21 hours ago, Rincewind said:

It’s not about being ‘right’, it’s about ensuring that we thoroughly explore the implications of different models. If Standard Cosmology has unresolved discrepancies, such as its reliance on dark matter, then considering an alternative framework like FTS isn’t about proving one person correct; it’s about refining our understanding of cosmic mechanics.

 

Are you interested in discussing whether FTS offers a viable alternative, or is the focus now shifting away from the physics itself?

You haven't presented any physics and you clearly don't speak the language, so even 'if' you're right, you have no capacity to make yourself properly understood; you may as well be pissing into the wind.

On 6/1/2025 at 5:47 PM, swansont said:

Mainly because GR passes all of the tests we can run on it, and the alternative you’re offering does not come with much of anything beyond hand-waving. There’s no actual model, and without that one can’t say whether existing evidence supports it or not.

Given that JWST observations challenge SM’s timeline for early galaxy formation, it seems timely to explore whether alternative models, like FTS, could offer insights that standard cosmology struggles to reconcile. Would you argue that unanticipated observational discrepancies should prompt re-evaluation of existing models, or do you believe they should simply lead to modifications within the current framework?

On 6/1/2025 at 7:09 PM, joigus said:

How is someone who is asking for a framing assuming any particular framing?

Your request for a framing is valid, but it presupposes that scaling must occur relative to a fixed metric background, a perspective deeply embedded in standard cosmology.

 

FTS challenges this assumption by proposing that scale itself evolves over Ephemeris Time (ET), rather than space expanding relative to an underlying metric. This means that conventional definitions of 'size' and 'motion' must be reconsidered, not within the confines of an expanding metric, but as intrinsic transformations within matter itself.

 

Are you open to exploring how such a shift might resolve discrepancies that currently require dark matter?

On 6/2/2025 at 6:47 AM, Markus Hanke said:

I would argue that whichever framework provides the best fit with all (!) available observational and experimental data is always the preferable one. But for this you need a proper mathematical framework, or else you can’t compare the model to real-world data.

However, you haven’t provided any framework or model, just a loose collection of thoughts and claims in verbal form, most of which don’t make much sense from a physics perspective.

For example, assuming global conservation of the energy-momentum tensor necessarily implies a vanishing Riemann tensor. Thus you need to show mathematically that whatever scaling mechanism you propose is able to fully reproduce all degrees of freedom of gravity without recourse to curvature. You haven’t done this; just verbally claiming that this is so isn’t enough.

Markus, you raise an important point regarding the energy-momentum tensor and its connection to the Riemann tensor.

 

While GR describes gravitational interactions through curvature, the Riemann tensor is fundamentally a local descriptor; it captures how matter moves along geodesics within curved spacetime. However, this does not necessarily mean it dictates how scale itself evolves over cosmological time.

 

FTS does not require a vanishing Riemann tensor because it does not treat gravitational effects as irrelevant; it acknowledges that locally, GR’s dynamic paths accurately describe motion. The distinction is that over large-scale cosmic evolution, scaling transformations become the dominant factor rather than curvature-dependent mechanisms.

 

In FTS, time symmetry is preserved via ET ∝ AT, meaning energy remains conserved without relying on hidden mass corrections like dark matter. Instead of adjusting curvature tensors to explain observed discrepancies, FTS modifies the underlying assumptions about cosmic scaling, removing the need for an expanding metric.

 

Would you agree that local curvature descriptions (Riemann tensor) do not necessarily dictate how global cosmic evolution must behave, or do you argue that metric expansion is the only viable framework for large-scale structure formation?

3 hours ago, Rincewind said:

Your request for a framing is valid, but it presupposes that scaling must occur relative to a fixed metric background, a perspective deeply embedded in standard cosmology.

Hardly, as there is no such thing as a fixed metric background in general relativity. There is only an equivalence class of metrics, of which all the topological invariants are preserved, because the valid group of transformations is that of diffeomorphisms. How am I presupposing something I know to be irrelevant?

I don't think you understand either standard cosmology or the principles of general relativity, as one of the departure points is that you can shuffle and reshuffle the metric at will. It's the interval that gives you the physics.

7 hours ago, Rincewind said:

Given that JWST observations challenge SM’s timeline for early galaxy formation, it seems timely to explore whether alternative models, like FTS, could offer insights that standard cosmology struggles to reconcile. Would you argue that unanticipated observational discrepancies should prompt re-evaluation of existing models, or do you believe they should simply lead to modifications within the current framework?

I’m not sure what the Standard Model has anything to do with galaxy formation.

Discrepancies with existing models has nothing to do with the validity of other models. IOW, you need evidence to support your model, which is what I pointed out, and what you continue to sidestep.

20 hours ago, Rincewind said:

FTS does not require a vanishing Riemann tensor

If that’s the case, then…

20 hours ago, Rincewind said:

In FTS, time symmetry is preserved via ET ∝ AT, meaning energy remains conserved

…is necessarily wrong. There can’t be global energy-momentum conservation in the presence of curvature.

On 6/6/2025 at 12:14 PM, joigus said:

Hardly, as there is no such thing as a fixed metric background in general relativity. There is only an equivalence class of metrics, of which all the topological invariants are preserved, because the valid group of transformations is that of diffeomorphisms. How am I presupposing something I know to be irrelevant?

I don't think you understand either standard cosmology or the principles of general relativity, as one of the departure points is that you can shuffle and reshuffle the metric at will. It's the interval that gives you the physics.

Joigus, while I appreciate your adherence to the principles of general relativity, I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the FTS model's approach. The FTS model does not rely on a fixed metric background in the traditional sense. Instead, it introduces a dual-time framework consisting of Atomic Time (AT) and Ephemeris Time (ET), which enables the reinterpretation of cosmic phenomena.

Dual-Time Framework:
Atomic Time (AT): Defined by atomic vibrations and essential for precise timekeeping.

Ephemeris Time (ET): Historically used in astronomy, invariant to relativistic effects, providing a stable measure of time displacement.

Scaling and Matter Shrinkage:
The FTS model hypothesises that matter undergoes a diminishing isomorphic transformation as it travels through ET over cosmic time. This leads to an apparent acceleration in the universe's expansion, offering an alternative explanation to dark energy.

Relativistic Effects and Observations:
The model explains variations in the Hubble constant (H0) measurements as dependent on relativistic time dilation effects on instruments, contributing to the Hubble tension.

Cyclic Universe:
The FTS model extends to an infinite, positionally background-dependent universe, represented as a horn torus with infinitely many aeons of time connected by a central Big Bang.

Emergent Gravity:
Gravity is understood as an emergent effect dependent on the rate at which future distances diminish, with matter undergoing uniform shrinking relative to an absolute background.

In essence, the FTS model respects the principles of general relativity while offering a novel perspective on cosmic phenomena. It does not discard the importance of the interval but rather reinterprets it within a dual-time framework that aligns with both relativistic and cosmological observations.

49 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Joigus, while I appreciate your adherence to the principles of general relativity, I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the FTS model's approach

Then show how your conjecture conserves energy and give us testable predictions that it makes. Evidence that supports it.

Last chance.

9 hours ago, Rincewind said:

Scaling and Matter Shrinkage:
The FTS model hypothesises that matter undergoes a diminishing isomorphic transformation as it travels through ET over cosmic time. This leads to an apparent acceleration in the universe's expansion, offering an alternative explanation to dark energy.

Ok, I'm talking off the top of my head, but I don't think matter shrinking everywhere would have equivalent effects to an overall acceleration. It would affect the energy-momentum tensor* on the RHS of Einstein's equations that would be impossible to factor into a scale parameter in the way of a Hubble factor.

I think, without realising, you're thinking about a trivial rescaling that's nothing to do with an actual (active) transformation.

Plus I still don't see anything "fractal" going on here...

* Here, I've found one of Markus' objections that I think pretty much expresses the problem with the shrinkage, only perhaps much better than what I said:

On 5/12/2025 at 7:04 AM, Markus Hanke said:

That’s exactly the problem. You’re assuming that these fundamental interactions don’t change, but at the same time you’re saying that atoms “shrink” over time relative to some absolute background. This doesn’t work, since the interactions don’t scale - if you try to shrink atoms, you break the physics in the process.

On 6/6/2025 at 3:26 PM, swansont said:

I’m not sure what the Standard Model has anything to do with galaxy formation.

Discrepancies with existing models has nothing to do with the validity of other models. IOW, you need evidence to support your model, which is what I pointed out, and what you continue to sidestep.

Swonsont, I appreciate your emphasis on the need for evidence to support any new model. While the Standard Model primarily addresses particle physics, its principles and extensions often intersect with cosmological models, particularly in explaining the conditions of the early universe and the formation of structures such as galaxies.

The JWST observations challenge the timeline for early galaxy formation, suggesting that galaxies formed earlier and more rapidly than the current models predict. This discrepancy invites us to consider alternative frameworks that might better align with these observations. As Richard Feynman once said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

The FTS model offers a novel perspective by introducing a dual-time framework (Atomic Time and Ephemeris Time) and hypothesising matter shrinkage over cosmic time. This approach provides alternative explanations for cosmic expansion and the nature of dark energy, potentially addressing the observed discrepancies.

 

While I agree that evidence is crucial, the FTS model's alignment with recent observations and its ability to offer coherent explanations for unresolved issues in standard cosmology warrant its consideration. Exploring alternative models like FTS can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the universe, especially when existing models face significant observational challenges, challenges that were predictable with this model before the challenges were observed.

9 hours ago, joigus said:

Ok, I'm talking off the top of my head, but I don't think matter shrinking everywhere would have equivalent effects to an overall acceleration. It would affect the energy-momentum tensor* on the RHS of Einstein's equations that would be impossible to factor into a scale parameter in the way of a Hubble factor.

I think, without realising, you're thinking about a trivial rescaling that's nothing to do with an actual (active) transformation.

Plus I still don't see anything "fractal" going on here...

* Here, I've found one of Markus' objections that I think pretty much expresses the problem with the shrinkage, only perhaps much better than what I said:

Joigus, I appreciate your thoughtful critique. Let's address the points you've raised:

1. Matter Shrinkage and Overall Acceleration: The Fractal Topology of Space-Time (FTS) model posits that matter undergoes a diminishing isomorphic transformation over cosmic time, leading to an apparent acceleration in the universe's expansion. This does not imply a trivial rescaling but rather an intrinsic transformation that aligns with the evolving cosmic background. The energy-momentum tensor in Einstein's equations would indeed be affected, but the FTS model accounts for this by considering the uniform scaling of all interactions within their local frame.

2. Fractal Nature: The "fractal" aspect of the FTS model refers to the self-similar scaling properties observed over different cosmic epochs. This fractal scaling is evident in the way atomic forces and distances evolve relative to the cosmic background, maintaining the invariance of fundamental interactions while appearing different over time.

3. Markus Hanke's Objection: Markus Hanke's concern about breaking physics by shrinking atoms is addressed by the FTS model's premise that all interactions scale uniformly within their local frame. Atomic forces, such as electromagnetic binding, depend on relative distances rather than absolute sizes. The perceived contraction is relative to the evolving cosmic background, not an intrinsic modification of atomic forces. This ensures that fundamental laws remain invariant within atomic scales but appear different over cosmic time due to fractal scaling in Ephemeris Time (ET).

4. Redshift-to-Distance Observations: The scaling effects proposed by the FTS model are gradual over deep cosmic time. Observations of redshift-to-distance relationships support this gradual scaling, as space within gravity-bound systems, such as our spiral galaxy, shows no evidence of expanding space. This fits with observations of other galaxies and addresses the discrepancy in standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) models, which assume uniform expansion across all regions.

5. Standard Model Discrepancies: The standard model of cosmology assumes uniform expansion, yet observations show no evidence of expansion within gravity-bound systems. The FTS model offers an alternative explanation by proposing that atomic time-based distances scale with the atoms, preserving the local frame's interactions while accounting for the observed discrepancies.

In summary, the FTS model provides a coherent framework that aligns with both relativistic and cosmological observations, offering alternative explanations for unresolved issues in standard cosmology. As Richard Feynman once said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." The FTS model's alignment with recent observations warrants its consideration as a viable alternative framework.

59 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

While I agree that evidence is crucial, the FTS model's alignment with recent observations and its ability to offer coherent explanations for unresolved issues in standard cosmology warrant its consideration

Crucial as in we require it.

As Richard Feynman once said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Indeed. And you provide no experiment to compare it with, so there’s no way to falsify it.

Since you haven’t met the threshold of what’s needed, this is closed.