16 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

I think you might be right, because I wrote it :)

I'm not sure you understand, what I wrote. 😉

5 hours ago, Rincewind said:

The radius of the Hubble sphere (HS) depends on which model is applied, SM or FTS. Standard cosmology (SM) accounts for comoving distances due to metric expansion.

FTS, however, uses D ≈ (z × c) / H₀,

If you use alternative physics you have to come up with new names for things, because the ones in use have a particular meaning. The Hubble sphere is defined in terms of mainstream physics

8 hours ago, Rincewind said:

If metric expansion were truly homogeneous, why don’t galaxies expand internally? Standard cosmology acknowledges that gravitational binding overrides expansion within certain regions, yet lacks a clear mechanism explaining exactly how this transition occurs.

The stars in galaxies are not glued to the expanding space. They are quite free to move independently of any expansion of space. Thus, if a star exhibits some tendency to move away from the central core of its galaxy due to the expansion of space, then the gravity from the central core will pull the star back into the fold. If a star orbits its galaxy at some particular distance from the centre of the galaxy, then even after the space has expanded, the laws of physics will maintain the distance at which the star orbits, noting that the laws of physics are based on local scale, not cosmological scale.

18 hours ago, Rincewind said:

standard cosmology assumes space expands while objects retain constant size, whereas in FTS, matter itself scales over Ephemeris Time (ET) while spatial positioning is preserved.

So then we are back to matter physically shrinking relative to a fixed cosmic background, which doesn’t work, as I mentioned.

On 5/18/2025 at 3:43 PM, swansont said:

If you use alternative physics you have to come up with new names for things, because the ones in use have a particular meaning. The Hubble sphere is defined in terms of mainstream physics

The mainstream definition of the Hubble Sphere (HS) is tied to comoving distances under standard metric expansion. However, FTS doesn’t discard the concept, it reinterprets HS as a positional reference relative to scaling effects rather than as a strict comoving boundary.

Both SM and FTS regard the HS as the region where objects have a recessional velocity equal to the speed of light. The difference is that FTS treats this as an apparent recessional velocity, relative to the background, no positional change is actually taking place.

Standard cosmology assumes that the expansion of space itself causes objects to move apart with increasing velocity at greater distances. FTS, by contrast, proposes that what we interpret as motion is instead the result of scale-dependent transformations over Ephemeris Time (ET), meaning the change is in measured properties rather than actual spatial separation.

Thus, while maintaining the concept of HS as an observational boundary, FTS avoids the need for comoving distance corrections, instead treating cosmic evolution as a scaling effect rather than an expanding metric. Whether the term ‘Hubble Sphere’ is retained or modified depends on whether mainstream assumptions should continue shaping definitions, or if FTS warrants an independent terminology for its framework.

On 5/18/2025 at 7:14 PM, KJW said:

The stars in galaxies are not glued to the expanding space. They are quite free to move independently of any expansion of space. Thus, if a star exhibits some tendency to move away from the central core of its galaxy due to the expansion of space, then the gravity from the central core will pull the star back into the fold. If a star orbits its galaxy at some particular distance from the centre of the galaxy, then even after the space has expanded, the laws of physics will maintain the distance at which the star orbits, noting that the laws of physics are based on local scale, not cosmological scale.

Your explanation assumes that gravitational binding overrides metric expansion locally, but standard cosmology lacks a precise mechanism for defining at what scale this transition occurs.

If metric expansion were truly homogeneous, we’d expect even loosely bound systems, such as galaxy clusters, to experience some measurable expansion. Yet observations show that galaxy clusters remain stable without internal expansion, suggesting a missing factor in how expansion interacts with gravity.

Do you propose a formal transition scale where gravity overrides metric expansion completely, or does the standard model leave this undefined?

On 5/19/2025 at 6:17 AM, Markus Hanke said:

So then we are back to matter physically shrinking relative to a fixed cosmic background, which doesn’t work, as I mentioned.

FTS doesn’t describe matter ‘physically shrinking’ in an absolute sense; it redefines scale evolution relative to Ephemeris Time (ET).

Standard cosmology assumes space expands while objects retain constant size, but FTS replaces metric expansion with a scaling function, where matter adjusts relative to cosmic evolution.

The distinction is critical: in FTS, scaling affects both measurement reference and observational interpretations, meaning there is no fixed cosmic background against which shrinking occurs. Instead, time and scale co-evolve, making perceived size a function of ET rather than a static metric.

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

Your explanation assumes that gravitational binding overrides metric expansion locally, but standard cosmology lacks a precise mechanism for defining at what scale this transition occurs.

My understanding is that it’s where the expansion velocity is equal to the escape velocity of the collection of mass.

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

The mainstream definition of the Hubble Sphere (HS) is tied to comoving distances under standard metric expansion. However, FTS doesn’t discard the concept, it reinterprets HS as a positional reference relative to scaling effects rather than as a strict comoving boundary.

So it’s not what Hubble and others describe as expansion. Get yourself a new name.

11 hours ago, Rincewind said:

FTS doesn’t describe matter ‘physically shrinking’ in an absolute sense; it redefines scale evolution relative to Ephemeris Time (ET).

Scale of what, exactly?

11 hours ago, Rincewind said:

Standard cosmology assumes space expands while objects retain constant size, but FTS replaces metric expansion with a scaling function, where matter adjusts relative to cosmic evolution.

Again - scaling function of what, exactly?

On 5/21/2025 at 7:34 PM, swansont said:

My understanding is that it’s where the expansion velocity is equal to the escape velocity of the collection of mass.

So it’s not what Hubble and others describe as expansion. Get yourself a new name.

The notion that the transition occurs where expansion velocity equals escape velocity assumes a sharp boundary, yet observations show galaxy clusters remain gravitationally bound, despite their escape velocities often being below theoretical expansion velocities, suggesting a deeper mechanism beyond a simple velocity comparison.

Regarding the terminology, the interpretation of cosmic expansion has evolved significantly since Hubble first observed redshift correlations. Early models likened it to an explosion-driven dispersion, but that notion quickly became untenable; an expanding metric was necessary to explain large-scale structure formation.

The Hubble Sphere (HS), as an observational boundary, would have been impossible under an explosion model, since such a scenario would imply a central point of expansion, contradicting the homogeneity and isotropy required by modern cosmology. Instead, the shift in perspective toward metric expansion allowed the HS to be framed as the transition between luminal and superluminal recessional velocities.

FTS builds on this evolution by redefining cosmic expansion in terms of intrinsic scaling, not as space stretching but as matter evolving over Ephemeris Time (ET). This eliminates the need for a separate expanding metric while still aligning with the observational boundary concept that both SM and FTS recognise for HS.

Renaming HS adds unnecessary complication for those aiming to engage constructively in the underlying physics rather than mere terminology debates.

30 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

The notion that the transition occurs where expansion velocity equals escape velocity assumes a sharp boundary, yet observations show galaxy clusters remain gravitationally bound, despite their escape velocities often being below theoretical expansion velocities, suggesting a deeper mechanism beyond a simple velocity comparison.

You're conflating escape with expansion, please correct me if I'm wrong, but can universal expansion have a velocity in terms of escape?

On 5/22/2025 at 5:57 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Scale of what, exactly?

Again - scaling function of what, exactly?

In FTS, the scaling function applies to matter itself, meaning that atomic structures, planetary bodies, and even galaxies scale relative to Ephemeris Time (ET). Unlike standard cosmology, which assumes spatial expansion while keeping fundamental units fixed, FTS treats cosmic evolution as a process where the physical scale itself changes over time rather than space expanding.

This means that the length of a physical ruler, the frequency of emitted radiation, and the separation distances between gravitationally bound systems all shift uniformly according to the scaling function, ensuring that locally bound objects remain internally consistent while the overall cosmic structure follows a different scaling trajectory.

Thus, instead of stretching space while keeping matter constant, FTS applies a scaling transformation to matter relative to its cosmic evolution in Ephemeris Time, preserving observational consistency while reinterpreting the mechanism responsible for cosmic expansion.

2 hours ago, Rincewind said:

The notion that the transition occurs where expansion velocity equals escape velocity assumes a sharp boundary, yet observations show galaxy clusters remain gravitationally bound, despite their escape velocities often being below theoretical expansion velocities, suggesting a deeper mechanism beyond a simple velocity comparison.

Evidence?

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You're conflating escape with expansion, please correct me if I'm wrong, but can universal expansion have a velocity in terms of escape?

Expansion velocity describes how space itself expands over time, affecting the separation of distant galaxies. Escape velocity, on the other hand, is a local gravitational condition that determines whether an object remains bound to a specific mass distribution.

While expansion velocity can exceed the speed of light due to metric expansion, escape velocity is always calculated relative to a gravitational potential and is not linked to cosmic-scale expansion. Observations show that galaxy clusters remain gravitationally bound despite expansion effects, implying that the mechanism governing large-scale stability involves more than just a simple velocity comparison.

Would you argue that expansion should affect local gravitational escape conditions, or do you recognise the difference between metric-driven expansion and local orbital mechanics?

15 hours ago, Rincewind said:

In FTS, the scaling function applies to matter itself, meaning that atomic structures, planetary bodies, and even galaxies scale relative to Ephemeris Time (ET).

So we are in fact rescaling atoms, which, as pointed out already, does not work.

17 hours ago, Rincewind said:

Expansion velocity describes how space itself expands over time, affecting the separation of distant galaxies. Escape velocity, on the other hand, is a local gravitational condition that determines whether an object remains bound to a specific mass distribution.

While expansion velocity can exceed the speed of light due to metric expansion, escape velocity is always calculated relative to a gravitational potential and is not linked to cosmic-scale expansion. Observations show that galaxy clusters remain gravitationally bound despite expansion effects, implying that the mechanism governing large-scale stability involves more than just a simple velocity comparison.

Would you argue that expansion should affect local gravitational escape conditions, or do you recognise the difference between metric-driven expansion and local orbital mechanics?

No, I stand by my post, "While expansion velocity can exceed the speed of light", then it's not a velocity.

On 5/23/2025 at 3:08 PM, swansont said:

Evidence?

Evidence Against SM’s Complete Success: The fact that standard cosmology must introduce a hypothetical form of matter—"now hypothesised as dark matter", to reconcile theory with observations is itself evidence that there’s something amiss. For example:

 

Zwicky’s Early Work on the Coma Galaxy Cluster: Zwicky observed that the galaxies in the Coma Cluster were moving so fast that, based solely on the luminous (baryonic) mass, they should be flying apart. This led him to propose the existence of missing mass.

 

Rubin’s Rotation Curve Discrepancies: Observations of flat galactic rotation curves, where stars in the outer parts of galaxies orbit at nearly the same speed as those closer to the centre, indicate far more mass than what is visibly present.

 

These discrepancies force the SM to compensate with dark matter, which remains undetected directly, to explain both the binding of galaxy clusters and the anomalous galactic rotation curves.

 

FTS’s Alternative Account: In contrast, the FTS model explains these phenomena by proposing that matter itself scales over Ephemeris Time (ET) rather than space expanding in an absolute sense. For instance, as you noted:

 

In low baryon-dense regions (further from galactic centres), atomic time ticks faster.

 

This means that when viewed from a region with slower AT (like near the galactic core or on Earth), objects in the outskirts seem to complete their orbits “too quickly”, naturally explaining the observed rotation curves without needing dark matter.

 

Thus, FTS reinterprets the binding and dynamics of galaxies as a consequence of a scaling transformation over time, a mechanism that eliminates the need for a dark matter patch.

 

So, rather than seeing these observations as problems requiring extra mass, FTS suggests they are indications that our understanding of cosmic time and scaling needs revision. This reinterpretation serves as the evidence: SM’s dependence on dark matter (an unconfirmed entity) to account for known discrepancies is a sign that an alternative explanation, like that proposed by FTS, might be more fundamental.

On 5/22/2025 at 6:57 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Scale of what, exactly?

Again - scaling function of what, exactly?

Oh boy. I forget how many times I've asked something like this:

Scaling of what in terms of what?

Non-linear in what against what?

etc...

The answer was (almost) always like the sound of the crickets against a clear summer night.

On 5/24/2025 at 12:47 PM, dimreepr said:

No, I stand by my post, "While expansion velocity can exceed the speed of light", then it's not a velocity.

While it’s common to speak of an 'expansion velocity' exceeding the speed of light, I stand by the idea that if a quantity can surpass c in this context, then it isn’t a velocity in the traditional, local, inertial-frame sense. In the Standard Model, galaxies beyond the Hubble Sphere appear to recede faster than light, but this is not a proper velocity measured locally. Instead, it's a coordinate effect resulting from the stretching of space as described by the metric. Locally, every comoving observer measures nearby objects with velocities well within the bounds of special relativity.

 

In other words, if we require that real velocities—those measured in an observer's inertial frame—must always be less than c, then an 'expansion velocity' that exceeds c isn’t a physical velocity at all; it’s simply a manifestation of how we’ve chosen to codify the expansion through the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric.

 

So when I say, 'While expansion velocity can exceed the speed of light, then it’s not a velocity,' I mean precisely that: it reflects a scaling effect of the universe’s geometry rather than a physical speed comparable to, say, a galaxy's peculiar motion within its local gravitational pocket. This is analogous to the SM’s treatment of galaxies beyond the Hubble Sphere, they’re not 'moving' through space at superluminal speeds in their local frames; rather, the metric itself is causing the separation between us and those galaxies to increase at a rate that can exceed light speed when expressed in these coordinates

26 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Evidence Against SM’s Complete Success: The fact that standard cosmology must introduce a hypothetical form of matter—"now hypothesised as dark matter", to reconcile theory with observations is itself evidence that there’s something amiss.

Nobody claims the SM is a complete success. We know it’s incomplete

You could replace “dark matter” in your statement with “neutrino” and you would be citing history. Was the prediction of the neutrino wrong?

Pluto was hypothesized because of otherwise unexplained perturbations on orbits of outer planets

The neutron was inferred from the discovery of masses of various isotopes.

Some elements were hypothesized from gaps in the periodic table

On 5/24/2025 at 6:12 AM, Markus Hanke said:

So we are in fact rescaling atoms, which, as pointed out already, does not work.

You argue that rescaling atoms does not work, but this assumes that atomic structures are shrinking relative to a fixed cosmic background. FTS does not propose absolute contraction, it fundamentally reinterprets scale evolution in relation to Ephemeris Time (ET).

 

One critical distinction between FTS and standard cosmology comes from Noether’s theorem:

 

In General Relativity (GR), time symmetry is not globally preserved, meaning energy conservation is not strictly upheld over cosmic time scales.

 

This is why energy loss in cosmic redshift is often treated as a natural consequence of expansion.

 

In contrast, FTS maintains time symmetry, as ET scales proportionally to AT (ET ∝ AT). This means that energy is conserved across all scales, rather than appearing to dissipate over time.

 

If atomic structures were truly 'shrinking' in an absolute sense, energy inconsistencies would arise.

 

However, because time symmetry is restored in FTS, energy preservation remains intact, eliminating the need for dark matter or external corrective mechanisms.

 

Would you argue that GR’s lack of strict energy conservation is a preferable framework, or do you acknowledge that a model maintaining time symmetry and energy conservation could provide a more fundamental solution?

On 5/26/2025 at 2:34 PM, swansont said:

Nobody claims the SM is a complete success. We know it’s incomplete

You could replace “dark matter” in your statement with “neutrino” and you would be citing history. Was the prediction of the neutrino wrong?

Pluto was hypothesized because of otherwise unexplained perturbations on orbits of outer planets

The neutron was inferred from the discovery of masses of various isotopes.

Some elements were hypothesized from gaps in the periodic table

While some hypothesised entities, like neutrinos or Pluto, were later confirmed through direct detection, others, such as the planet Vulcan, were ultimately disproven when deeper physical theories (GR) explained the discrepancies.

 

Dark matter has remained undetected despite decades of focused searches, which raises the possibility that it, too, is an incorrect hypothesis masking a deeper issue in cosmology. Rather than assuming unseen mass must exist, alternative frameworks, such as FTS, suggest that the apparent anomalies may instead stem from how we interpret time scaling and energy conservation rather than requiring invisible matter.

 

Given historical precedent, is it not reasonable to question whether dark matter is the next 'Vulcan', rather than a confirmed entity awaiting discovery?

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

While some hypothesised entities, like neutrinos or Pluto, were later confirmed through direct detection, others, such as the planet Vulcan, were ultimately disproven when deeper physical theories (GR) explained the discrepancies.

 

Dark matter has remained undetected despite decades of focused searches, which raises the possibility that it, too, is an incorrect hypothesis masking a deeper issue in cosmology. Rather than assuming unseen mass must exist, alternative frameworks, such as FTS, suggest that the apparent anomalies may instead stem from how we interpret time scaling and energy conservation rather than requiring invisible matter.

 

Given historical precedent, is it not reasonable to question whether dark matter is the next 'Vulcan', rather than a confirmed entity awaiting discovery?

Why are you so keen to be right?

On 5/26/2025 at 2:17 PM, joigus said:

Oh boy. I forget how many times I've asked something like this:

Scaling of what in terms of what?

Non-linear in what against what?

etc...

The answer was (almost) always like the sound of the crickets against a clear summer night.

Joigus, your framing assumes that scaling must occur relative to a fixed cosmic background, but this is precisely where FTS diverges from standard cosmology.

 

Standard cosmology implicitly treats space as expanding against a metric framework, which functions as an underlying reference. While this avoids an explicit ether concept, it still relies on an assumed backdrop against which cosmic expansion is measured.

 

FTS, on the other hand, eliminates the need for this metric-dependent expansion by proposing that scale itself evolves over Ephemeris Time (ET), meaning size, distance, and velocity transform dynamically rather than referencing an underlying spatial grid.

 

Rather than introducing an ether-like medium, FTS removes the dependence on an absolute metric altogether, allowing cosmic evolution to be governed by intrinsic scaling rather than extrinsic spatial expansion.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Why are you so keen to be right?

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?

4 hours ago, Rincewind said:

While some hypothesised entities, like neutrinos or Pluto, were later confirmed through direct detection, others, such as the planet Vulcan, were ultimately disproven when deeper physical theories (GR) explained the discrepancies.

 

Dark matter has remained undetected despite decades of focused searches, which raises the possibility that it, too, is an incorrect hypothesis masking a deeper issue in cosmology. Rather than assuming unseen mass must exist, alternative frameworks, such as FTS, suggest that the apparent anomalies may instead stem from how we interpret time scaling and energy conservation rather than requiring invisible matter.

 

Given historical precedent, is it not reasonable to question whether dark matter is the next 'Vulcan', rather than a confirmed entity awaiting discovery?

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.

3 hours ago, Rincewind said:

Joigus, your framing assumes that scaling must occur relative to a fixed cosmic background, but this is precisely where FTS diverges from standard cosmology.

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

18 hours ago, Rincewind said:

Would you argue that GR’s lack of strict energy conservation is a preferable framework, or do you acknowledge that a model maintaining time symmetry and energy conservation could provide a more fundamental solution?

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.