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

[joao c h barcellos]

On 10/6/2022 at 2:20 PM, Ghideon said:

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

if we were to use the principle of equivalence we should choose the first option, but my intuition thinks that the field (and not the force) is more correct. Although neither of them invalidates the theory.

On 10/6/2022 at 2:20 PM, Ghideon said:

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

Galaxy M33 = NGC598
X = Radius from the center of galaxy to Star
Velocity of star where redshift Z << 1 :
Velocity =2.2E-18*3E22*(SQRT(1+X*X/3E22/3E22))+SQRT(1E40*6.7E-11/X)

DIST(meters) = DIST(LightY) => Velocity (Km/s)
9.4e19 = 10k yL = 150km/s
1.8E20 = 20K YL = 127km/s
2.3e20 = 24k Yl =  119 km/s
2.8e20 = 30K YL = 115km/s
3.7e20 = 40K YL  = 108km/s
4.7e20 = 50k YL  = 103km/s
Well, it is not so good , but is very better than we have without dark matter,
( but perhaps i forget some parameter , i will think it better after... )

 

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, joao c h barcellos said:

if we were to use the principle of equivalence we should choose the first option, but my intuition thinks that the field (and not the force) is more correct. 

That seems to be equivalent of "I don't know". 

1 hour ago, joao c h barcellos said:

Although neither of them invalidates the theory.

If no observation or calculation can distinguish between the two options then I think your idea is invalidated.  

1 hour ago, joao c h barcellos said:

Well, it is not so good , but is very better than we have without dark matter,
( but perhaps i forget some parameter , i will think it better after... )

Sorry I was unclear, I meant: please provide a detailed calculation, better than my example, of how fast neutron stars shrinks in comparison to earth in your idea.

 

On 9/26/2022 at 10:05 PM, joao c h barcellos said:

So, in my article I verify that the rate of "shrinkage" of our space was 50% every 10 billion years.

Additional question: Does this mean that you think the event horizon of a black hole shrinks?

[joao c h barcellos]

On 10/7/2022 at 6:27 PM, Ghideon said:

That seems to be equivalent of "I don't know". 

In resume, I think so.

On 10/7/2022 at 6:27 PM, Ghideon said:

If no observation or calculation can distinguish between the two options then I think your idea is invalidated.  

Before Newton created the FORMULA of gravitational attraction, there was first the idea of this attraction. O que do not invalidate his idea.

 

On 10/7/2022 at 6:27 PM, Ghideon said:

Sorry I was unclear, I meant: please provide a detailed calculation, better than my example, of how fast neutron stars shrinks in comparison to earth in your idea.

I do not have the calculus of shrink rate in function of the gravitacional field.

I was wondering if you could do this calculation from an elevator being accelerated and check the rate of contraction inside the elevator (via the equivalence principle) but I still haven't succeeded in that.

But in earth the rate of shrinking is 7% contraction by each 1 bilion of year,

On 10/7/2022 at 6:27 PM, Ghideon said:

Additional question: Does this mean that you think the event horizon of a black hole shrinks?

No. The horizon event is like the gravitational force: The nucleous can be shrinking but the gravitational force is the same at the same distance of the center .

Evidence from Decreasing Universe
--------------------------------------
A)-VERIFIED
1-Hubble's law formula can be derived (verified)
It's in the theory text.

2-Postulation of dark energy is not necessary (verified)
It's in the theory text.

3-Expansion of the universe doubles every 10 billion years (verified)

"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..."]

4-The Universe is getting hotter (verified)

-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

B) ALMOST VERIFIED
5-The postulation of dark matter may not be necessary (to be verified)
It's in the theory text.

C)TO BE VERIFIED
(Consequences of the theory)

6- On average, Galaxies at the same distance, the ones with less mass should have higher redshifts and vice versa (NOT verified yet)

7-On average, the higher the redshift, the greater the amount of dark matter (not yet verified)

8-On average, the more distant the galaxy, the greater the amount of dark matter. ( not yet verified)

-------------------------------------

Do someone now aboute 6, 7, 8 ?

[joao c h barcellos]

5-Comoving and proper distances  (verified)

Comoving distance factors out the expansion of the universe,
giving a distance that does not change in time due to the expansion of space
(though this may change due to other, local factors, such as the motion of a galaxy within a cluster).

Comoving distance and proper distance are defined to be equal at the present time.
At other times, the Universe's expansion results in the proper distance changing,
while the comoving distance remains constant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances

"... is the distance between them which would be measured with rulers at the time they are being observed
(the proper distance) divided by the ratio of the scale factor of the Universe then to now.
In other words the proper distance multiplied by (1 + z)."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Hogg/Hogg4.html

From the equation (E10) from my paper, we have :
    D(t) = D0 * exp(H0*t)
( It is the size measured now as a function of the size that would have been measured at the time of photon emission.)
We can then identify as D0 = proper distance.
Substituting
   D(t)=Lambta (=L)  (wave length reaching us)   and  D0 = Lambta0 (=L0) ( wave length emited )
   We have: L = L0 * exp(H0*t)
   So  L/L0 = Z + 1 = exp((H0*t) =  D / D0  
   Therefore:
        D = D0 * ( Z + 1 )   ( deducted from my paper )
   

B) ALMOST VERIFIED

6-The postulation of dark matter may not be necessary (to be verified)
It's in the theory text, but rotation curve of galaxy is not very good yet.

C) TO BE VERIFIED
(Consequences of the theory)

7- On average, Galaxies at the same distance, the ones with less mass should have higher redshifts and vice versa (NOT verified yet)
 
Because the greater mass increase the contraction rate of the galaxy increasing the frequency of light
 
8-On average, for aspiral galaxy, the more distant the galaxy, the greater the amount of dark matter.

Because the galaxy's radius will appear larger than it actually is.