Jump to content

Derivation of Hubble's Law and the End of the Darks Elements


joao c h barcellos
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hubbe_derivation2.pdfHubbe_derivation2.pdf

You can read it here too :   https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=91689

 

Hi !
A few years ago I developed a theory that explained the accelerated receding of galaxies and its rapid movement of rotation of them without the need to postulate the existence of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" respectively.

( The theory link: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=91689 )
 
I thought my idea was a good one as I used fewer hypotheses than these two "dark" entities.

However, I knew that it could be one of dozens (or hundreds) of theories that try to explain these "dark" elements that, until now, still do not have concrete evidence, in addition to those used to explain the movement of galaxies.

Roughly speaking, my article says that if our local space is shrinking (due to gravity) then we will see the distances increasing.

For example: If our scale measures 1 meter and, after a long time, it starts to measure half a meter, a galaxy that was X meters away will now be measured as 2X meters away.

So, in my article I verify that the rate of "shrinkage" of our space was 50% every 10 billion years. And that would explain the "dark energy" effect.

However, without evidence, my article was in danger of being just one among so many other dropouts in cyberspace.

Subsequently, searching the web I find something for me quite promising:

1-"Universe mysteriously expanding, will double in size in 10 billion years, finds Hubble"
https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/universe-expanding-mysteriously-will-double-in-size-in-10-billion-years-finds-hubble-1951827-2022-05-20

Which was exactly the evidence I was hoping for, that's exactly what my theory predicted:

["...Some Values ??.... Tj=3.15E17?s = 10 billion years That is, the Jocaxian Time, the time necessary for our space to contract in half, is 10 billion years..."]

So, now my theory had another strong evidence in its favor :-)

2-Then I find other one, like increase in temperature due to space shrinkage:

Unexpectedly, The Universe Is Getting Hotter and Hotter as It Expands
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-universe-is-getting-hotter-and-hotter-new-study-finds

Thank you !
Joao Carlos
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joao c h barcellos said:

Roughly speaking, my article says that if our local space is shrinking (due to gravity) then we will see the distances increasing. 

For example: If our scale measures 1 meter and, after a long time, it starts to measure half a meter, a galaxy that was X meters away will now be measured as 2X meters away.

Some quick questions to start a discussion. Per your ideas:  
What happens to mass and density as a result of local space shrinking? 
How has this shrinking affected the solar system and planetary orbits?
What happens in strong vs weak gravitation?
Does observations and comparison of sizes of relatively nearby vs distant galaxies support your idea?
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ghideon said:

-What happens to mass and density as a result of local space shrinking?

The mass remains the same, but the density, to an outside observer, increases. For the local observer the density remains the same.

-How has this shrinking affected the solar system and planetary orbits?

This shrinkage should not be noticed by our instruments as the distances are not very great and the shrinkage is extremely slow.

-What happens in strong vs weak gravitation?

The force of gravity is not affected. But as greater the gravity is as fast is the shrinkage of space where the gravity is.

-Does observations and comparison of sizes of relatively nearby vs distant galaxies support your idea?

Note that other galaxies, like ours, must also be shrinking due to gravity, so discounting other factors such as the potential energy lost by the photon to leave the galaxy, the frequency must be higher in the more massive galaxies, the deviation to the red smaller than less massive galaxies like nebulae. (Does this agree with observations?)

 

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Please note that our rules require you post your material for discussion, and not rely on downloads or links

 

Derivation of Hubble's Law and its Relation to Dark Energy and Dark Matter

João Carlos Holland de Barcellos, Jan 2019

 

Abstract: From the "Decreasing Universe" model [01, 02], establishing the contraction of space tissue when exposed to a gravitational field, we derive the Hubble Law and, from there, we will explain the effects "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter".

PassWords: Hubble’s Law, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Decreasing Universe, Universe Expansion.

Introduction

We know from observation that galaxies seem to move away in an accelerated way. This observation was synthesized in the famous "Hubble Law" [04].

To explain this accelerated scape an entity was proposed that became known as "Dark Energy"[09].

Subsequently, it was also observed that stars orbit galaxies at a much higher velocity than calculated. As if there was much more matter inside the galaxies than the one observed.

To explain this phenomenon was proposed another entity that became known as "Dark Matter" [06].

However, despite many efforts, no other evidence of both "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" has been found.

So we are proposing a new explanation that replaces these two "dark" entities with another hypothesis: The "Decreasing Universe" Hypothesis [01].

By reducing the number of hypotheses - from two to one - we will be in agreement with the "Ocam Razor", beyond which, as we shall see, we can also derive the "Hubble Law".

In the "Decreasing Universe" model [01] it is established that the gravitational field causes a space contraction that can be detected by an observer who is not subjected to such field. In this way, all objects within this space are also contracted, specially instruments of these observers.

Particularly our planet is subjected, in a greater or lesser degree, to various fields: The gravitational field of the Earth itself, the Sun, the Moon, the distant galaxies, and on.

If, for example, we have a measuring instrument as a scaler with the length "L" (= 1 meter), then, from the point of view of an observer who does not suffer gravitational influence, it will notice that this scaler, with the time, will decrease in size.

Of course, for observers subject to these there will be no change, since all space and everything that is immersed in it is contracting at the same time so that it will have no change in the measurements made by them.

For example, here on Earth, a table with 2m length, after millions of years, will continue to measure 2m, as the table shrinks in the same proportion as the measuring scaler and, locally, no difference can be observed.

Outer Space

However, in the intergalactic space the gravitational field is practically null, and, therefore, this space does not suffer the same contraction that we here on Earth are undergoing.

Thus, in the absence of a considerable gravitational field in intergalactic space, the space between us and a distant galaxy will not contract in the same proportion as our own terrestrial space is contracting.

Consider, for example, the enormous time a photon, emitted by a distant galaxy, takes to reach us. In this long period of time, which may be billions of years from the emission of the photon until it reaches our planet, our space - and our scalers - will be reduced in size compared to the original size they had when this photon was emitted under the view of an observer who is not subject to such a gravitational field.

This reduction of our local space and the size of our 'scalers' will cause us to distance ourselves to the star larger than it was at the time the photon was emitted (even if its actual distance did not change in that period).

 

Defining Some Concepts

Let's call of "Local Space" (= “LS”) the region of space that is subject to a non-negligible gravitational field and thus suffers spatial contraction.

Let's call of "Local Observer" (= “LO”) the observer who belongs to a “LS” and therefore subject - him and his instruments - the spatial contraction. For example, the planet Earth is an “LS” and we are “LO”.

Let's call of "Outer Space" (= “OS”) the region of space that is subject to a very weak and despicable gravitational field.

Let's call of "Sidereal Observer" (= “SO”) those observers locateds in this spatial region. For example, observers in the intergalactic region would be an “OS”.

To clarify ideas, we may think that observers in the “OS” (= “SO”) play a role similar to an observer in an inertial frame [05] as opposed to observers located in the “LS that would play an analogous role to observers in a non-inertial referential.

 

Exemplifying the Concepts

Consider, for example, at an arbitrary initial instant any "t0" in the “LS”, a scaler of length "L0" that an “LO” uses to make its measurements.

Suppose that at this moment "t0" an “SO”, in intergalactic space, take this measure of this same “L0” scaler as the standard measure for your own measurements.

Then, at time "t0", both observers (“LO” and “SO”) will consider the pattern "L0" of the same size.

However, the “LS” will continue to contract in relation to the “OS”. The “LO” will not notice the variation of the scaler "L0" because both its measuring scaler and everything in his “LS” decrease in the same proportion. However, the “SO”, after a time "t" ("t"> “t0") will see the scaler of the "LO” decrease to a smaller size "L".

Let us call "TJ" (Jocaxian Time) the time period (Δt = t-t0) necessary for an “SO” see the space (and the scaler) of the OL contracting at half size it had at time t0. That is, to shrink itself to a size L = L0/2 at time t0 + Tj.

Before we go on let's make some simplifications.

 

Some Simplifications

Before we continue, we will consider that:

- If the gravitational field is constant, the time required for the “LS” (and all that is contained in it), to contract to half its size, called TJ, measured by an “SO”, will also be constant.

We will also consider that the galaxies, from the point of view of an “SO” are not necessarily rapidly moving away from each other. For simplicity we will calculate the effects of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" only as a result of our gravitational contraction, keeping constant its distances (from the point of view of an “SO”).

Also we will not consider the effect of time dilation [03] due to the gravitational force in the “LS” in relation to the “OS”.

 

Local Space Contraction Formula (“LS”)

We can mathematically translate the concepts we saw above into the following formula:

L(t) = L0/2∆t/Tj        ( E1 )
(Formula of space contraction from the point of view of an “SO”)

Where:
L (t) = Measure of L0 in the “LS” by a "Sidereal Observer".
t0 = Initial time (arbitrary)
L0 = Length measured in t=t0
Tj = Jocaxian Time
∆t = t – t0

Note that for an “LO”, L = L0 (always!), that is, the size of the scaler does not change with time in the “LS”.

At each "TJ" period of time, our space (and our scales) are contracted in half (from the point of view of an "SO").

If we define :

Fj(∆t) = 2∆t/Tj        ( E1-B )
(Jocaxian Factor).

We can rewrite (E1):

L = L0/Fj(∆t)         ( E2 )

We can also rewrite the same Jocaxian Factor (Fj) in a more friendly way:
Fj(∆t) = exp( In(2)*∆t/Tj )        ( E3 )

 

“Dark Energy” Effect

Of course, if intergalactic space does not contract, and if our 'scale of measurement' decrease in size, then this intergalactic space should seem to us larger, in the same proportion as our ‘scale of measurement’ contract itself.

If, for example, at t = t0, we measure the distance to a galaxy "X" with our swcale of length L0, as being D0, after a time "Tj" our rule will be measuring half  of its initial size L0, and therefore, when we (“LO”) measure the distance to that galaxy, we will measure it as being D = 2 * D0

We should note that a measure within our “LS” sizes do not change, as everything decreases along with our scaler and rulers, but the “OS” does not contract like our “LS”. So we will have this illusion that the galaxy "X" is moving away from us. This is what we can call the "Dark Energy Effect".

 

Apparent Distance Formula

The measured distance is inversely proportional to the length of the measurement pattern. We can synthesize this idea mathematically with the following formula (See the Appendix A😞

D(∆t) = D0 * Fj(∆t)     ( E4 )
(Distance Formula with the Jocaxian Factor).

Where:
“t0“is the time at which the photon was emitted by the galaxy.
"t" is the time at which Earth received this photon.
"D0" is the distance we would measure, from Earth to galaxy at time "t0"
"D(
t)" is the distance we measured from Earth to a galaxy after “t”time.
"Δt" = t-t0 Time period

As Fj(Δt) grows exponentially with time (E3) the Earth's distance from the galaxy will also appear to increase exponentially with time.

 

 

Hubble’s Law

With the formula of the apparent distance (E4) we can calculate the apparent distance speed:

V = d[ D(∆t) ] /dt = ( E5-A )

V = d[D0*exp( ln(2)*∆t/Tj ) ] /dt       ( E5-B )

V = ( ln(2) / Tj ) * D(∆t)       ( E6 )
(Distant galaxies’ apparent distance speed formula.)

But Hubble's law is exactly like this:

V = H0 * D     ( E7 )
(Hubble’s Law)
Where (H0 = Hubble’s Constant and D is the distance from the galaxy)

 

As E6 = E7, now we can determine Tj:

Tj = ln(2)/H0     ( E8 )

Substituting (E8) into (E3) we will have:

Fj(∆t) = exp( H0*∆t)     ( E9 )
(Jocaxian Factor in terms of the Hubble constant)

What provides us:

D(∆t) = D0* exp( H0*∆t)     ( E10 )
(Apparent distance formula in terms of the Hubble constant)

If we want to calculate the real distance from Earth to the galaxy, using the measurements that our scales had at the time the photon was emitted (at t = t0) then:

∆t = D0/c     ( E11 )
(Time for a photon emitted from the galaxy to reach us, where c = speed of light)

From (E11) and (E10) we will have:

D = D0 exp( D0 *H0/c )     ( E12 )
(Apparent distance of a galaxy depending on the actual distance)

 

Some Values

As H0 = 2.2e-18 s-1, we can replace it in (E8) and find Tj

Tj = 3.15E17 s = 10 billion years

That is, the Jocaxian Time, the time necessary for our space to contract in half, is 10 billion years.

We can now find the contraction rate of our space for every billion years:

(Tx)10 = 2 => Tx = exp( ln(2)/10 ) = 7%

That means:

For every 1 billion years our space (and our scalers) are contracted 7% of their original size.

It is interesting to note that this value (7%) corresponds exactly to the contraction rate calculated from the "Redshift" of the Galaxy NGC3034 [02].

Currently the apparent distance of the 'NGC3034' is about 11E6 light years, (or 1E23 meters).

Applying (E12) to the galaxy NGC3034 and knowing that H0/c = 8E-27 m-1 we will have the following equation for the distance to the galaxy NGC3034:

1E23 = D0 * exp( D0 * 8E-27)     ( E13 )
(Equation of the real distance of the Galaxy NGC3034)

Using a solver [08] we will obtain for the real distance:

D0 = 9E22 that is, this galaxy is about 10% closer to Earth than it appears to be.

 

 

Dark Matter

Dark Matter [06] can also be observed being an effect of our spatial contraction.

As nomenclature, we will suppress the subscripts "obs" of the measurements observed here from Earth. So we'll simplify:

Vobs = V ; ( Rotation Speed Observed)
Dobs = D ; ( Distance Observed)
Robs = R ; ( Radius Observed)
Wobs= W ; ( Angular Speed Observed)
Mobs = M ; ( Mass Observed)

Considering the illustration:

Star Orbiting a distant Galaxy

Fig.1 - From Earth we observe a star rotating a distant galaxy.

Suppose that from Earth we now observe a star circling the periphery of a galaxy that is at an observed (apparent) distance "D" from our planet. According to Fig. 1 above, the observed “R” radius of the galaxy will be proportional to this distance:

R = sen(α) * D     ( E14 )
(Orbit radius as a function of observed distance and angle)

As we saw earlier, at the time the photon was emitted, the real distance would be D0, so:

R0 = sen(α) * D0     ( E16 )
(Real orbit radius as a function of actual distance and angle)

From (E9) and (E11) We can define the Jocaxian Factor of the Galaxy:

FJ = exp( D0 *H0/c )     ( E17 )
(Jocaxian Factor of the Galaxy)

So, we will have:

R0 = R / FJ     (E18)
(Real Radius as a function of the Jocaxian factor of the Galaxy)

If M is the observed mass of the galaxy where the star orbits, and V is its tangential velocity observed  from the Earth, and G is the Gravitational constant of the Galaxy, we will have [07]:

V2 = M*G/R     (E19)
(Equation of Velocity as a function of mass and radius)

In terms of the angular velocity, we have:

V2 = W2 *R2     (E20)
(Equation of Velocity as a function of angular velocity and radius)

From (E19) and (E20) we derive:

W2 = MG/R3     (E21)
(Equation of the angular velocity as a function of Mass and Radius)

From (E21), at t = t0, we have:

W02 = M0G/R03     (E22)
(Equation of the angular movement in function of the Real Radius and Real Mass)

The angular velocity does not change with the observed distance, since the time interval between two emitted photons is the same interval when they arrive to Earth. So:

W = W0     (E23)
(The angular speed is the same for an “LO” as for a “SO”)

From (E20), E (22), E (23) we find:

V2 = (M0G/R03) * R2     (E24)

Using (E18):

V2 = (M0Fj3) * G/R     (E25)
(Equation of the tangential velocity as a function of the Barium Mass and Apparent Radius)

Comparing (E25) with (E19) we conclude that:

M = M0 *FJ3     (E26)
(Apparent mass as a function of actual mass)

From Earth we observe a mass M for the galaxy larger than the mass at t = t0.

Then the effect "Dark matter" will be the difference of M with the real mass M0:

Dark Matter = M–M0=M0*( exp(3*D0 *H0/c ) – 1 )     (E27)
(Dark matter equation as a function of the Hubble constant and the actual distance)

 

Conclusions

If we adopt the "Decreasing Universe" where the gravitational field shrinks the space in which it crosses, we find that the accelerated separation of galaxies, often explained by the so-called "Dark Energy" is a kind of "illusion" resulting from this space contraction and, therefore, unnecessary.

The "Dark Matter", on the other hand, can also be explained by the same effect of the gravitational contraction of our space, since the radius of the galaxies is observed as greater than it really is, consequently, the speed of translation of a star is seen as above-expected with the observed baryonic mass, providing the false impression that there is an extra, invisible matter responsible for the effect.

 

Appendix A

Derivation of the Distance Formula from the Local Contraction Formula.

At t=t0 we will take as the measurement standard for both observers the measure "L0", for example, L0 = 1 meter. Thus, all distances will be taken as a number that multiplies the L0 pattern;

Then both observers, sidereal and terrestrial, measure the same distance to a given galaxy:

Distance  = D0 * L0   ( A1 ) 
( D0 is the distance that is measured to the galaxy by taking the measurement pattern L0)

After a time t (> t0), from the point of view of a sidereal observer, the terrestrial space shrank, and the rule tablet L0 decreased to L according to E1:

  L = L0/Fj(t)  
 (Spatial contraction formula (E2) )

As in our hypothesis, from the point of view of the Sidereal Observer, the galaxy does not move away, the distance covered must be the same, that is:

Distance  = D * L  ( A2 )
(D is the measured Distance to the galaxy according to the L pattern, by the Terrestrial observer)

We must keep in mind that for the local terrestrial observer, L=L0, since he does not perceive his own contraction).

From (A1) and (A2 )we have to:

D0*L0 = D*L    ( A3 )
(From the point of view of the sidereal observer, the distance is not altered)

Using (E1), we have finally:

D = D0* Fj(t)     ( E4 )
(Measured distance to the galaxy according to the terrestrial observer, as a function of time)  

 

 

 

 

 

References

[01] The Gravitational Field and the Dark Energy
https://ijrdo.org/index.php/as/article/view/1311

[02] The Equivalence Principle and the End of the Dark Energy
http://www.ijera.com/papers/Vol7_issue1/Part-1/C0701011314.pdf

[03] Gravitational time dilation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

[04] Hubble's law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

[05] Inertial frame of reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

[06] Dark Matter
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter

[07] Orbital Speed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

[08] Solver for Equations
https://www.mathway.com/Algebra

[09] Dark Energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

 

 

Edited by joao c h barcellos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

@joao c h barcellos were your answers mixed with my questions? please don't quote me with things I did not say.

 

Sorry, perhaps I do not know how I do to do the better form, I wil try again:

Quote

-What happens to mass and density as a result of local space shrinking?

The mass remains the same, but the density, to an outside observer, increases. For the local observer the density remains the same.

 

Quote

-How has this shrinking affected the solar system and planetary orbits?

This shrinkage should not be noticed by our instruments as the distances are not very great and the shrinkage is extremely slow.

Quote

-What happens in strong vs weak gravitation?

The force of gravity is not affected. But as greater the gravity is as fast is the shrinkage of space where the gravity is.

Quote

-Does observations and comparison of sizes of relatively nearby vs distant galaxies support your idea?

Note that other galaxies, like ours, must also be shrinking due to gravity, so discounting other factors such as the potential energy lost by the photon to leave the galaxy, the frequency must be higher in the more massive galaxies, the deviation to the red smaller than less massive galaxies like nebulae. (Does this agree with observations?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

The mass remains the same, but the density, to an outside observer, increases. For the local observer the density remains the same.

How does this happen according to your ideas? What physical process takes place, allowing this to happen? What happens on atomic and subatomic scales? 

4 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

The force of gravity is not affected. But as greater the gravity is as fast is the shrinkage of space where the gravity is.

What happens to (small) objects in free fall vs objects on the surface of a planet such as the earth? Do composition of meteorites or moon rocks support your ideas?

4 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

This shrinkage should not be noticed by our instruments as the distances are not very great and the shrinkage is extremely slow.

I'm thinking over a time of billions of years; how has the size of planets, the sun, small space debris and the orbits been affected? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our local galaxy group, which includes the Milky Way and Andromeda ( M31 ),  is part of the Virgo Supercluster.
Another group that belongs to this Supercluster, is the M81 group, of which M81 is the brightest galaxy.

Can you tell us whether the space between us and M31 is expanding ?
Or rather, we are 'shrinking' with respect to that distance ?

How about us and M81 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ghideon said:

How does this happen according to your ideas? What physical process takes place, allowing this to happen? What happens on atomic and subatomic scales? 


Well I started think in this because of equivalence principle.
If you are inside an accelereted  rocket , will anything be shrinking inside the rocket ?
See this article :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313035899_The_Equivalence_Principle_and_the_End_of_the_Dark_Energy

 

Quote

What happens on atomic and subatomic scales?


All things will be shrunk, including particles. Wouldn't it be the same if they had a rocket accelerated relative to an inertial observer?

Quote

What happens to (small) objects in free fall vs objects on the surface of a planet such as the earth?

Surface events on Earth are not attractive hosts because on a scale of half the size every 10 billion years, events lasting a few thousand years will go unnoticed.

Quote

Do composition of meteorites or moon rocks support your ideas?

Goog question !
When a particle arrives from interstellar space, its physical properties like electric charge, spin, mass are not affected.
With respect to its volume (and density) it's open-ended, that is, I don't know what would happen to its physical volume and density when it enters the gravity of our galaxy.
It's an open question for me.

Quote

I'm thinking over a time of billions of years; how has the size of planets, the sun, small space debris and the orbits been affected?

Everything within our galaxy is shrinking, including our Sun and our solar system as a result of the galaxy's gravitational field. This means that the stars must emit a higher and higher frequency of light as the wavelength becomes shorter. Note that on Earth everything decreases too, so we should not perceive anything that decreases along with us.

 

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Can you tell us whether the space between us and M31 is expanding ?
Or rather, we are 'shrinking' with respect to that distance ?

How about us and M81 ?

Note that this theory does not say that galaxies cannot be moving. In this way, in principle, they can be moving away or approaching freely. What the theory says is that there doesn't need to be an accelerated departure, the accelerated departure would be a kind of "optical illusion" due to our shrinkage. So it's possible that galaxies are getting closer, and if that approach is faster than the effects of our shrinkage, we'll see them get closer.

IMPORTANT: At very long distances few or almost no galaxies should be approaching. That is, if this theory is correct, the number of galaxies approaching CAI with distance.

IS THIS CONFIRMED?

8 minutes ago, joao c h barcellos said:

IMPORTANT: At very long distances few or almost no galaxies should be approaching. That is, if this theory is correct, the number of galaxies approaching CAI with distance.

At very long distances few or almost no galaxies should be approaching. That is, if this theory is correct, the number of galaxies approaching DECREASE with distance from us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

Well I started think in this because of equivalence principle.
If you are inside an accelereted  rocket , will anything be shrinking inside the rocket ?
See this article :

Thanks, but it does not my question. What physical process happens when gravity shrinks particles? 

9 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

All things will be shrunk, including particles.

Ok. Earth (and other celestial bodies) is full of old particles that have spent long time in different gravitation so you comment implies that now there is a mix of particles with various size? Protons for instance should, as a result of your explanation, vary in size depending on their history of exposure to gravity. To the best of my knowledge no such differences are observed. 

9 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

Wouldn't it be the same if they had a rocket accelerated relative to an inertial observer?

Why? Accelerated particles does not shrink*. 

9 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

Everything within our galaxy is shrinking, including our Sun and our solar system as a result of the galaxy's gravitational field.

Ok. But:

On 9/27/2022 at 6:20 PM, joao c h barcellos said:

as greater the gravity is as fast is the shrinkage of space where the gravity is.

There should be great differences since gravity differs within the galaxy and in the solar system? For instance Jupiter should shrink faster than mercury or astroids do, over billions of year, due to the different strength of gravity.

9 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

When a particle arrives from interstellar space, its physical properties like electric charge, spin, mass are not affected.
With respect to its volume (and density) it's open-ended, that is, I don't know what would happen to its physical volume and density when it enters the gravity of our galaxy.
It's an open question for me.

Note that rocks on the moon have been in lower gravity for long time vs old rock on earth. Why do samples of moon rock not deviate physically?

9 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

This means that the stars must emit a higher and higher frequency of light as the wavelength becomes shorter.

Then old stars should emit light in shorter wavelength than your ones. And stars evolving in weaker gravitational fields should have different spectrum than ones evolving in stronger gravitational fields. It should be easy to see when observing a massive vs. a less massive galaxy; the star light should differ? Are there any supporting observations?

 

*) Note: Length contraction (and time dilation) in special relativity is not particles shrinking

Edited by Ghideon
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 What physical process happens when gravity shrinks particles?

 Probably the same process when somethink enter in a black-hole, but too much slower.

Quote

 Earth (and other celestial bodies) is full of old particles
 that have spent long time in different gravitation so you comment implies that now there is a mix of particles with various size? Protons for instance should, as a result of your explanation, vary in size depending on their history of exposure to gravity.
 To the best of my knowledge no such differences are observed. 

The theory is new and, as far as I know, no one has looked for this evidence
 any more than you would need to know where the object comes from.
 Note that solar system meteors are also subject to gravitational fields from our galaxy.
 

Quote

 -Why? Accelerated particles does not shrink*.

Why not shrink?
 I don't think anyone has measured the size of a particle at high velocity to know if it compresses
 in the direction of velocity.
 But think:  In a rocket, space is contracted in the direction of velocity.
 Wouldn't the particles in there also be contracted?
 

Quote

There should be great differences since gravity differs within the galaxy and in the solar system?
 For instance Jupiter should shrink faster than mercury or astroids do,
 over billions of year, due to the different strength of gravity.
 

Yes off couse!
 but remember : the rate of contraction is about 50% every 10 billion years ( here in earth )
 

Quote

Note that rocks on the moon have been in lower gravity for long time vs old rock on earth.
 Why do samples of moon rock not deviate physically?

 Although the moon remains in Earth orbit, it is still bathed in Earth's gravitational field.
 A measure of the density of these rocks relative to similar ones on Earth could be evidence although my theory does not predict whether matter takes on the size of the matter in which it is found.
 For example when a rocket stops its speed, what was contracted by relativistic space contraction, returns to normal size.
 So, as I said, this is an open question for me.

 

Quote

Then old stars should emit light in shorter wavelength than your ones.

Yes! ( if its elements-composition remain the same)  
 But how to know how old is the star?
 

 

Quote

And stars evolving in weaker gravitational fields should have different spectrum than ones
 evolving in stronger gravitational fields.

 

Older stars (or galaxies) should have a lower redshift (ie higher frequency) than younger ones if they are at the same distance from us.
 The problem is knowing the lifetime of the star or galaxy.
 
 

Quote

It should be easy to see when observing a massive vs. a less massive galaxy;
the star light should differ?

Yes, by this theory, galaxies with greater masses must have smaller redsheefts.

Quote

Are there any supporting observations?


 "At redshifts z < 1 most of the bright (MB < - 20) and massive galaxies (M* > 1010) are normal galaxies, that is ellipticals and spirals"
https://ned-ipac-caltech-edu.translate.goog/level5/March04/Conselice/Conselice3_2.html?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=pt&_x_tr_hl=pt-BR&_x_tr_pto=wapp
 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry @joao c h barcellos, the explanations does not make any sense. You seem to be mixing "shrinking" and relativistic length contraction? You also seem to mix "absolute" and "relative". 

On 9/29/2022 at 2:55 PM, joao c h barcellos said:

 Note that solar system meteors are also subject to gravitational fields from our galaxy.

Note that the force of gravity falls of with r2, the gravity differs quite a lot depending on location. For instance the gravity is much stronger at the surface on earth than on the surface of an astroid. The gravity from the rest of the galaxy is negligible in comparison to the gravity on the surface of celestial bodies. Hence, according to your logic, properties of old material on the surface of celestial bodies of various size should differ greatly.  

On 9/29/2022 at 2:55 PM, joao c h barcellos said:

 but remember : the rate of contraction is about 50% every 10 billion years ( here in earth )

Ok, then it is many order of magnitudes less in interstellar space? And the sun, according to its higher gravity, shrinks much faster that earth? Easy check:tThere should be obvious density deviations in meteorites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Note that the force of gravity falls of with r2, the gravity differs quite a lot depending on location.

 

I believe that gravitational forces can cancel each other out but not the gravitational field. If something is between the Sun and the Earth it will experience two gravitational fields and shrink faster than if it has only one of the fields.

 

Quote

The gravity from the rest of the galaxy is negligible in comparison to the gravity on the surface of celestial bodies.

Well I didn't put the dependence (the formula) of the rate of shrinkage on the gravitational field. I just said that I believe the field makes space (and everything within it) shrink. But the shrinkage function as a function of the field I don't know.

 

Quote

Hence, according to your logic, properties of old material on the surface of celestial bodies of
various size should differ greatly. 

Perhaps not greatly, it will depend on the shrinkage rate as a function of the gravitational field.

 

IMPORTANT:


With some simplifications, I have derivated the CORRECT GALAXY ROTATION CURVE ( to galaxy Messier 33) :


V = H*SQRT(1+R^2/D^2) + SQRT(M*G/R)

where:

G         = 6,7E-11
H         = 2,2E-18
M  = Mass Sun = 2,0E30
c         = 3E8

diameter = 50E3 AL      = 4,5E20
R=Radius     = 1/2(50E3 AL) = 2,3E20
D=distance= 3E6 AL       = 3,0E22

could, please,  anyone check if it matches this curve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

Thank You

 

8 minutes ago, joao c h barcellos said:

I believe that gravitational forces can cancel each other out but not the gravitational field. If something is between the Sun and the Earth it will experience two gravitational fields and shrink faster than if it has only one of the fields.

 

Well I didn't put the dependence (the formula) of the rate of shrinkage on the gravitational field. I just said that I believe the field makes space (and everything within it) shrink. But the shrinkage function as a function of the field I don't know.

 

Perhaps not greatly, it will depend on the shrinkage rate as a function of the gravitational field.

 

IMPORTANT:


With some simplifications, I have derivated the CORRECT GALAXY ROTATION CURVE ( to galaxy Messier 33) :


V = H*D*SQRT(1+R^2/D^2) + SQRT(M*G/R)

where:

G         = 6,7E-11
H         = 2,2E-18
M  = Mass Sun = 2,0E30
c         = 3E8

diameter = 50E3 AL      = 4,5E20
R=Radius     = 1/2(50E3 AL) = 2,3E20
D=distance= 3E6 AL       = 3,0E22

could, please,  anyone check if it matches this curve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

Thank You

 

 

The correct formula is V = H*D*SQRT(1+R^2/D^2) + SQRT(M*G/R)

M= mass galaxy =         = 7E9 * Msun   = 7E9*2E30= 1E40 Kg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joao c h barcellos said:

I believe that gravitational forces can cancel each other out but not the gravitational field. If something is between the Sun and the Earth it will experience two gravitational fields and shrink faster than if it has only one of the fields.

The above statement contradicts your earlier response: (When asked about if Jupiter should shrink faster than mercury due to the different strength of gravity.)

On 9/29/2022 at 2:55 PM, joao c h barcellos said:

Yes off couse!

 

 

 

1 hour ago, joao c h barcellos said:

IMPORTANT:

Note that "distance" and "radius" does not make any sense; you claim everything is shrinking so you need to account for passing of time, relativity and effects of shrinking, both the observer and the observer objects? Also note that you need to take into account that the constants, as a consequence of your explanations, are not universal constants so G does not apply.

But it's not that important, it can wait until we have some evidence supporting your claims. Or at least have some explanation that is consistent enough to be verified against observations?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Black Holes, and even neutron stars, objects with extreme gravitational fields, would shrink the most.

Would this effect be evident for the massive Black Holes central to galaxies ?
Would this affect the rotation rate of pulsars ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The above statement contradicts your earlier response: (When asked about if Jupiter should shrink faster than mercury due to the different strength of gravity.)

 I think not:  The gravitation field in Jupter is greater than earth, so the rate of shrink is greater

Quote

you claim everything is shrinking so you need to account for passing of time,
relativity and effects of shrinking, both the observer and the observer objects?

yes, both are shrinking. But if the object shrinks at the same rate that we shrink, we don't notice that shrinkage.
Even more so the shrinkage is very slow, about 7% for every billion years.

Quote

Also note that you need to take into account that the constants, as a consequence of your explanations,
are not universal constants so G does not apply.

Not!
The laws of physics are valid including the constants in relation to a sidereal observer (OS),
one that does not undergo contraction.


From my article:
["Let’s call of “Sidereal Observer” (=“SO”) those observers located in this spatial region. For example, observers in the intergalactic region would be an “OS”.
To clarify ideas, we may think that observers in the “OS” (=“SO”) play a role similar to an observer in an inertial frame [5] as opposed to observers located in the “LS” that
would play an analogous role to observers in a non-inertial referential."]

Quote

But it's not that important, it can wait until we have some evidence supporting your claims. Or at least have some explanation that is consistent enough to be verified against observations?

Note that I used only one hypothesis to explain the dark energy and dark matter effects.
By ocam's razor, it would be preferable to post *two* new hypotheses (dark energy+darkmatter). Furthermore, I think it is important to point out that Hubble's law was derived based on this hypothesis, which is not the case in the case of dark energy which remains a mystery.
Regarding dark matter I believe this theory can "shed some light", but the upside is that, despite efforts, no evidence of dark matter has been detected, and my theory doesn't need it, although I still can't quite hit it off. observational data,

 

 

Quote

So Black Holes, and even neutron stars, objects with extreme gravitational fields, would shrink the most.

Yes, I agree.

 

Quote

Would this effect be evident for the massive Black Holes central to galaxies ?

 I think what's inside the black hole is shrinking much faster, yes. But we don't have access to the inside of the black hole.

Quote

Would this affect the rotation rate of pulsars ?

I believe that the rotation period should increase since the star is contracting and the radius of the star should decrease, and not, as a first approximation, older pulsars should rotate faster. Do you know if this happens?

 

On the other hand, pulsars lose energy due to radiation and this lost energy may be being counterbalanced by their angular momentum, that is, the loss of energy can reduce the rotation speed. So there are two factors that would need to be weighed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

But if the object shrinks at the same rate that we shrink,

Objects shrink at different rates according to you.

9 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

I think not:  The gravitation field in Jupter is greater than earth, so the rate of shrink is greater

Ok, but you said shrinking is greater where gravity cancels, between bodies. 

9 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

The laws of physics are valid including the constants in relation to a sidereal observer (OS),
one that does not undergo contraction.

 No such observer can exist; where gravity cancels the shrinkage is great:

On 10/3/2022 at 8:13 PM, joao c h barcellos said:

I believe that gravitational forces can cancel each other out but not the gravitational field. If something is between the Sun and the Earth it will experience two gravitational fields and shrink faster than if it has only one of the fields.

Explanations are so far inconsistent to such a degree that it is hard to take the ideas seriously*. Is this idea some kind of joke?

 

*) By "seriously" I do not mean credible in comparison to established models, just serious enough to be worthy of a scientific discussion with the intention to learn something. 

Edited by Ghideon
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

I think what's inside the black hole is shrinking much faster, yes.

What do you think might be shrinking inside a Black Hole ?

 

12 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

Do you know if this happens?

almost all of the things you mention, DO NOT happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Objects shrink at different rates according to you.

some objects shrink at the same rate others at different rates, depending on the gravitational field. Here on Earth we have a 7% reduction every 1 billion years

 

Quote

Ok, but you said shrinking is greater where gravity cancels, between bodies.

No, said the oposite, perhaps the tradutor is not good.
I said the contration CAN depend from gravitational field and not the gravitational resultant force.
I still I am not sure of this.

Quote

No such observer can exist; where gravity cancels the shrinkage is great

Cancel to zero is difficult but negligible field exists: At far away from the galaxys the field is very very weak.

Quote

Explanations are so far inconsistent to such a degree that it is hard to take the ideas seriously*. Is this idea some kind of joke?

I do not know why, but when i win the Nobel you change your idea  :-)

Quote

What do you think might be shrinking inside a Black Hole ?

I think the objects shrink very very fast , perhaps our gravity is like a black-hole but very very very slow.

Quote

I Said: "On the other hand, pulsars lose energy due to radiation and this lost energy may be being counterbalanced by their angular momentum, that is, the loss of energy can reduce the rotation speed. So there are two factors that would need to be weighed. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

49 minutes ago, joao c h barcellos said:

No, said the oposite, perhaps the tradutor is not good.
I said the contration CAN depend from gravitational field and not the gravitational resultant force.
I still I am not sure of this.

You said:

On 10/3/2022 at 8:13 PM, joao c h barcellos said:

If something is between the Sun and the Earth it will experience two gravitational fields and shrink faster than if it has only one of the fields.

Please present a consistent explanation. Seems like we now have "can depend", "can't depend", "does depend" and "not sure"

Edited by Ghideon
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, joao c h barcellos said:

I think the objects shrink very very fast , perhaps our gravity is like a black-hole but very very very slow.

There is a big difference between 'shrinking' and gravitational collapse.
There is no 'shrunken' star inside a Black Hole.

Maybe you should rethink this whole idea ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2022 at 1:45 AM, MigL said:

neutron stars

Thanks @MigL! I did not think of that, it seems to present us with a neat way to falsify the idea using a simple ballpark* calculation. Neutron stars average density is 1014 times the average earth density so neutron stars shrinks by 50% in about 1 hour by following the logics presented by OP. Even with an error margin of 10.000, all neutron stars would take about one year to reach 50% of it's original size. Since no neutron star out of the 3,200 known neutron stars in the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds** have displayed anything like this behaviour the idea presented by OP is incorrect.

Case closed.

 

*) The vague descriptions from OP prevents any detailed or exact calculations.
**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2022 at 12:22 PM, Ghideon said:

 

You said:

Please present a consistent explanation. Seems like we now have "can depend", "can't depend", "does depend" and "not sure"

Ok :
Suppose an object is between the Earth and the Sun. It is hit by the gravitational pull of the Earth and the gravitational pull of the Sun. At the point where it is (closest to the earth) these two forces can counterbalance each other with zero net force.
If the rate of shrinkage depended on the gravitational force and not the gravitational field, this object would not shrink.

On the other hand, the object is bathed by the gravitational field of the Earth and also by the gravitational field of the Sun. So if the rate of shrinkage depends on the gravitational FIELD and NOT the gravitational FORCE, then it will shrink at a HIGHER rate than just one of the two fields acting on it.
Did you understand?

 

22 hours ago, MigL said:

There is no 'shrunken' star inside a Black Hole.

Some one already see inside one black-hole?

20 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Thanks @MigL! I did not think of that, it seems to present us with a neat way to falsify the idea using a simple ballpark* calculation. Neutron stars average density is 1014 times the average earth density so neutron stars shrinks by 50% in about 1 hour by following the logics presented by OP. Even with an error margin of 10.000, all neutron stars would take about one year to reach 50% of it's original size. Since no neutron star out of the 3,200 known neutron stars in the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds** have displayed anything like this behaviour the idea presented by OP is incorrect.

Case closed.

wrong conclusion. I *DON'T* put in the formula for the rate of shrinkage as a function of the gravitational field.

I didn't say it's proportional to the field or the square root of the field or the logarithm of the field or anything like that. I just said that as the field increases, the shrinkage rate should be higher.

In addition, all the stars of the milky way contribute in some way to the gravitational field that reaches the earth and not just the mass of the Earth.


Another thing: you should also note that as our rulers shrink we can measure the diameter of neutron stars BIGGER than they actually are, for example if they shrink at the same rate as our planet then their radius will seem constant.

ANOTHER EVIDENCE:
["The universe is getting hot, hot, hot, a new study suggests
Temperature has increased about 10 times over the last 10 billion years"]
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201110133132.htm

when stars or gases schrink the temperature grow up

case open

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, joao c h barcellos said:

Suppose an object is between the Earth and the Sun. It is hit by the gravitational pull of the Earth and the gravitational pull of the Sun. At the point where it is (closest to the earth) these two forces can counterbalance each other with zero net force.
If the rate of shrinkage depended on the gravitational force and not the gravitational field, this object would not shrink.

On the other hand, the object is bathed by the gravitational field of the Earth and also by the gravitational field of the Sun. So if the rate of shrinkage depends on the gravitational FIELD and NOT the gravitational FORCE, then it will shrink at a HIGHER rate than just one of the two fields acting on it.
Did you understand?

 

So which one of your options are correct and which one is incorrect? 

 

16 minutes ago, joao c h barcellos said:

wrong conclusion

Ok. Please provide a calculation with better precision than my example. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.