pantheory

This thread speculates that the OPERA neutrino experiment had errors within it resulting in their preliminary results which indicated that muon neutrinos apparently went faster than the speed of light. Most scientists and science knowledgeable people also think that there was an error(s) of some kind in the experiment but the possible causes of errors are many.

Summary of this model

I am a theorist. In my own model of gravity light does not have a constant speed. This theory is a model of pushing gravity first proposed by de Duillier. There are many such versions of pushing gravity, some modern, but the most well-known version was made by Le sage in the mid 1700's. Some of these gravitational models can also be called aether models since many require particulates in the ZPF, something like the dark matter idea but instead these particulates are a pushing rather than pulling force. So my model is an aether model with vectors pushing on all sides of matter. The aether accordingly is made up of string-like particulates of different lengths but just in three dimensions. Some of these particulates could go down to Planck lengths (10^-35 m.). They are pushing and bouncing in all different directions, the fastest and most forceful pass right through matter. For a body the size of the Earth, most of these pushing vectors are absorbed. This heats up the Earth but the Earth continuously radiates EM radiation which are accordingly physically comprised of both particles (photons) and waves (of aether). Since all the downward field vectors are accordingly absorbed by the Earth there are little up vectors on the opposite sides of the Earth. The result is that there are always more downward field vectors surrounding matter than there are up vectors.

In a luminiferous aether such as this model proposes, the carrier of light is the aether, waves and particles of aether. This according would result in a "vector flow" (flow of downward field energy) toward the Earth. This also would accordingly result in some aether flow downward. The formula for this flow was estimated to be EVD ~ 1.25 G M _E / r²s, where EVD represents the velocity of aether flow downward. This is a downward speed of 40 miles per hour, or 36 meters per second aether flow going downward. In this model the aether is gravity and mass centered for reasons explained. Michelson/ Morley could not find the aether because they could not look "up or down" with their equipment which also was not sensitive enough.

The difference in the speed of light that this model proposes is about 80 parts per billion difference up vs. down, partly based upon the OPERA results. But the speed of light would still be constant relative to the aether.

Summary Explanation of the OPERA results -- as it relates to this proposal

The OPERA neutrino experiment results can be explained as follows: The GPS system was used by OPERA/ CERN to measure both the distance that the neutrinos were traveling as well as the coordination of the timing between the two locations. If the speed of light varied by the small extent that I suggest, then the results could be explained by a small error in the GPS system relating to an incorrect speed of light based upon Special Relativity.

Explaining my proposed experiment

For many years I have been planning a verification of my theory of gravity by measuring the difference in the speed of light up vs. down. To date I have not found nanosecond timers accurate enough for such an experiment. Although I believe there now are such a timers, I would need two of them and the costs are very high, so I'm looking to find others or rent some if I can. The experiment involves two fiber optic cables and two timers, one going up for a mile and the other going down for a mile. After the proper calculations I would expect there to be a difference in the speed of light as indicated by the timers, if so this could explain the OPERA result as an error in the programming of the GPS receiving calculators.

"Time: is an interval of change that involves relative motion."

My quote above

How would this statement be different if "relative" were omitted?

It would not be different. I added the word "relative" as a reminder that all motion is relative to something else.

Universally true, I say. Not limited to how movement is observed.

The motion of all objects does not depend on how, from where/when, from what frame of reference that motion is observed.

Like above, movement of anything from A to B has its own elapsed time (not requiring measurement), its event duration, regardless of the frame of reference from which it is observed.

What say you to this?

For a definition of time I think the words "relative motion" or simply "motion" might be eliminated but the word "change" cannot, since almost every type of change involves motion of some kind.

Edit: Just read Iggy's last post. Off the top, can anyone here imagine what he means by,

"Two clocks which share a location but have different velocities..."?

I think he is referring to two clocks that pass by each other at the same location in an instant of time, that have different motions relative to each other.

I knew he was confused,but...Doesn't to "share a location" mean that the clocks are at rest relative to each other... at the same place... impossible with "different velocities'?More later. No 'time.'

Thank You. It does read much easier.

 

I have had another thought.

 

With the newer talk of dark energy, and dark matter. If dark matter exist as particles could anti-dark matter particles exist, and if so would anti-dark matter / dark matter annihilation account for a spreading universe?

 

Okay, I googled it, so maybe not...

The structure of Dark Matter is strictly speculative since what is believed to be the primary entity of it has not been observed. They are fairly certain there is something there, but even to call it matter is somewhat speculative. Dark Energy, in the same way, is also strictly speculative. It is still possible that neither exist and that the names Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just placeholders for our lack of understandings concerning a volume of observations.

The thing I am trying to wrap my mind around is the what. What does a clock measure? Motion from point A to point B? Is time a physical thing that has substance? A human's perception of motion from point A to point B? Can measurement differ at the same point in space or is it a constant? .......a physical state?.....

Clocks are designed to measure a universally accepted standard for comparison concerning the rate of changes in something physical such as matter or light, like rulers are a standard to measure lengths. The basis of our clocks is the rotation of the Earth divided into 24 hours. Each hour is divided into 60 minutes, and each minute is divided into 60 second. The Second is universally accepted as the primary unit of time. Clocks are designed with gears, pendulums, a sun dial, sand grass, etc. so that they can measure any or all of these units. The most precise clocks have been designed to measure milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds, or picoseconds (a trillionth of a second).

Time: is an interval of change that involves relative motion. An instant of time is like a photographic snapshot within an interval of change that does not involve time itself. Time frames, concerning relativity, involve differences of relative positions and motion to the center(s) of gravity. Different time frames in the same gravitational field can progress at slightly different rates of molecular changes within matter and therefore the rate that time progresses in that time frame.

//

owl,

.... besides event duration between designated instants?

I do not think the word "besides" includes very much beyond the definition above.My definition of time is: a measurement of event durations in a particular time frame by using a clock as a standard for comparison. A time frame can be defined as any reference frame that can be described by its relative position its center(s) of gravity.

I think this definition is all there is to the meaning of time, and nothing more -- at least according to my theory of it.

In Quantum Mechanics time is thought to be a very complicated concept. Some theorist in this field believe that time is so complicated that it may take decades or even a century before we will ever be able to come up with a valid theory concerning the essence of time. I think these theorists are totally wrong and I could explain to them why I believe there ideas are wrong and where I believe their arguments are faulty.

But either time is quite simple as I propose, or it is something very complicated like some concepts in Quantum Theory propose. It boils down to differences between theories that presently cannot be resolved. Some future observations may show greater insight, but for me all of reality is not complicated and most of it can be understood by those of average intelligence and education. The essence of time like space, in my opinion, is very easy to understand, but I will not argue with others who wish to believe complicated ideas concerning their ontology since nothing could be gained by either party since both understand the others perspective.

//

I have no problems if you put it this way, but:

1) most relativists will argue that not just clock is speeding up, but time is slowing down for real, and time travel is even possible.

2) You are violating relativity at its core, you are just going back to Newton: clock is speeding up just because of gravity.

So your argument would seemly based upon the phraseology concerning how time dilation is expressed or time travel backward in time.

To argue against backward time travel, I think, is a good argument even if one does not explain his theoretical objections properly.

Relativists, like many others, like to argue. All that are studied in Relativity realize that changes in time are a relative perspective. So far we have come up with no universal time other than for the surface of the Earth. Those arguing could rightfully argue that time for a moving time frame could be speeding up or slowing down for real. Again, as an example our trip out a couple hundred thousand miles away from the Earth we would undergo some real changes of time from the travelers perspective. First time would become faster as one gained altitude, then it would become even more slow that on the surface, as we orbit. When we leave orbit time would speed up again until the fastest progression of time would be reached at maybe 200,000 miles out. Of course we are only talking about billions of a second differences.

Einstein's main point was that time is a reference frame for those using it but has no absolute quantity to it -- that time like most everything else, is relative according to one's perspective

//

skyance,

The Big Crunch is the best known of these infinite cycle universe proposals. In the last 20 years I think fewer theorists would consider this model because of the Dark Energy proposal which accordingly causes the accelerated expansion of the universe.

If It's just semantics, I would agree with you, but at the same time semantics here is very important. After so many years there is too much confusion over what Einstein means when he talks about time as a dimension and slowing down of the time. It looks like the Relativity supporters give a different interpretation, most of them say time is slowing down for real....

I believe I understand your point but also think that semantic problems are an unnecessary part of this as well as many threads. When relativists say that time slows down in a moving time frame relative to a gravitational field, what they mean is that from the perspective of those in that time frame that time, and a clock in that time frame, would be running at a slower rate than for those in a non-moving time frame relative to that same field. Einstein's point and maths relate to no preferred time frame. As an example, the rates that clocks run here on Earth is a little slower than if you went out to the distance of the moon, for instance. The implication is that you can set up any time frames that you want as being preferred, such as Earth meantime, solar meantime, Milky Way meantime, etc. Einstein's contention was that there is no absolute time frame, that the frame of reference concerning time is a matter of choice or perspective.

It would be more precise to define time as a human concept used to keep track of the atoms and subatomic particles movement in their sequence and progression

I think you are missing something at the end of your definition. Instead you might define time by saying: time is a human concept which is used to keep track of atoms, subatomic particles, other subatomic particles, and other movement in their sequences and progressions, concerning any particular measured or conceptualized time frames. Time frames can be defined by there relative motion to a particular gravitational field(s).

By using this definition of time I think you would get much more agreement for your proposal and definition. There will still be many that will not agree upon this definition either since in quantum physics today, time becomes a much more complicated animal. Some theorists even believe that time is such a complicated subject that it might take decades or even a century before we might come up with a "modern theory of it." I think you are arguing against the modern physics which make such proposals

..

Thanks. You say space is no more than volume. volume is the implementation of dimension: IE the implementation of distance and of location.

Surely that must have structure. distance, dimension is an integral element in velocity which is derived from distance and time.

 

Do you mean that volume can exist without any any structure?

Not exactly. According to my own model matter and field define space; without them space accordingly would have no meaning to it.

Does the volume not need the structure to accommodate or hold matter?

In my model space can be described by the three Cartesian dimensions (length, width, and height, or X,Y,Z for instance) for calculation purposes if one wishes, but space in the absence of matter and field would accordingly be meaningless. It therefore could only be quantified by using matter or the speed of light as a yardstick, such as linear meters, square meters, cubic meters, light years, a parsec radius, etc.

If no structure is needed then why does matter need space to implement itself unless matter is also volume, is space.

According to my model one can think of space as an extension or dimension of matter.

I believe they are the same thing, there is a finite resolution down to the smallest element.

There are many that would agree with you, but one should realize that this would seemingly require the universe to be more complicated than it would otherwise need to be. If one proposes a structure to space the question then becomes: what observations are better explained by this proposed structure, which could be called digital space, that is not otherwise explained by an analog space without structure?

//

The conversational theory of what constitutes a black hole core has resulted in many non-answers, some even dealing with an "infinitesimal singularity" which I find ridiculous. Why not just take a logical step back and conclude that a black hole, and its core, is simply a very large, dense neutron star! That would also keep current laws of physics intact, without all those hypothetical black hole hyperboles. Or has this neutron star thing been rebuffed already? Thanks.

I think the problem with considering a black hole as a neutron star type entity lies with the volume of matter equivalence that must be occupied within a volume too small for a neutron star to exist. Of course a black hole could be another unknown more dense form of matter such as a dense conglomeration of dark matter, or other theoretical field material of some kind.

The vacuous single point idea was based upon the mathematics of General Relativity and mathematically related models. A different mathematical model seemingly might propose a physical entity instead.

I have this niggling concept since child hod and I'm 44 now. Please someone take 5 minutes to read this tell me if you can believe it. For me if resolution is finite as described below then there is no option but for the concept of clocking or pushing to me true. Anything else is impossible.

Digitally Clocked Space in 1 Page

1. Fundamental Assumption

The resolution of space is finite and not infinite. IE the resolution of dimension (Size, distance) has a minimum size. You can't zoom in forever end ever. You will reach a minimum unit of dimension. Get to the bottom!

This is theory and not just speculation. There are many that think that space is something in and of itself. I am a theorist and in my own model everything including space is very simple conceptually. Space accordingly is no more than the volume that matter and field occupies and therefore has no structure to it.

Pantheory:

 

Why deny the motion of galaxies as observed, moving away from each other?

Regarding Einstein's proposal, it does not address the ontological question, "What is space?", that it can be warped and expand.

 

I've been told quite often here that such ontological questions as "what is it?" do not much concern physicists/cosmologists. Yet it remains an honest and sincere question in my mind. Is there no possible answer? The rest of your post could only make sense to me if the above were answered.

Thanks for your efforts.

Grammar edit.

Thanks for the reminder owl I had forgotten your valid comment and question.

Why deny the motion of galaxies as observed, moving away from each other?

I believe there is no evidence other than the redshifts themselves to support the idea that galaxies are moving away from each other or that space is expanding. My own model is over 50 years old, at pantheory.org, and instead proposes the diminution of matter to explain galactic redshifts. I also propose reasons for this alleged very slow diminution. So in my model the observable universe is not expanding. But the point concerning this thread is that space expanding is an assumption based upon no other evidence that I know of other than galactic redshifts. There are many other possible explanations for these observed redshifts.

Regarding Einstein's proposal, it does not address the ontological question, "What is space?", that it can be warped and expand.

I agree with you. In my own model space is nothing more than the volume that matter and field (the ZPF) occupies, an extension of matter and nothing more.

I've been told quite often here that such ontological questions as "what is it?" do not much concern physicists/cosmologists....... Is there no possible answer? The rest of your post could only make sense to me if the above were answered. Thanks for your efforts

I agree with you 100% that all the "where, what, when, how, and why, etc. questions are all valid, and that all must have a logical explanation to them that at least would be understandable by at least some knowledgeable persons reading such answers. I disagree with those that contend that such questions are solely metaphysical or philosophical. I think that you are of a similar opinion

The de Broglie wavelengths of most particles are very, very small, so they should be correspondingly high-energy as aether waves. But you didn't answer my question.

Would I detect radiated EM waves from objects at their de Broglie wavelength?

No

De Broglie waves are probably a minor player in my theory that there is a low pressure aether field surrounding all matter. It is proposed that EM radiation is the major contributor to this low pressure area. To what extent de Broglie waves contribute to this low pressure is more speculative. There may also be other contributing factors to this low pressure volume that are either more speculative or that I have not thought of.

//

But radiated aether waves are EM waves, aren't they?

yes, but also de Broglie waves are also accordingly a different form of aether waves.

So wouldn't I detect radiated EM waves from objects at their de Broglie wavelength?

De Broglie wavelengths can vary greatly but have little energy. The highest frequencies and shortest wavelengths of EM radiation are gamma radiation which are also the most energetic of all EM radiation.

Happy Halloween, Cap

Gots to take them grandbabbies trick-or-treaten. Have a good one and will be back online again tomorrow

best regards, Forrest Noble

But you said:

 

So the particles radiate aether waves (which is EM radiation) at the speed of light, at the wavelength h/p given by the de Broglie equation?

Well made it back to answer your question tonight

Here you are mixing up the two. Both radiate aether waves at the speed of light, but only de Broglie waves have a wavelength given by h/p. Again the equations of the two models do not differ from the standard model concerning de Broglie waves or EM radiation. Only the explanations concerning the physical characteristics/ properties of the waves are different.

Then you're proposing that the emitted EM radiation has a wavelength matching the de Broglie wavelength of the particle? That's the implication of post #39.

No, de Broglie wavelengths can vary greatly depending upon the particles momentum. EM radiation is based upon the energy of the atoms and emitted by electrons in motion or in orbit while losing energy, at much lower frequencies. In this way I think there is no difference between this model and the standard model.

//

So a stationary particle is radiating aether waves constantly?

yes

If an aether wave is an EM wave, wouldn't that mean that stationary particles emit detectable EM fields?

This I think is the same as in standard physics. EM radiation is emitted from matter at all temperatures above absolute zero.

(Incidentally, that's still not like "de Broglie waves" in ordinary physics)

It is a different explanation of course, but I propose no new mathematical physics concerning de Broglie waves.

But if de Broglie waves are matter waves the way de Broglie described, then in your model matter would have to travel at the speed of light, since it's an aether wave.

It's just that the wording is a little different. Matter is not an aether wave but accordingly is made up of mostly a spinning aether vortex. As the physical particles/ strands spin they wobble producing waves moving outward at the speed of light. These are accordingly the de Broglie waves. The matter particle can be stationary relative to the surrounding aether or they can have relative motion. If they have relative motion their internal time period will dilate (its spin will slow) and the length of the de Broglie waves will increase. Accordingly the particle's frequency concerning its de Broglie wave, is proportional to its kinetic energy and inversely proportional to its wavelength; the same as in standard physics.

Hope this answers your question

//

What is the speed of wave propagation in the aether?

The propagation speed of a wave within the aether is at the speed of light, which accordingly varies to some extent based upon the aether density and its motions.

How do you account for observations indicating the existence of quarks?

The quark model was proposed in 1964. Before that time there was little evidence for their physical existence until deep-inelastic-scattering results from experiments at the Stanford Accelerator in the late 1960's. The quark model seemed to be a convenient and successful analog that could make predictions at the quantum level.

Because of the way that photons scattered they came to conclusions concerning the sub-structure of protons. Using those same results I came to different conclusions but see no fault with the mathematical system of quarks presently being used since I presently have nothing better to offer, as I do for some other aspects of physics.

I think one of the biggest areas of doubt concerning the existence of quarks and gluons should be the contention that quarks and gluons can never be observed independently.

//

"de Broglie waves" refer to the wavelike properties of particles like neutrons and protons. The term does not refer to any other kind of waves -- particularly waves in the aether, which are completely different.

 

Unless you're saying that matter is made out of aether.

In this model de Broglie waves can be explained mathematically the same way as in the standard model. The description of them however, is very different in that they are accordingly physical aether waves like EM radiation, but generally with much less intensity and a simpler structure.

In this model the majority of what we call matter is aether. I will not explain too much in depth so as not to get off subject, but this entire model is a three dimensional string theory (plus time is 4). Both protons and electrons are accordingly made of a single strand of particulates, maybe millions of these particles in a single strand. There are no quarks in this model. As the particle loop spins within the aether field it creates an aether vortex inside and surrounding it. This accordingly is the bulk of the substance which we call matter. Slower moving particles will interact with this vortex. Known neutrinos will not interact unless they actually come very close to the spinning loop of the particle itself, otherwise as we known they readily pass through most matter, because of their energy, as if it were invisible. The same string like structures accordingly make up the aether, but most have much smaller lengths. In this model there is only one elementary particle that has only one single internal mechanical characteristic. Everything in reality consists of just this one particle. There are no priori forces or pure energy in this model. When the vector forces from the surrounding aether move relative to matter it pushes it in the direction of the net vector of the aether. This accordingly is gravity.

If you wish to ask any in-depth questions I can also bring up past speculation threads of mine as needed, to discuss any particulars of anything in cosmology or theoretical physics that you wish to discuss since one subject often is related to another and can often lead to peripheral questions.

//

So you'd predict there's large amounts of EM radiation being emitted from the center of the Earth?

At the center of the Earth much heat is accordingly produced because of the pushing forces of gravity and the resultant friction between matter. This heat progressively increases while compressing downward. It also conducts upward to the surface where it is radiated away as EM radiation, close to or at the surface (infra-red). This heat is also enhanced by the sun's heat directly or indirectly.

Also, that still has nothing to do with the de Broglie waves of modern physics.

De Broglie believed "his waves" were physical waves and so they are according to this model -- physical aether waves. EM radiation is also accordingly physical aether waves, with an additional transverse character to it because of the particle's oscillation/ temperature which creates the radiation.

http://en.wikipedia....ouis_de_Broglie

//

Ah. I suggest you choose a term other than "de Broglie waves," then, as this has nothing to do with de Broglie waves as described by modern physics.

The prime mover of radiating aether particulates away from larger matter is accordingly EM radiation but at the atomic level de Broglie waves accordingly are also a major player concerning radiating the aether outward from the nuclei.

So are you suggesting the aether can exert a force on matter? It seems it would have to, if it is to interact with matter.

yes, it interacts with matter. Accordingly individual aether particulates are more interactive with matter than classical neutrinos because most do not possess great velocities. Accordingly the field pressure of the aether upon matter is defined by the universal gravitational constant G: 6.673 X 10^-11 m³ / kg / sec ² .

Also, aren't waves in the aether merely light?

In the aether models of 150 years ago aether was thought to be the carrier of light waves. This was called the luminiferous aether. In this model the aether is both a luminiferous aether as the carrier of light waves, and it is also the cause of gravity via pushing currents of aether. The reason for aether flow accordingly is to equalize field pressure.

So let me get this straight. Pushing gravity is actually just gravity as applied to dark matter. Regular matter amasses the way it does, but non-baryonic matter,or ether?,

No, this is an entire theory of gravity. I am saying that dark matter accordingly can be explained as a physical aether with pushing forces having vortex and fluid mechanics/ dynamics.

...doesn't interact with light nor does it interact with regular matter either, but their effects on gravity do affect each other, causing regular matter to flow one way, to gravitate towards the planets, systems, etc., and the dark matter to flow, well towards the halos.

This aether is accordingly the carrier of light primarily as a wave, but it also interacts with all of reality, being the cause of gravity. The model proposes that the aether density is generally constant throughout the observable universe excepting within and surrounding matter where the density becomes less.

Surrounding galaxies there are vortex currents of aether that move into the galaxy since it has a lower field pressure. In this model the effect of these aether currents we currently call the effects of dark matter. Instead the aether particulates could be called the dark matter even though they are vastly smaller than present ideas of dark matter, and the push rather than pull. The aether and its energy can be observed in the lab as the Zero Point Field and in the universe its currents can be observed as the source of gravity.

..

de Broglie waves are "matter waves." They refer to ordinary particles (quarks, electrons, whatever) having wavelike properties. They are not special waves that can radiate outward from the center of the Earth, certainly. So I'm not sure what your "de Broglie waves" are or how they related to the standard model at all.

In this model de Broglie waves are physical aether waves that radiate away from matter reducing in intensity by the inverse square law, the same as EM radiation except for having less intensity. Their wave energy can be absorbed so accordingly it will increase the temperature of surrounding matter. Just like EM radiation most of this radiation accordingly comes from molecules close to the surface of matter.

//

What are "de Broglie waves" in this model? They seem different from how one would use them ordinarily in physics.

In this model de Broglie waves are accordingly the same as in the standard model but there would be a different explanation as to their cause and character. As to their cause: they accordingly are caused by spinning atomic nuclei that wobble on their axis of rotation every other spin, which produces these outward moving physical waves of aether particulates. Because of the physical spin and the outward moving waves, the aether pressure within and surrounding the atoms/ molecules will accordingly always be less than the surrounding field, causing the backflow of aether which we call gravity.

//

I hope it isn't impertinent to ask, are you a theorist (a theoretical physicist for example) by occupation?

I have been a part-time theorist for more than 50 years; see pantheory.org

The first expanding models were those of Friedmann and Lemaitre. They were not "based upon a Doppler Shift". At least, I don't see how you could figure that. Redshift was the model's prediction (not assumption) that came from solving the line element for null geodesics.

Hubble wrote a paper concerning an apparent correlation between galactic redshifts and their distance based upon their luminosity. He mentioned a Doppler shift as being one possible cause of the observed galactic redshifts. Friedmann, Lemaitre, and others had realized than Einstein's cosmological equations could lead to a number or non-static solutions. Some of these solutions could lead to a contracting universe, other solutions to an expanding universe, and some to a static universe with inclusion of a constant, and still others could lead to a changing expansion and contraction rates or any combination thereof. It was realized that all of these possible solutions could not be valid.

Upon hearing of Hubble's observations concerning a correlation between galactic redshifts and distances, Lemaitre hypothesized that if the redshifts were Doppler shifts (recession velocities), then the universe could be expanding and if so then it could have started at a single point. He included the solutions to Einstein's equations that lead to an expanding universe and called this new theory the "fireworks" theory. His published paper suggested that there was a "premordial atom" that started the entire universe via its explosion. Other solutions to the Einstein equations were also published about the same time. Upon analyzing the physics of this fireworks theory a number or theoretical problems were thought to exist so this theory never gained much favor during these times.

http://en.wikipedia....Big_Bang_theory

Cosmological redshift is a function of scale factor and not a function of the relative velocity of the emitter at the time of the emission the way Doppler effect is. Here are some lecture notes making the same two points: The Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric

Of course this is present-day theory

Is your understanding different?

Since I was actively theorizing at the time, I first recall when I read the idea of the expansion of space idea instead of their being recession velocities, about the early 1960's. At the time there were many opposed to the idea and there still are, although now they are great minority.

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0/0310214v2.pdf

The only basis for expansion is galactic redshift?

 

There are several predictions made on the basis of expansion (Tolman surface brightness, relic black body radiation, supernova time dilation, angular size of CMB anisotropies, abundance of light elements, etc) that have been confirmed.

 

I don't think "the only basis for this assumption" is fair.

There may be other assertions and so-called evidence or support concerning tests for the expansion of the universe other than galactic redshifts, but I am presently am unaware of any.

Einstein didn't propose "warped space" to explain the motion of galaxies.

Nor did I say that he did. He said that space warps surrounding matter which accordingly is the cause of gravity.

Warped space is a necessary part of general relativity -- without it GR would only predict half of the correct deflection of light by the sun. That is to say, if locally straight lines near the sun remained straight to infinity then only half of the correct deflection would be predicted.

This is true but if space can warp then it also could seemingly expand. It this idea space was not simply just the distance between matter.

Maybe you misspoke or I misunderstand, but I'm quite sure the opposite is true. With no information either way, Einstein assumed the universe would be, or should be, static.

This is true because observations of that time seeming to confirm this static condition and was Einstein's reason for adding a "cosmological constant" to his cosmological equations.

After some preliminary modeling with his new theory he quickly determined that relativity doesn't want the universe to be static.

I think this statement is wrong.

He introduced the cosmological constant in an effort to make the model static, but it failed in that purpose for a couple different reasons. Redshift observations came 13 years later.

This is true.

The superluminal expansion of space is not limited to inflation. For example, the Lambda-CDM model is superluminal at z > 1.4

This is true but some Inflation models propose the beginning as being millions of times faster than light.

The recent reintroduction of the cosmological constant meant that the universe would first decelerate then accelerate in expansion. It was never the case, and no one ever believed, that the cosmological constant meant that the deceleration parameter was always negative. It means (and meant) that there is deceleration until the onset of acceleration.

The rate of expansion has always been variable. The big bang has never been a freely coasting universe.

For almost 40 years the rate of expansion of the universe was believed to be constant. It is called the Hubble Constant.

Without the cosmological constant the rate of expansion will slow either indefinitely (if the universe is open) or it will slow to a stop and re-collapse (if it is closed).

Without Einstein's cosmological constant most believed that expansion could go on forever, but some thought that the this rate of expansion could slow down and eventually stop and the contraction could take place, a Big Crunch.

With the cosmological constant the rate of expansion will decelerate until Omega-Lambda gets big enough and Omega-M gets small enough for the cosmological constant to be the dominant factor and it starts accelerating. That is my understanding.

With the inclusion of Einstein's cosmological constant to account for what is presently believed to be Dark Energy, the rate of the expansion of the universe is thought to be currently accelerating forever in the future. If this constant is accordingly a variable as some believe, then the rate of expansion could change again.

Of course for some cosmological models where there is a different explanation for cosmological redshifts like mine, neither space nor the observable universe is accordingly expanding.