confirm that the concept of a very odd and unnatural universe (soccer field with a pinhead containing 99% of the galaxies) should be true.

But this distance was only estimated taking into account the red shift. By the way, did you notice that this would mean that only 3,8% of the universe contains galaxies?

Yes, I have been thinking about this too. I think the idea that the sound is now rather quiet would mean that there was red-shifting. But the proportion of the area in front of you affected by this noise would still be the same, even if the explosion looks much smaller now. If you walk at sunset, your shadow also becomes bigger and bigger the longer it is. So the image of these galaxies should also become bigger and bigger, compensating the expansion of the universe. If the radius of the visible universe is about 46 billion light years, why do we not see any galaxies that are between 13.5 billion and 46 billion light years away?

But this tiny dot is vissible in a universe with a radius of 13.5 billion light years, when the radius at the beginning was only 40 million light years. So this tiny dot should be much bigger considering that this galaxy was much closer to us. We are talking about a galaxy only 30 million light years away that was pushed away from us to 13.5 billion light years. Why would its image shrink when this image was created at the beginning? When you watch a car moving away at a high speed, this car does not get smaller immediately. It needs to drive away from us to get smaller. The acceleration alone does not change the image. The car has the same size at time 0.

But why would the image of this galaxy become a tiny dot in the sky if this image was travelling at the speed of light against the expansion? If there is an expansion, the image would expand together with the universe.

And how would you explain this with the galaxies that are furthest away? Where did they start their journey? Why would we see them as tiny dots when their light source was actually less than 40 million light years away from us?

So this is indeed light that needed 13.5 billion years to travel 40 million light years? Shouldn´t in that case the universe have expanded faster than the speed of light? Another issue is that all the galaxies we can currently observe would not fit into that small space and that these galaxies at the same time would not create the images of big galaxies we can see close to the horizon.

Million or billion? If million, why would this light need 13.5 billion years to reach us? Was this light carried away and then send to us?

Ok, the same calculations can be made with different horizons, but the problem remains the same. Light is still beeing carried away by expansion. So you suppose that the light was emitted closer to us and then the universe expanded. My questions in this case are: At what distance was the light emitted? What was the position of this light during all this time (light just floating and not moving?)? Why would we see tiny galaxies (dots) with their size beeing according to the estimated distance, why would we not see big galaxies corresponding the images to galaxies closer to us? Yes, I understand what you mean, but red shifted or not, light coming from this distance and having to cross a universe in expansion would need more time to travel this distance, even if travelling at the speed of light and beeing this speed a constant. If light is travelling through a space and I (playing god) expand this space while the light is inside of this space, I should be able to delay that light. It is very important to mention that I am not changing the speed of light, I am only modifying the distance light has to travel. Wouldn´t it be strange to say that when light is red shifted it has the right to travel faster than the speed of light? That would be a contradiction.

Once again, I have some (maybe unusual) questions for the scientific community. I hope you can easily refute my ideas with good arguments. But first I want to mention again what we are currently supposing: 1. The limit of the visible universe is somewhere close to 13.5 billion light years away. (I am using this limit just to make my calculations easier). 2. The universe is expanding, and this expansion is pulling galaxies away from us according to the Hubble constant. 3. Whenever a galaxy is at a distance of almost 13.5 billion light years, this galaxy is moving away from us almost at the speed of light. 4. Objects that are very close to us (for example less than 1 million light years) are almost not moving away from us. 5. The speed of light is constant and has always been the same. Now I have the following idea about light travelling from the furthest galaxies towards us: if light is travelling at speed of light but at the same time the space between this galaxy and us is expanding at a speed that is almost the speed of light, that would mean that the “effective speed of light” of this light should be close to zero. This is similar to someone walking on an escalator against the current. After some time, the escalator would move slower and slower, until finally stopping completely, when the person arrives at its destination (for example earth). At first, I thought that there should be an acceleration of the light when it is travelling to us and that the “effective speed” should increase according to time, meaning that there is a constant acceleration (this would translate into light needing at least twice as much time to reach us than we currently think). But this is not true, because the “effective speed” would not depend on time, but on the distance light has effectively travelled. The expansion depends on the distance the light is still away from us. Now if I imagine that the horizon of the visible universe is 13.5 billion light years away and that a galaxy is for example 13.499 billion light years away, I calculated that the light of this galaxy would move at the usual 300,000 km/s against a current of 299,977.78 km/s arising from the expansion, so the “effective speed” would be only approx. 22.22 km/s. If I now split the path of the light towards us into 13,500 segments of 1 million light years each, then I can calculate that the light would need about 13,500 billion years just to travel through the first segment. Once this light has travelled through about 1000 of these segments, it would still need about 13,5 million years to travel through each segment and once it reaches us, it would only need 1 million years to travel these 1 million light years (maximum effective speed). According to my calculations, the light would need about 136 billion years to reach us from a distance of 13.499 billion light years (about 10 times more). But if there is a galaxy even closer to the horizon, it might need even more time until reaching infinite. On the other side, even the light from a galaxy that is 1 billion light years closer to us than the horizon would still need 35 billion years to reach us, not 12.5 billion years. Now please tell me what I am doing wrong. Why should the expansion of the universe not have any effect at all on the light travelling against this expansion? Was light much faster 13.5 billion years ago than it is today? Was the light coming from distant galaxies actually generated in galaxies that were much closer to us? If the universe expands, this expansion should also carry the light away from us, not only the galaxies. I hope you understand what I mean. Expansion cannot move galaxies while not moving light. On the other hand, the (accelerated) expansion of the universe would make our universe look very odd and unnatural. It would be like a soccer field where there is one galaxy every 5 meters at the borders of the soccer field, with increasing density of galaxies in the center, with maybe 1 million galaxies at a radius of less than 5 meters from the center and a pinhead in the center containing 99,9% of all galaxies of the universe. Please let me know what you think and don´t forget that it does not matter who I am or what I do. Everybody on this planet should have the right to ask questions. I hope that this topic will lead to a conversation with mutual respect and that somebody shows up with a good refutation, so I have peace of mind.

Ok, maybe this model is still "science fiction".

Yes, thank you! Of course with the right instruments and knowledge you can detect this effect. I just wanted to say that you are not going to be pulled to the montain when walking next to it in way we can easily see.

First of I all, I want to thank you for your very detailed reply to my questions. I will go through all the elements and issues you mentioned once again during the weekend when I have more time and even during the following weeks or months, because I am very interested in all these things. This information is very useful for me. The same applies to all other valuable replies I have received here. Thank you all very much! But what I want to ask you at first is how good can "appropriate shielding" be that blocks out "all" ambient radiation. We are saying that neutrinos go through the entire planet due to their very little interaction with matter, while the radiation we so far detected is "almost immediately" being blocked by the surface of our planet, the atmosphere, or the "shielding" you are mentioning. But what if gravity is being caused by radiation with features that are just in between these two extreme situations. In that case, only very big objects like the moon would be able to "effectively block" this radiation in order to make this gravitational shadow be detectable for our instruments. Single atoms might also block this radiation but the effect observed would be completely negligible for us and it would not be possible to measure this effect. Just compare the diameter of earth with the diameter of a single atom to see the magnitude by which the gravitational effect should be negligible and undetectable. I think that this kind of "gravitational radiation" (if it exists) would mostly pass through an atom, because it is very improbable that it just hits the pinhead in a soccer field in the first try and gets absorved or reflected. This radiation with ultra high frequency should have to pass through billions of atoms to finally get absorbed or reflected in a way we can detect and is not being blocked by a sheet of aluminium foil. Lets say that if I want to block this radiation, I would need at least big asteroids or several (maybe hundreds) of kilometers of matter with a thickness of billions and billions of atoms, so i can observe an effect. Only if I put a huge object of this size in front of you, I would be able to show you a change in gravity, as it happens when the moon passes by, pulling our oceans. We say that gravity is a weak force, it is indeed a very very very weak force. So where should we begin to try to find this kind of radiation? I think we have to go below earth as much as possible to see what components of the ambient radiation are still present down there. You might say that there isn´t any radiation down there. Well, neutrinos are there and there might be more, much more radiation with a very low interaction with matter. Of course this radiation has to be negligible/undetectable at first, if we need an object of the size of earth to create enough gravitational force for an acceleration of only 9,81 ms2. Just compare your aluminium sheet with earth. You might say that you cannot create gravitational force in a lab, that´s because you cannot move planets and position them according to your needs. Whenever you see a gravitational effect, it´s because you are using objects of the right size and shielding. We define this shielding as mass. Shouldn´t mountains pull us? Well if we compare the thickness of a mountain (maybe 1000 m) with the thickness of earth, the effect of the mountain should still be negligible compared to the gravity of earth, so we do not notice it.

Why would my concepts disagree with what we observe? I think it is rather that we cannot confirm if this concept is true because we cannot measure all the radiation hitting us and calculate its force nor can we confirm that spacetime curvature exists. There are no proofs. It is just that we are conformists. If spacetime curvature can only be confirmed by gravity and gravity can only be confirmed by spacetime curvature, than this is not science. And even if you melt both ideas and say that spacetime curvature is gravity, we can still remove the spacetime curvature and say that there is only gravity and nothing else. So we are still in the times of Newton, we just have to optimize our understanding of gravity taking into account that protons themselves are being bent by gravitation and that they are also redshifted. Spacetime curvature is nonsense. It is just "an idea quickly accepted by the world of scientists without any proofs" that made Einstein rich and famous and with it the western world became the winners of sime kind of "cold war of science" (just check the amount of nobel prizes by country to see what I mean). Unfortunately, it converted physics into some kind of religion and now it is impossible to propose new ideas without being classified as flat earther. The first condition necessary to be a scientist is not special skills or intelligence. The first conditions are being modest, being able to observe the world/universe, being able to listen to others and having good intentions for humanity. And your goal should not be to become rich and famous nor to treat others as flat earthers, just because they say something different to your unconfirmed theory. I know that you will now show me that the theory was confirmed several times, but if you really take your time and analyze the situation, you will always arrive at the same sentences I mentioned at the beginning.

If time goes by slower close to a black hole, this graph is completely altered. the distances between the times should increase until reaching an infinite distance. If the time units for the falling observer start being longer than the time units for the faraway observer, both observers will get to the same curve. So at time 15, one t of the falling observer corresponds to an infinite amount of ts of the faraway observer. In both cases the falling observer never reaches the event horizon. I think you just have two different times in the same graph.

Of course I am supposing that time would pass at an incredibly slow pace close to zero. If time does not pass, the galaxies around you and the entire universe can dance around for the time they want to. Therefore, once you finally cross the event horizon, this should be the end of the universe where you were and the beginning of a new universe in this black hole. In an instant, you would see the entire future of the universe you were in, because you reached a point where time does no longer pass for you within that universe. I think the best way to desribe this would be a huge white lightning, because you would receive an almost infinite amount of radiation coming from these galaxies in the instant of time when you cross the horizon. And according to how the universe will end, you will either see all the galaxies approaching you and combining into one black hole or you would be seeing them all moving away (if the idea of big bang and expansion is right). But of course I am only supposing and guessing, so this topic will be closed soon anyway.

This can be explained because time is passing slower and slower when getting closer to the event horizon, and when finally arriving at the event horizon, the time will pass infinitely slowly. Therefore objects never cross the horizon. Once you get there, you will see galaxies around you moving at fast speed until everything (the entire universe) falls into the black hole, just when you are crossing the event horizon. It takes a force to compress air, so gravity must also be a force, not a mathematical wonder. Nature does not follow geodesics, the geodesics are a way we are currently using to interpret nature. Several km is pretty thin, but still very far away from a thin line. You might think how I would incorporate time in my idea. Well, I think that time should somehow have to be related to the amount of radiation coming from all directions. So when there is a gravitational shadow or when the object is moving at fast speeds, it is being hit by less radiation or radiation only coming from a certain angle. Therefore time passes slower. Close to a black hole, the gravitational shadow and deviation of light should be so big, that an object would only be hit by a small ray of radiation coming just perpendicular to the surface of the black hole (from behind). This highly concentrated radiation pushing only into one direction should it make very hard for time to pass. Maybe because quarks, electrons, neutrons etc. have to struggle to move around their center, because when coming back against this high intensity radiation they struggle so hard that time must be slowed down in a certain way to make it possible for these particles to still move at the speed of light, not losing their properties. So when we are there, our atoms are struggling for their existance in a completely asymmetric environment and this struggling slows down time. Its like a tree in a storm that does not want to lose its leafs. When the tree is in interstellar space, there is almost no wind, when the tree is on earth, there is a slight breeze, and when the tree is close to a black hole, there is a heavy storm. Just imagine an electron cloud being hit by radiation coming only from one direction. The cloud would be displaced so the electron needs more time at an average to complete a full lap around the nucleus. The pinhead instead of being in the middle of the soccer field is now displaced close to one of the borders and the soccer field is increased in size at the other border. But the electron still has to find its way around the pinhead within this altered soccer field to comply with the laws of physics.

The interesting part is that if there is a constant acceleration of the inertial frame, why is the atmosphere of earth not being compressed to a thin layer on the ground? The air is exerting force against this acceleration. How should that be possible if spacetime is bent? This rather seems to be an equilibrium of forces between the air pressure and a gravitational *force*. The lower in the atmosphere you go, the higher the pressure of air must be in order to push against the increasing gravitational force. The idea of spacetime curvature does not fit here. Is there a spacetime anticurvature of the air to cancel the spacetime curvature? This does not make sense. You might say that a tower is also exerting force against the curvature, but air particles are not a fixed structure. Why would they not follow the frame acceleration or why only to a certain point?

How would you define this? Space accelerating towards the sun? How can something accelerate towards the sun and disappear?