I remember when I first realized that we have no independent (of redshift) way of measuring recessional velocities of galaxies. It all depends on the assumption that redshift is all caused by recessional velocities. The I learned about Halton Arp’s work. It is amazing not that scientists have a prefered model (cosmological expansion) but that they do not even care to consider observations that seem to contradict that assumption.
@@pedrosura worse, they won't even inform the public (e.g. in text books) of these assumptions or counter-observations or other possible interpretations: everything is sanitised at that level.
FINALLY! I've been contemplating this question for years while doubting expansion. I also have doubts about a "big bang" or any beginning/creation and this explanation helps considerably.
energy can't be created/destroyed.... saying the laws of the universe were different is just another way of saying "SPACE MAGIC" lol better sci-fi in hollywood than academia/modern science.
No one is saying that they are arbitrarily different, but that they change over time. There can still be rules if this is the case. I’m nowhere near sold on this idea, but I’ll give it a shake.
Best explanation of the cosmological redshift I've seen so far! In my limited view, this has also consequences on how we measure the distances of redshifted stars / galaxies.
That was a deal-breaker for me in physics in the 1970's, that the speed of galaxies was inferred but not confirmed by direct observation. I had the same qualms about the existence of quarks.
Love your vids on Variable Speed of C! I'm a 13 year hobby Physicist, and have thought for the past like 7 Years that Variable Speed of C hasn't been done justice, and is heavily contorted by others. You on the other hand... Are definitely doing it justice which is awesome NGL. 👏 Keep up the good work bruh! 🖤
The most significant paper is those of Broekaert, he definitely demonstrate equivalence between einstein tensor curvature theory of gravitation (general relativity) and scalar-vector couple field in Euclidian space (variable speed of light, or variable refractive index to be precise)
Same, I'm also a physics hobbyist and the variable speed of light theory makes a lot of sense to me. I wish more people in the field would pursue experimentally testing it. This is one of the few videos I could find on TH-cam that actually gives a technical dive into it.
@@mathoph26 Fax tho. You can also take a look at Einsteins whiteboard left over after death via images online. It's a Tetrad formalism with killing vector field under flat coordinates (which in this case Preserves the Pseudo-Metric as a result). And it also uses Scalar Values as a Difference to preserve conformal maps most likely as seen in the bottom right of the board near the degree of freedom calcs. Hence how the right side of his last board, Derived the same degree's of freedom as the standard Relativistic metric. Effectively Indicating a equivalance between Flat Space with Variable Speed of Light & Malleable Transforms, and a Constant Speed of Light in Curved Spacetime with Malleable distances. ^ Under this tetrad formalism ofc
@@HEROlCS Yeh. I always thought in made more sense in particular with unifying Relativistic Field Theories (like General Relativity) to Quantum Field Theories.
@@shadow15kryans23 the tetrad formalism is too complicated for me, does Einstein wrote this still in the frame of GR, with metric variation? The other point I forget to mention, after doing some computations to check the 4 classical tests of GR using Broekaert scalar-refractive index field theory is that the mass dependant refractive index is not the ONLY mass dependant variable: position, time, mass and other quantity are mass dependants (or gravity dependant). Some are not like the angular momentum (h remains h for instance). Gradient operator for example is ugly transformed too. So yes we do not modify the space curvature in VSL, which I personnaly like, but almost all the rest of variables ! That being said why not
A kind of opposite of 'tired' light could be true. Perhaps the leading photons of a light ray (entangled photon stream) SPEED UP when leaving galactic space, entering voids, with this statistically adding up over vast distances to red shift. -- On average C stays much the same, absolutely and measures the same relative to local spatial and time metrics that also vary with matter density.. I'm imbuing light rays with an elasticity, where leading photons in an entangled set pull on those behind as they speed up for a femto second or so here and there, every trillion miles.. -- NOT TIRED LIGHT THOUGH. As weird as it seems, it could be Red Shift means the light hit us SOONER, with more time spent at slightly above C than closer sourced light, on its long journey. I actually prefer an Expanding Universe to a steady state one with varying speed of light, but it's worth trying to attack the Red Shift phenomenon from all angles... Unlike MS Science,
The conventional view is that gravity does not alter the speed of light, but lengthens its wavelength. The early universe was more dense than todays expanded universe and therefore had a more powerful gravitational field. It seems logical that light climbing away from this denser universe towards us would not slow down but wuld have its wavelength red shifted. Though speed c is 186,000 mp sec in a vaccuum, space is not a perfect vaccuum. It is well known that light slows when passing thro air, for example, so while space is a lot more tenuous than air it has a proton here and there and in some regions substantial clouds of hydrogen and helium, so light must be slowed when passing thro. By how much would light be slowed by passing thro a billion lyr of space?
Given gravity affects time, how fast was the time when it was leaving its parent star, how fast was time when it was under the gravity well of that star, how fast was it when leaving the heliosphere of that star, how fast was it when leaving that cluster in the galaxy, how fast was it when travelling in the intergalactic gap of interstellar space? We have a relative measurement of time on Earth, we know the satellites have a different rate than we do on the surface, how fast is time in interstellar space vs Earth? How does that affect the speed and wavelength of light? Einstein might not have written his paper if he knew just how many people would quit asking questions after they accepted his work.
You are doing good work Unzicker. We musn't become too monolithic to question the basic assumptions of our theories- even if they hold exalted status amongst the community.
I have been discussing with colleagues that since light interacts with all mass in the universe that causes light to lose energy and redshift with distance. I was going to use Sciama's (1953) approach to inertia to calculate it where I assume that inertia is a quantum field interaction responsible for inertia and the secondary Machian effect of all matter leads to redshift. Thanks for another great video. I look forward to reading your paper.
Correct, but the reason for the energy depletion is, that the source isn't any more there to supply this idol we see, with energy, the source had moved on its trajectory, before the light of this idol arrives to us. For the same reason we see, and as the distance grow, more and more idols of the same galaxy. It is only an optical illusion of time and trajectories.
I don't think direct interaction with mass is an option as it will absorb or reflect the light, either way, it's not reaching Earth.. The light from distance stars has to have had a clear path for a long time, the length of it's entire journey. It has to be the (charge density / matter-energy elctro-positronic EM wave and gravity medium) sub-space field itself.. Think of space as a giant, close packed crystal of +ve charge balls bound by free-flowing, compressible, displace-able electro-gas.. -- Knock a cell free and you have an excess cell and excess -ve hole, both of which want to shoot their load to rebalance, while the rest of the field is pretty neatly close-packed and well balanced so doesn't want any excess charge, the fight causes an in-out vibration. These spherical positrons and electrons are the only stable permanent massive matter particles and make up protons and neutrons, thus everything bar unstable, high energy virtual particles (chunks and larger holes of subspace field) that rapidly decay into electrons and positrons.. -- This space is stretchy - the field cell (gap) size can vary, and indeed, electrons trap -1 base charge of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe, as does the positron when it pulls 1 cell''s worth away from the universe (that rapidly goes back to being close-packed, and once it's gone to the positron, it's gone (until the positron hits an electron so space can rebalance back to a close-packed crystal (great wave medium).. -- The thing is, this model is compatible with both idea.. A loss of -ve electro-gas to matter means less to hold the universe together, so a Dark Gravity model is possible with an expansion wave from a Big Bang in effect in the past or ongoing, with a corresponding gradual shrink towards centres of gravity, then a steep density gradient with packed core around protons and neutrons.. . -- Equally,there could simply be galaxies forming all over the universe that has always and will always be huge but finite and the same overall size - a giant ball of course (it's balls all the way up, all the way down, no pun intended much). In this case EVERYTHING slows down proportionally, conformally (like Dicke's view), all processes, while length contracts, in absolute terms, but locally all constants will measure the same no matter how dense the space as all measuring devices are effected too. -- The idea is Red Shift is caused by the changing field (charge) density, entering and leaving galaxies. It's a statistical thing too due to relative homogeneity of the universe but in reality some light will have gone more spread out that other light from the same distance depending on the number of galaxies entered and left.
@@andrewb9409 .. I certainly agree light we receive from a distant point source is the light that has NOT interacted with matter, but to definitely say gravity has no effect on light is a leap, as it the assertion that a increase in wavelength / red-shifted frequency is an actual 'loss of energy'.. Sure, it is to the receiver / observer / measuring device but was energy actually lost from the collection of photons or is the same amount of energy just stretched further in time (longer wavelength) so at any instant its measured energy will be relatively lower than higher frequency light, but the same number, same amplitude peaks and troughs still hit the receiver when photon streams are considered.. -- Less energy per sample, but same total energy as non-redshifted light.. It's the definition of light energy that is a hindrance he in a way, essential as it is. Just because more photons per second transfer more energy per second does not mean they individually have more energy than further apart photons. -- If there is a subtle stretching and shrinking of the local spatial metric on galactic scales, or even just solar system scales, this increased sub-space resistance could slow down the light a little each time and when they return to thinner voids with less resistance they speed up. On average the photons still travel at C, and measure C, even if the local spatial metric is a Planck length or two different. -- Think of sub-space as having variable size 'voxels' and photons skipping one or two every trillion miles or so, depending how close to a galactic centre it is. It's this femtosecond jump of a wave peak happening now and again, statistically, the SPEED INCREASE for a split second that lengthens the wavelength, NOT TIRED LIGHT.. Smaller space, voxels sometimes quantum-leaped over. It also seems photon streams (light rays) are made of groups of entangled photons, -- I'm not fully on board with idea, just trying to explore it a bit more deeply.
@@andrewb9409 .. Also, do we really know light from super-massive stars has not been slightly redshifted. Sure, star color varies a lot depending on composition and size etc. but all our measurements are relative and we could be way out in terms of distance and brightness, the amount of matter in voids, ++.. It's all PRACTICALLY USELESS science for the tax-robbed money, that's one truth about Deep Space Astronomy and Cosmology will always adhere to, before humanity's demise due to lack of down-to-Earth priorities and love of death & destruction.. -- Perhaps Red Shift is a statistical thing related to time spent in motion, where every so often a photon in a photon set JUMPS FORWARD AN EXTRA sub-space voxel.. Perhaps this effects others in a set, with the front of say 8 photons skipping 8 Planck sized voxels with the trailing 7 each skipping 1 less, forming a stretched photon set with peaks equally spaced apart. Universe Expansion not needed.. I'm just exploring, I still believe expansion (not necessarily a big bang though) is less problematic in some ways and a good, intuitive explanation and starting point for research,
Although VSL theories are an interesting proposition, they raise a number of issues: - If the speed of light is variable, then how are we supposed to make measurements in the first place, since standardised measures of distance and time rely on the constancy of the speed of light. - Given a VSL theory, what replaces the definition of a null geodesic? - VSL theories in which the limiting speed of physical objects changes are not Lorentz invariant. The means by which Lorentz invariance is broken needs to be made clear and further more, if this involves a modification of the Lorentz group, one must make it clear how to determined the dynamical limit of physical objects. - The physical speed of light is determined by Maxwell's equations. You'd need to propose different equations that govern electromagnetism which lead to a variable speed of light associated with the wavelike solutions satisfying the new equations. - By introducing variable speed of light, you basically have to re-formulate any equation involving the speed of light. This will lead to a re-formulation of many physical theories and in each one, there will need to be a physical explanation as to why you chose to vary the speed of light in the first place. Overall, the assumption that the speed of light is variable seems more ad hoc than the assumption that the speed of light is constant, which already naturally follows from Maxwell's equations. In general, you are basically tasked to reformulate most of modern physics just to explain everything that we already know, which seems like more work than is needed. Additionally, how is the nature of causality explained? How do you make a distinction between massive and massless particles? And I'm sure there are many more questions to be asked. I would class VSL theories as more theoretical curiosities that are not very useful to actual physics, but are nonetheless interesting.
the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. There is no problem considering a lower speed of light in optics where the light enters a different media. No reformulation of Maxwell's equations is necessary. What is actually constant is the limiting value of anything that propagates, not the actual speed of light in a particular circumstance, unless it's in a vacuum.
@@matasmackevicius5594 Agreed. It was my understanding that the speed of a ray of light through the cosmos was what is being envisaged. The cosmos not being quite the vacuum we assumed it was?
@@johnpearcey Photons always propagate at the same speed - regardless if they are travelling through an optical medium or not. There is of course an apparent change in the speed of the light ray, but that is due to interactions between the light and the medium - you are then measuring group velocity, rather than the speed of photon propagation. Simply put, all massless fields propagate at the same speed c. I'm not sure what you mean by "The cosmos not being quite the vacuum we assumed it was?".
@Matas Mackevicius Very well said. I couldn't have said it better myself. It's mystifying to me that people seem to want to adhere to words of a man who's doctorate is in neuroscience on matters of cosmological physics...
Besides refraction, the redshift could also be explained by an energy loss of the light wave in the ether medium. That energy loss equates in a drop in frequency (aka redshift) and happens for every other wave...like sound waves, their energy gets lower and lower as distance increases, until it fades completely. If ether exists, as reason requires, and the double slit experiment proves, then a similar phenomenon is to be expected for light waves, altough on much larger distances- which is what we actually observe.
6:06 In the proximity of masses the speed of light is decreased because those masses are surrounded by GASES which REFRACT and slow the speed of light. And this is the same reason why the light coming from those stars or planets is Redshifted, because when light refracts from a gas to a vacuum its speed increases and its wavelength also increases ! And this is why Pound and Rebka used a HELIUM bag in their gravitational redshift experiment. Because they could not get a redshift from gravity otherwise.
The accelerated contraction of the aether (or whatever you want to call the medium which electromagnetic waves propagate through) would also result in the illusion of the expansion of the universe
It's collapse into matter yes, but I've " heard" the sum total is insuficient to "explain" red shift. I still think it's at least partialy due to gravitational collape but may be multiple contributimg causes
@@dananorth895 Whatever the case, I think it's ridiculous to make extrapolations all the way back to the "beginning of time" based a current observation of a redshift (even if it is caused by expansion). For some reason scientist in general want to find the "very beginning" or the "smallest particle" etc etc, ie. some sort of limits or bounds that do not exist. Atomistic thinking, the desire for "completeness." In terms of the infinity of the universe (both large, small, future and past) it is extremely narrow minded in my opinion
@@aaronmarchand999 Creation myths are convenient tools of institutional power - Lemaitre was a Jesuit, and they figure all the way through science history funnily enough..
Really appreciate your effort to describe this and other physics - very apparent that you want to communicate clearly as possible. Thank you & Cheers from Seattle!
This theory would make sense if Gravitational redshift would actually EXIST. But it is more than obvious that what they claim to be a gravitational redshift is purely a Refractional Redshift. It is caused by the refraction of light from the gas surrounding massive objects like stars and planets into the vacuum. The reason is simple and it is due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes but the frequency doesnt. Since f=c/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too. This results in a redshift when light refracts in a less denser material (since its speed increases=> its wavelength increases), like from the heliosphere into space, and in a blueshift when it refracts in a more dense material. This phenomenon was used by Pound and Rebka in their 'gravitational redshift experiment', which actually required a bag of helium in order to get the light to redshift. So gravitational redshift does not actually exist, and what they observed was just refractional redshift due to helium refraction.
I finally found someone who I agree with. The idea that the universe is expanding is ridiculous. It makes more sense that light would slow as it passes through plasma fields.
I have been thinking about possible causes of the high redshifts of some quasars found by Arp -- Arp showed that these were not due to Doppler, hencely zero Bigbang. Arp introduced a fishy concept involving young atoms & old atoms, but i reckon that the causes might be as follows..... Einsteinian (ticking) Redshift (1). If photons are emitted (created)(i mean re-created) near the surface of a quasar (a super massive star say), then here the hi gravity (or whatever Einstein called it) slows light, & also slows atomic processes (Einsteinian ticking dilation), & hencely the emitted photons are immediately redshifted during creation (compared to photons emitted at ordinary stars). This redshift does not cause dispersion. Larmorian (ticking) Redshift (2). During (1) The hi speed of the aetherwind flowing towards the quasar (where aether is destroyed) slows atomic processes by the Larmorian factor (Larmorian ticking dilation)(in addition to the Einsteinian ticking dilation in (1)). No dispersion Einsteinian (gravity) Redshift (3). The nearness of mass slows light, hencely photons stretch as they propagate away from the quasar. The head of each photon is accelerating faster than the tail. There is a little longitudinal dispersion if photons are propagating directly away from the quasar, & when propagating at an angle then higher frequency photons will be bent towards the quasar hencely giving transverse dispersion. I know that Einstein Shift will not produce dispersion of any kind, but (3) is not due to Einstein Shift even though my naming names Einstein, & the true cause can produce longitudinal dispersion &or transverse dispersion but i wont explain here. Krafftian Redshift (4). Aether flowing towards the quasar is stretched as the aether accelerates, & photons propagating away from the quasar stretch in the aether. Imagine the head of the photon, this propagates at c km/s in the aether, & the head accelerates in the direction of propagation (according to an observer on the quasar) because the aether inflow is slower at greater distance. Imagine the tail of that photon, this accelerates more slowly than the head, hencely the photon stretches. Krafft wrote about this kind of stretching in 1963. There is no dispersion Ranzan's (cosmic) Redshift (5). Photons propagating through the cosmic cells of our infinite universe are stretched due to (4) as they approach micro mass (eg electrons) & also as they approach macro mass (eg stars). Plus they get another dose of stretching due to (4) as they depart micro mass & macro mass. This double whammy of stretching (ie firstly during approach & secondly during departure) is counterintuitive (indeed Marmet doesn't understand), but if u think about it u might get it. Aether stretches on both approach & departure, & the photons stretch with the aether. Handy hint -- think of what happens to the head & tail of photons. It produces stretching of photons, & bending of light, but does not produce any dispersion due to frequency, ie all frequencies are stretched by the same %, & all frequencies suffer the same amount of bending (ie contributing to lensing). Mainstream (faux) Redshifts (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Other doses of cosmic redshift in accordance with old tired light & new tired light theories etc (none of which impress me). And they would all cause lots of dispersion. Doppler Redshift (11). The genuine Doppler effect due to a quasar's velocity with respect to an observer. Arp's redshifts of quasars are i think explained by (1)(2)(3)(4), & of course (11). Although there are some exotic complications identified by Arp which i haven’t considered yet. After (1)(2)(3)(4)(11) have done their job in the vicinity of the quasar, then we get further redshifting due to (5), (5) being the one & only true cause of cosmic redshift. Here i don't count (11) Doppler as being a cosmic redshift, (11) is due to what happens at the quasar & what is happening at the observer, it isn't affected by what happens in the cosmos. (3) is a potential cause of cosmic redshift, but if u think about it u will see that it produces blueshift on approach to mass, & redshift on departure, the two negating. Ranzan mentions this. LENSING. (3) does however contribute to lensing, probably in equal measure to the lensing produced by (5). This is indicated by the 1.75 arcsec of bending near the Sun, of which 0.87 arcsec is due to (5)(sometimes called the Newtonian bending), & 0.87 arcsec is due to (3). (3) produces bending because photons are slowed on their nearside to the Sun, & hencely veer towards the Sun.
I find it difficult to follow your idea’s. The idea is that propagating light cannot contract, that means: cannot change its frequency. In your words: (around 15.37 in the video: “propagating light has to maintain its wavelength”). The word “has to” is somewhat ambiguous, anyway. On the atomic scale the situation differs. That explains (correct me if I am wrong) why we can e.g. use spectrophotometers and can see frequency shifts in spectral lines when doing experiments with matter. But why has propagating light to maintain its wavelength? And even when this is true: when looking at stars in the galaxy it is that (…that) light/these frequencies that we see on earth on our spectrophotometers or radio telescopes. There is no other “light in a can” of the same (?) frequency (or in the same frequency band) that we can use to compare the light that we see now from star or galaxy X, e.g. sent out a few million years ago or so. On 15.37 you say: “the universe is not expanding materially and the light from galaxies is necessarily redshifted here”. Where does that “necessarily” come from? The crux is around 13.44-13.55 in your video where you say: “talking about propagating light the situation is different because it has to maintain its wavelength, so the wavelength emitted back then compared to the actual decreased wavelength appears longer, that means red-shifted”. Where does “the actual decreased wavelength” in your sentence/explanation come from (the frequency source)? Correct me if I am wrong, I am interested and follow almost all of your video’s. And gave you some tips about audio in the past. Ko Tilman alias Radiofun232 on You Tube. 13 August 2022.
Hi ! A few years ago I developed a theory that explained the accelerating departure of galaxies and its rapid movement of rotation of them without the need to postulate the existence of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" respectively.
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 cyber space. However, searching the web I find something quite promising for me: "Universe mysteriously expanding, will double in size in 10 billion years, finds Hubble" 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..."] Link to my theory: www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=91689 So now my theory had strong evidence in its favor :-) Another evidence I found, in favor of my theory, would be the increase in temperature due to to the shrinkage of space (as happens in a gas when it is compressed): Unexpectedly, The Universe Is Getting Hotter and Hotter as It Expands www.sciencealert.com/the-universe-is-getting-hotter-and-hotter-new-study-finds
There's only one straightforward explanation of accelerating red shift: the rate of expansion is the constant function of a growing size ratio between system and content. Full Stop with the math BS. You're not Einstein.
@@xxxYYZxxx this is not a logical response. And Einsteis was wrong see the prrof: www.omicsonline.org/open-access-pdfs/jocaxians-train-2476-2296-1000154.pdf
@@jocaxx You mean to say that an expanding system with static-scaled objects and time-scales isn't the inversion of a static-scaled system with virtually contracting objects and time scales? Maybe it's just beyond your own level of intelligence to grasp, like me trying to explain Heliocentrism to an ignorant Medieval peasant dirt farmer who's only real concern is emulating authority figures and sucking up to Corporate? Hmm?
Dr. Unzicker, what about the horizon problem? How can opposite regions of the hubble sphere (not causally connected) be at equilibrium if they were not "in touch" at the beginning of time? Maybe c -> infinity as t -> 0, and the entire universe was "connected" in the beginning, almost like a singularly...
Such problems are artefacts of the presumed model. Observations speak for themselves about what kind of universe we live in, ultimately, even if we wish for more words. So, it depends on how deep you want to picture laws of nature relating to the things that we picture as obeying them, and then see how much, if anything, you can currently measure there. For example, you use the word 'universe', which already means a set of co-existing things, by definition all things that follow the same laws without exception, or there would be no interaction, no observation. If co-existence isn't considered a 'law of nature' in that model, I don't know what would be. As two hypothetical particles from opposite sides of the observable universe approach each other, they don't spontaneously generate their own laws of interactivity, and the distance of interaction is like a limit in calculus, so they must share that information, that they are co-existents, and that is a physical connection, albeit at a directly unobservable level, like any other law of nature deduced from interactiveness. There is no need for things to be in touch in the past to account for homogeneity and isotropy, since they are in touch now as potentially interactive things at any imaginable distance, the fullness of laws produces homogeneity, and, if infinite, as well as with light slowdown, one would expect homogeneity to produce isotopic temperature at the limit of every direction. We furthermore observe co-existence in our light bubble to be homogeneous at the largest levels, and at the radiation/observability limit we see temperature equilibrium. Only the unproved tacit presumption of expansion would cause you to exclude the possibility of an actually infinite (in scope) universe outside of our light bubble, which picture then generates an explicit axiom that the universe must be expanding. Or, starting from the other side, the tacit presumption that the universe must be finite in scope, and so the limit radiation must indicate a prior state of expansion. And, of course, the paradox of why the universe isn't filled with light is supported by a finite, expanding universe model superficially. This kind of approach is an example of circular thinking. If variable light speed is the case, an infinite universe isn't filled with light because light doesn't just get tired, it eventually dies, and our current bubble is a finite component far enough away from the next level up of structure that our radiation limit shows us all the surrounding light on the verge of death, indeed, nothing less than actual infinity manifested. Lastly, because this latter model has no possible explanation of origin or predictability about the future, there is a reluctance to use any model but an evolving cosmos that has a measurable beginning, present, and predictable end. For example, if one takes the universe to be infinite and unchanging, then you must totally give up asking where the universe came from scientifically, and, moreover, and what's worse, you must give up any sense whatsoever of a teleological scientific model, which is exactly what the expanding universe model provides -- possibly the last vestige of peer supported ubiquitously accepted transcendent teleological story-telling left in the modern human secular academic world. Psychologistically, this is almost an aesthetic proof for the expansion model, simply that foundational human intuitions will always be the best tool we have for total shots in the dark. In other words, a more or less fixed, infinite, homogeneous universe (or at least local area) is totally outclasses human capacity to understand, probably forever, whereas an expanding universe model that still fits the data is at least more optimistic and shows us a world we can kind of, if not control, at least have awareness of where everything has been and is going. To reiterate, an infinite universe with dying light, so to speak, is a frightening story, whereas a story about a finite local universe that had a beginning, even if it should itself fade away, the overarching story does not rule out, and indeed perhaps suggests, future creation events, so it's like picturing a mechanism of endless life, as opposed to the unsatisfying ultimate picture of an inconceivable world dying without hope. Much more than any observation, humans (all intelligent life) needs physics stories to leave open a survival path. As a characteristic of the species in total, we can't believe in reaching any terminus of understanding or life. It's not in our communal DNA.
Redshift could be explained by observed increasing movement at greater distance. Observation is not rectilinear. It is bend just like the spirals of a galaxy. This bending could explain redshift in another way. It is like taking a picture with a curtain diafragma. The movement of the curtain creates a deformation of the light on the negative. It is the reason why cars in old pictures are deformed. This effect is also used with a fotofinish at games. A second question could be: is the center of the universe the same as the center of the observable universe? A third question: does light also have a kind of Bernoulli effect? (This could explain the randomness of everything we see) The expansion of the universe is not like blowing up a balloon.
I had come to a similar idea. I saw it more in terms of us being in a gravity field and going deeper in it, so the gravity increases, and the light speed decrease, all due to time of course. It includes the space time you dislike, but the result is the same. I think gravity is missing in that model you propose here and the redshift is only an illusion, while it could be actually real, but not materially. If you think in terms of events, the event of the far star when it emits light, if we stayed put in time, there would be no shift, but since we are moving in time, there is one, and it translates into increased gravity. If we were to try and reach that other place physically, it would still take more energy to get to the synchronized event as time goes on. So in practice it's like we are moving away from each others anyway, just not in the distance planes.
Why does the idea that the universe is full of light need the idea of an expanding universe. Just because the CMB seems to be red-shifted starlight does not mean it is really simply NON-SHIFTED red light that has always been the same frequency.. It's another arrogant leap of faith by Science to declare expansion as the definitely most likely explanation. Redder stars in the past, or other red-shift mechanisms such as the variable speed of light should not be ignored when their model(s) are incomplete and full of fundamental flaws.
@@emanuelpetre5491 .. lol, or more seriously, because it's been shining light from matter of all shapes and sizes for a long, long time, possibly forever, so there's a lot of light out there in all frequency ranges, in a mixed up mess acting as constant background noise.Most red shift could simply be down to redder sources in the first place. Doesn't have to be a product of expansion.
@@PrivateSi yes i get that, but what im saying is can you use variable speed to produce exact numbers? e.g., can you calculate the temperature of the cosmic microwave background and show that it is 2.7 kelvin, as is observed?
@@husammohamed2371 .. The CMB can be explained in many ways, and any formula can be fudged to relate CMB to other factors, such as the believed age or size of the universe, number of stars, frequency spikes of elements and molecules, spectroscopy - as Big Bangers fudged in their expanding singularity model (that isn't really a singularity, as its PATCHY in their newer fudged model, not one perfectly homogenous entity . (fudged math = made up to fit a preconceived idea and limited data). Their fudge is well promoted by the MSM, unlike other fudge.. -- Fudge is a sweet snack over here that's very easy to make. CMB Radiation does not require a big bang, there are lots of other ways it could emerge from the standard model, let alone more accurate alternatives. Science dismisses too much. -- Their biggest crime to me was not leaving open the obvious possibility electrons and positrons (not up ad down quarks) make up all proper permanent massive matter.. Their Big Bang obsession is number 2, but even I am more of a Big Banger Believer than Steady State.. I have a Dark Gravity model where the matter-energy wave medium, base field metric shrink around mass, with each electron and positron formed (either continuously or in a big bang) resulting in an expansion of voids too.. There is a finite amount of -ve sub-space charge - SUPER GLUE - in voids, more around matter.
Dr. Unzicker, this is a fascinating presentation. Would you speak to the impact VSL has on cosmological time frames and the observable universe’s age? Additionally, is there an alternative to a steady state universe if expansion is fallacious?
What made me question the interpretation of redshifted galaxies as being due to the Doppler-like effect of recessional velocity and with it the notion that the universe is expanding was the announcement by the astrophysics community that the rate of cosmic expansion is increasing, not decreasing. Since the idea of expansion is based solely upon an inference that redshift is caused by recessional velocity, that the amount of redshift is directly proportional to distance, according to Hubble's Law, and that the further away a galaxy is, the more its spectrum is shifted toward the red, and thus, the further away it is, the faster it is receding, then how did astrophysicists come up with the idea that the expansion of the universe is speeding up and not slowing down? The further away a galaxy is, the further back in time we see it. So if galaxies are observed as being increasingly redshifted and therefore receding from us faster and faster the farther out in distance and back in time they are, then must not the rate of expansion be slowing down and not speeding up? If the universe were expanding faster at present than in the past, wouldn't we see nearby galaxies with greater redshifts than galaxies further away? Didn't Hubble himself state that redshift could also be interpreted as the result of gravity?
If I may add to this … Red shift Big Bang could be an error. This relates to spectrometer error, calibration biased error? Consider this : (1) Light speed c shifts each time it passes in and out of - vacuum, gas, clear fluid and solid. (2) Any charge particles mixed into absolute vacuum causing vacuum permeability e0 to become >e0 so light speed < c. (3) Space within 1AU of solar are flooded with charged solar particles, made light speed < C. (4) Spectroscopes calibrated with solar were all in day time when light speed is < C. (5) Spectroscope calibrated in day time on earth contains blue shift bias (error). (6) Hubble study his galaxies at night unaware of blue shift error, declare receding galaxies and expanding universe. (7) hence the Big Bang theory. Question 1 : does the night sky also liter with charged particles? equalizing the blue shift? Answer 1a : If our night sky particle density equals day time then Hubble has nothing to declare with, with regards to galaxy recession. Answer 1b ; No, most charged particles were guided to and dissipated at earth’s polar regions with earth’s magnetosphere, leaving our night sky with more vacuum and little to no particles, the blue shift bias error prevailed. Question 2 : If all calibrations were made with solar, could all quasar data collected share a common recession rate? Answer : no two spectroscope’s calibration results aren’t identical since charged particles density varies by the state of Sun’s corona. Solar charged particles incur blue shift is just one anomaly and not the only smoking gun against Big Bang theory.
Regarding Question 1, While dust and particles in the Solar system are mostly from the Sun, there is vastly more dust and plasma in the universe than science accounts for. The Voyager encountered this after crossing the Heliopause.
Redshift is measured based on element lines. The place where you take the picture (the place the camera is standing) does not explain any error. A spectroscope doesn't need calibration in any way.
@@BartvandenDonk I know, but if the redshift is an effect of VSL, the universe is not expanding and galaxies are not running away from us - redshift should have a different meaning from what is presently assigned to it.
@@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT I think it has to do with observation being bend in a spiral manner. What is seen in 1 parsec maybe not belongs to that parsec in a straight line but in a bended line. This could explain redshift in another way. 🐚 If space is showing like a cone of a snale we couldn't see it. Because the light is bended back to us. A way to observe this bended light is to look on both sides of a rotating massive object where there is a difference in redshift between those sides. I think rotation (and consequently the bending) is left out of the equation. It could even be possible that we look at the bachside of a planet but think we look at the front. Looking along this bending line it seems further away than in a straight line.
You should check the Vasile effect, it explains why redshift occurs during refraction from any gaseous atmosphere into space. Because REFRACTION not only changes the speed of light, but also its WAVELENGTH. So when the speed of light increases, as the light gets refracted from a gas surrounding a star or a planet into the vacuum, its wavelength also increases (in order to preserve the frequency which remains constant during refraction). This is what Vasile calls REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, and it has nothing to do with gravity. Because in the gravitational redshift experiment they had to use a HELIUM bag in order to get the light to redshift. So the only logical conclusion of that experiment should have been that refractional redshift exists and gravitational redshift doesnt.
Red shift happens when we send light down a long fiberoptic cable. So, I am going to stick with photon drag as the biggest portion of red shift (ie. slowing down from passing particles). If it were speed, time, or gravity changing the shift then red shift would change back, similar to musicians on a train where the music changes as it goes through the wind, but changes back for the listeners in the car behind.
The sum \sum_i m_i/r_i in general depends on where we set the origin (since this affects the r_i). I claim that it is _impossible_ to make this independent of the location of the origin, if this sum is finite for some location of the origin. Just move the origin close to a nonzero mass to get the sum approaching infinity. Why is this not a problem? Stating it differently: this sum is either infinite, for all locations of the origin, or it depends on the location of the origin.
There is an entirely easy explanation within Electro-statics and Electro-gravitics, with the subject of photons and sub-quantum particulate photinos. Photon have light speed velocity, can undergo gravitational lensing, and also escape. It is the smaller and less-energetic photinos, that undergo gravitational capture, or orbiting. If such cosmic light (i.e. approaching light) from distant galaxies are seen, then you have a collapsing area of the cosmos TOWARD you (Doppler shift). And you would suspect that any photons shooting away from you would appear as a red shift. But, the real truth, is that the majority of these other stellar and galactic sites have a vast majority of variable light, less-than-light-speed velocity, and they are captured photinos in that gravitational object's orbit. This makes the appearance of a red shift of the cosmos, when in actuality it is nothing of the sort. Free photons can mimic an expanding universe, while free (but captured) photinos mimic a collapsing universe. In truth, there is no quantititave and qualitative technological and engineering machinery that can differentiate between an expanding universe and variable light speed photinos. As such, this comes around to the point that the cosmos -IS- and remains, not necessarily a fixed steady state, but even a small perturbation and cavitation of the cosmos, much like the Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun is so close at maximum and minimum elliptical orbit, that it roughly turns out to be a near-circle. So any cosmic small contraction and expansion all returns back to the qualitative steady state universe. The experiment is basically flawed from the start, using a conventional terran model of a car or train, and a viewer/listener. The train light shoots out photons (not variable photinos) or a horn with a valid frequency of decibels. This can not be said for all of the many cosmic graviational objects of stars, galaxies, and constellations out there. So, like the Michelson-Morley BS interferometer atop liquid mercury denying the existence of the Aether, ... this experiment is also flawed, and all further extrapolations from this data, and any continuing flawed expansion of thse concepts.
This statement then demands the understanding that the Aether and such photinos at the electrino-level and the graviton-level exist. Electrino - , Positrino +, Electrino Neutrino, Electrino Photino, ... ELectrino Bosino Graviton -, Graviton +, Graviton Neutrino, Graviton Photino, ... Graviton Bosino The Electro-static and Electro-gravitic Model further defines and clarifies all of the many problems with the diversified physics sectors ... and their inability to connect and work with each other, correct many of their obvious mis-statements taken as dogma, ... correction, Reformation, and Renaissance of all physics. The greatest majority of the Dark Universe (Aether) photino sub-particulates versus the lesser amount of higher electron (photons, muon electron photons, and tau electron) photons, shows up as massive photino "glow" around the event horizon of a black hole - or - the sun's photosphere granulatirty "glow" - or - the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) energetic "glow" as the activity of the entire cosmic Aether boundary to the Physical Universe as the quantum foam. Red shift is not higher photons flowing from (red shift) or flowing toward (blue shift) to the viewer. The red shift is the majority volume of graviationally captured photinos around larger gravitation objects, distorting the whole simple explanation of the Doppler shift principle. So this shows that photinos exist, the Aether of the Dark Universe (76% dark energy, 23% dark mattr) exists, while the minimal portion of the Physical Universe photons of the blue Doppler shift are the minimal values in the Hubble constant of cosmic collapse, steady state, and cosmic expansion. The Hubble "Constant" and the Einstein cosmic "Constant" are both invalid, and misleading ... and the cosmos, the universe, for all of its other massive complications of space-time fabric, 32+ gravitational constants, and matter fabric in outer space, ... a massive correction of physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and cosmogeny MUST BE reformed ... along with minimal portions of each physics sectors.
The other biggest bug-a-boo of the whole cosmic state - is to demand that A-L-L photons must be coming from stellar sources. This is a BS statement. Rogue photons, rogue photinos, rogue (dark) planets (now being stated as 300+ million numbers flying out there, rogue moons, free and rogue electrons and positrons, free and rogue bosons, (asbolutely true free and rogue neutrons and neutrinos). These proportions of photons, can also be from all the cosmogeny of (super)nova events of all the generations of stellar and solar system evolution, then destruction, and recycled accretionalry theory. Like all higher elements come from (super)nova explosions, even so blasted out star core fragments (gravitational objects restarting electro-gravitic accretionary theory), liberated neutrons/neutrinos, photons, photinos have been blasted from these locations and are still shooting around, alongside, and getting deflected much as a 3D cosmic billiard ball game. So any blue shift (said) to be absolutely coming from a singular galaxy or stellar location, is only that producer of such photons (blue shift shooting toward you), while their photinos will be gravitationally captured and reside around the object) ... and you whole concept of Doppler Shift proves to be BS and lies, and a further complication of everything manufactured by physics research upon a faulty foundation. Blue shift and red shift DO NOT prove COSMIC DOPPLER SHIFT. However, they do prove that photons - AND - photinos do exist. Light speed photons and less-than-light-speed (variable light speed) photinos exist. Which then forces back the sub-quantum into equations, validating the ancient's (more knowledgable) views that the Aether and all these sub-quantum particulates are the real foundations for cosmogeny, space-time fabric, matter fabric, string theory, electro-gravitic accretionary theory (electro-static accretionary theory can only get up to 1 meter in accretion), .... You are forced to rip out faulty foundations, correct misstatements, mis-concepts (although honest attempts at initial understandings), and the later created dogmas and idolization of such personalities who created them. Much of Einstein, Dirac, and so many others' (including Feynmann) mis-statements (or inaccurate words, word definitions, and concepts) need to be corrected with new knowledge, ... and we can solve all these current problems in physics.
It looks like VSL theory is also a tired light model. Am i right? VSL theories are closer to reality, than GR, because dispersion relations are *nonlinear* (even though can be linearized in the long wavelength regime).
I was never convinced by the hypothetical cosmological expansion of space. And I have previously argued with others over the indiscernibility of local contraction of contents from expansion of the container, except by an external observer. And we are not external.
Our vision of Balmer line electron transitions gives visible wavelengths of light. Paschen lines n=3 is infrared. Lyman lines are UV. Light decays energy via inverse square law relationship from the point light source. Single atoms coordinated to hexagon rings in neurotransmitters provide an unconscious mind vision system. So red shifted light occurs within the mind also.
VSL, or any other explanation for a red shift dependent on distance travelled (rather than space expansion), would seem to greatly simplify some things. Like dark energy. Gone. Explanation of cause of universe beginning. Not an issue. Heat death of universe. Not required. I've never felt comfortable with the certainty expressed about the cause of the red shift.
@@clement_jacob: Based on all the empirical experimental evidence. The Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect in particular demonstrates that the universe is currently everywhere from a few times hotter to an order of magnitude (ten times) hotter than it was several billion years ago.
Isn’t it strange that gravity can be strong enough to counteract the ‘expansion of the universe,’ as evidenced by the existence of blueshifted galaxies? Is this observed shift real or apparent?
Robert Duke in page 5:00 gave us a snack we didn’t know it took place. Medium of light must exist to make Doppler shift possible and hence for red/blue shifts. Didn’t we that?
In my mind accelerated expansion of the Universe does not do good house with entropy theory. So, I have to admit that You present a far better explanation with VSL theory!
I have a question: We live in a gravity well. Additionally: the vacuum medium of space through which light passes changes its properties (mu and epsilon) nearer to large gravitational masses causing light to correspondingly change its properties. The light from far away galaxies, falls in our gravity well the location from which we can observe their light after it has passed through that medium of interstellar space and then the denser medium in our gravity well. Hence the question: Is the redshift of a distant galaxy measured on the surface of the earth a different value from the value measured vs. a telescope in space near earth, vs. measured from L2? In other words, is the redshift value higher when measured nearer to the surface of the earth? If this is the case, the universe could be, I suppose, on average, static.
Once, scientists had an Idea about 'ether' in the universe, and by measuring the 'wind' from the ether they could understand movements in our solar system, now we know ether do not exist, but we have something else, fields, fields influenced by gravitational waves for example, but, would it not be possible to measure movements in the universe with the field? I assume the field are at a standstill? And if we could mark it in some way we could measure our movement in relation to the marking?
It's not c that changes directly, it's that eu.bu = 1/c*2 changes. If you rearrange this equation you get, c = sqr(1/eu.bu), which is exactly the form of the velocity of a transverse wave on a string, v= sqr(T/D), where T is tension (force , Newtons) and D is density of the string (Kg/m). Einstein explained in GR that where there's lots of mass, space-time curves. I say NO, it's space TENSION increases and of course in huge cosmological voids it would decrease.
I have two questions: 1. Since you have a sum over different masses, the variability depends on our distance from them. I suppose we can assume some homogeneous distribution. In that case, variability is due to variation of distances. If universe is expanding, in all directions, you are back to Dirac's time dependent gravitation constant hypothesis. 2. Is it a good assumption light is travelling in a vacuum through space? Light will interact with whatever on its path however rare the interactions may be, and over long distances it will change course. You can call that variable speed of light as well. Could all these esoteric theories are there because they assume an empty space? If space is not empty, the path of light will have a curvature reflecting its density, which depends on the mass of stars etc.. I think it is silly to assume otherwise. In the case of sun for example, you will have intense em fields with lots of material in it. They will divert any light passing nearby. I never felt good about the idea of gravitation changing space time. I think it is nonsense.
The galactic redshift from space expansion is easily disproven by the the fact that wee see galaxies with a redshift which coresponds to a speed much greater than the speed of light. Cosmologists say this is because space itself expands faster than the speed of light, but how can light travel through such a space in the first place ? A space expanding at this rate simply does not allow light to travel through it. Therefore, those warp galaxies would not be visible. But since they are, that means that space is not exapanding faster than the speed of light. And that the redshift is not produced by the expansion of space.
Space is filled with aether and acts like an optic filter, distance between the light transmitter and receiver affects the change in the light signal frequency sent, red shift is just due to space medium aethers velocity and density and aethers direction.
Take every particle in existence and assign it a random direction and it's partner with an opposite direction, all with the speed of light. Give them all the same origin position and then start the clock. What do you get?
I don't know if I should be saying this, but today your video has made me realize that we could explain all light experiments and Relativity with transparent matter. To explain the Hubble redshift and accelerating universe we start out with universe more densely populated with transparent matter. Then as time goes on the transparent matter sinks into the galaxies. Speed of light was slower in the past and now got redshifted. We start out with ether of 1800s and sprinkle our transparent matter in and beget the explanation for all light experiments. Just like glass is transparent because light doesn't vibrate electrons in the glass and yet light slows down in the glass, we have transparent matter slowing the light down to speed c at our time. We can see this matter will be attracted to planets and light will appear to be moving relative to the observer. Hubble redshift: transparent matter density goes down vs magic stretchy carpet expanding. Who is going to even believe this magic carpet exists?!
What's not clear to me is, that you seem to assume final light cones. That is there has to be a moment zero, at which light and the effects of mass on the light speed begin to spread. Is that correct?
If the universe is not expanding, then the distant galaxies in the Hubble and Webb deep field pictures should be the same as the nearer galaxies. If we correct the spectra from the distant galaxies for the red shift, are there any differences from the nearer galaxies?
Unfortunately I didn't see that you explained the linear relation between distance and redshift. For a convincing new explanation this is absolutely neccessary. If the speed of light depends on the local mass density, it could be linear if the density is homogeneous. But knowing that there are clusters out there, they could distort linearity quite significantly.
Very interesting presentation. Could you perhaps comment, in a future video, on the CMB and how that hangs together with VSL? Or, if you have already done so, please direct me to that video! Thanks.
I asked ChatGPT this question and it said that the amount of red shift that we see in the CMB is consistent with a constant speed of light. It also said that if the universe is static then the CMB would suggest that the size of the observable universe ends at Andromeda. Can you comment on if these statements are correct? I'm guessing this is why you're asking Unzicker about the CMB?
@@HEROlCS I actually don't know why in a static universe the CMB would suggest the observable universe ends at Andromeda. I was asking very generally. In a static universe, what is the CMB at all? Why is it at that frequency? Why are there non-homogeneities in it? I'd be interested in where ChatGPT got that idea, cautiously of course since ChatGPT sometimes just makes up false claims. The Andromeda galaxy is in our local cluster, and galaxies outside of our local cluster are "moving away" from us (in the standard interpretation) with such acceleration that they are unreachable.
When someone (like newton) says something like "time is constant" or (like Einstein) "lightspeed is constant" or "entropy increases" you have to pay attention to the context: axioms and assumptions and where the statement is being applied.
"Galaxies farther away are moving away faster" -- no... or at least, we can't assert that as fact, and it is in error that people do assert it as fact. All we can say is that "galaxies father away were moving away faster longer ago". People always forget about time, I don't know why, it's just as important as space. For the main topic: a decreasing speed of light in a fixed size universe is the same thing as a fixed speed of light in an expanding universe... you're just changing your units of measurement, not the universe. The fact that your yard stick gets smaller means you fit more yard sticks between galaxies... so you do measure more space over time. Remember, all of physics is a model to predict observable measurements... so GR doesn't tell you that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, it tells you that your measurement of the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference... and this makes sense; if you halved the actual speed of light, all physical processes would also slow down as force changes would take longer to be felt, so your measurement of a second would take twice as long to occur, and thus the distance that light will have travelled in that second would be twice as far... cancelling out its reduced speed. Of course, you do have to take into account the fact that the frequency of the wave is a product of the movement of electrons... moving electrons up and down a tall antenna will produce that light wave that moves up and down at the same rate. A faster speed of light will have effects within this local system, affecting the size or mass of atoms as exchanges within the atom occur faster or more often etc. There would have to be a whole load of structural changes within any system where forces hold the structure together and thus you do not get the same space expansion that you get between galaxies. You also need the universe to "start" at some point, so that everywhere at that time starts with light at a speed that is the same everywhere... because we see the same amount of red shift in all directions, how did it "know" to be the same speed in all places (that we can see) at the same time without them having the same finite age? Etc etc.
Einstein may have been on the right track with VSL but then he fell off the rails. Gravity became a geometric formalism and no thought was invested into the photon-level physics and interaction with gravitons which have nothing to do with GR but which are routinely discussed as if they do. This lack of microphysical content in gravitational theory has rendered cosmology and astrophysics into a Ptolemaic time waste. It is also a widespread feature of astrophysics to use theory to interpret observations. This is a fundamental corruption since observations are supposed test theories. When theory becomes observation it is game over for progress. Dr. Unzicker is returning to the roots of physics and scientific analysis. He is exposing the epicycle nonsense dominating modern physics.
At the beginning of your presentation you indicated that Mach's principle can be attributed to a variable speed of light. However, you didn't indicate how. Can you elaborate on it?
It seems that the observation is the redshift. The assumption is that it is caused by recessional velocity. If this assumption was incorrect, Cosmology would collapse. But, It is an assumption. There is no other way of measuring recessional velocity. I have heard the time dilation of exploding distant supernovae is used as proof of recessional velocity being caused by expansion. The problem is that every time you measure speed of light, you get a constant and if there is a redshift regarfless the cause, you would get time dilation ib the observation. Thoughts
Thanks for moving the debate closer to (IMHO inevitably) the realisation simply that we cannot explain infinite concepts using finite means. Mathematics is a human construct. Cosmological phenomena are not, and this is why even mathematical genius as this (probably polymathic also) struggle to make sense of what we imagine to be reality. The search for explanation and resolution of reality is a noble and for many irresistible pursuit. Humans are uncomfortable with uncertainty, especially death all that is related to death and part of our unconscious conditioning and addictions. It seems obvious to me that notions of just one universe, or just one beginning, or of light, and what we sense via our brains and bodies (extending to the unknown level of the soul) being explicable, is all based on false premise. I love the maths and the challenges to past assumptions and the moving the debate on, but I wonder if a radically different approach might open possibilities to greater awareness and teachings of what reality actually is. Anyway thanks and love to all. Alan Chapman
If all matter is stationary at the cosmological scale, that would be consistent with a steady state universe. But what isn't are things like low metalicity in far distant stars but not near ones and the fact that things aren't infinitely old but there no new matter appearing to make new stars, etc.
Good points, but there is one simple shift in thought to address both points. What if red-shifted galaxies are not actually further way, but are just younger? Sure, this raises new questions but would answer both of your points. Also, I like new questions. Halton Arp is most famous for this type of view, as he actually interpreted the evidence this way. He imagined parent galaxies ejecting red-shifted galaxies and even quasars, which also nicely explains away the problem of why quasars are so bright, that is because they're actually a lot closer than the dominant theory proposes. As for the mechanism to explain the formation of new galaxies, there are many who simply propose using electromagnetism, converting energy to matter and then also transmuting that matter to heavier elements. The big bonus here is that we can then do away with inventing exotic new forces and matter, such as dark energy and dark matter, and instead just stick with what we already know is real, such as electromagnetism. So not having an expanding universe does away the need for dark energy. And dark matter used to explain the impossible rotation of galaxies can be replaced with EM powered galaxies. Even down to Earth things can be more simply explained, such as why we find veins of metal in the crust, which would then be seen as created in situ by large currents, like lightning just scaled up a bit. Seriously, I personally kinda view the dominant theory that these metals were created way longer ago, far, far, way in supernova as like saying aliens did it. Anyway, there lots of alternatives. You just gotta go looking for them.
Using electron parameters and mass energy conversions, s^2 = kgm/A^2, s^2 = kgm^3/A^2s^2 and s^2 = kg/A^2m. If a kgm^3/A^2s^2 is multiplied by kg/A^2m it yields the numerical equivalent of a kgm/A^2 with an exponential difference of 1 x 10^-7. This calculation ignores the squaring of the second. Time is subject to size and mass and creates itself from the geometry of the area of space that is observed. When I say equivalent I mean numerically.
your equations are incorrect. thus, your sentence explanation needs to be longer....."time is subject...."..... mass energy conversions?....there are many...electron parameters? there are many...1 x 10^-7 numerically pops up everywhere.....its a gross outcome of unifieing "cgs" with "mks" systems, and if not that its the loose permeability constant
So was Fred Hoyle right? The universe is static? So can we test it? If Hubble was right and the universe is really expanding then, in the future the red shift of the galaxies etc. in Hubble's data set will have increased. But if the universe is largely static then we should measure the same red shifts as seen by Hubble. Or have I just not understood your argument?
@@TheMachian The volume we SEE! I think, in the video, you said that the light spreads out but the matter doesn't. So is the matter, therefore, static?
I am all for trying alternative explanations. But just because you have an alternative explanation for a single observation, you don't topple Physics. You need a explanation that ticks off all the boxes. There are two main problems with the variable speed of light are i) the observation that Hubble pictures are too crisp and ii) Gravitational waves have the same speed in the vacuum as light. i) means that there is no large scale effect in the universe that affects the frequencies and directions of light in a frequency dependent way. ii) means that gravitational waves behave exactly like light when it comes to propagation. If the speed of light is variable, then so is the speed of Gravitation at exactly the same rate.
You assume several things I am not convinced of: a) How is the speed of GW measured? b) Maybe you are shocked, but I even doubt the existence of GW's itself : medium.com/@aunzicker/five-years-of-gravitational-waves-a-chronicle-of-strange-coincidences-7d22be19319d There are open questions. From a natural pholosophy point of view, there is no reason why such different forms of waves should exist (GW and EM).
@@TheMachian The speed of GW was measured by observing a light impulse 1.5 seconds after a GW event that was determined to be a neutron star merger. And doubting as such is of no avail. I also doubt your existence, so how would you prove otherwise? Doubting is fine as soon as it leads to some experiment which can serve as a judgement. Albert Einstein for instance was a great doubter of Quantum Mechanics. And thus he took the theory of Quantum Mechanics and invented lots of nifty ideas how to prove Quantum Mechanics possibly wrong. But just saying "I don't want" is cheap. Everyone can do that. Without an experimentum crucis, doubt is unproductive.
Redshift is best described by atomic density in space and within galaxies and quasars. Redshift due to atomic density mimics redshift by Doppler. Redshift is an intrinsic property. The evidence is that quasars start out as masses of neutrons, created within the relativistic jets of AGN, and as the neutrons decay into hydrogen the quasar blueshifts with age. Also there is a vary sparse medium of hydrogen that pervades space causing a slight redshift, AKA the tired light model.
Does this lead to any testable predictions? Like for example a decrease in frequency must mean that spectral lines are not where they used to be.How do I say this.. redshift is measured by the shift in certain spectral lines. But if there was a way to measure redshift apart from that, the line shift we measure should be double the redshift. Or not. But then is there ANY way to tell Expansion from C-change.
A variable speed of light is a conjecture that was rejected for good reasons in the past and cannot be directly proven by any known measurement or observations. Equivalently, it does not lead to a new predictive theory so far. It is however a long lived background idea that may someday help to solve some of the actual discrepancies that are not correctly accounted for in the standard model (or through new dark complications that ressemble Ptolemee epicycles).
The universe expands, just like all of us, babies, dogs, plants, trees, oranges, seeds, etc... It is born, grows, consumes, reproduces, and then dies. Our universe, at some unimaginable scale, is itself, a living organism, living within a system of many others. The rabbit hole goes up and out just as far as it goes down and in.
Although I agree that the universe is not expanding I disagree with this (very interesting) VSL idea. I think the real nature of light is still misunderstood and part of this is thinking that light is a wave of some kind. A much simpler interpretation is that light is particles only. Each particle (quanta) possesses a quantum of action of the Planck constant (h) and then the total energy (per ray of light) becomes: E = hf, with the frequency (f) simply being the number of particles per second (per ray). And, as you say, light spreads out (even a ray of light) so a light ray could "lose" a particle every 'r' ( with r being the radius - which is different for every ligh source - such that when r is doubled the intensity decreases by 1 quarter) which means it takes vast (intergalactic) distances for the frequency to reduce to a measurable redshift. This is, simply, tired light and is a natural consequence of light teavelling vast distances so no expansion of "space" is required or has actually been measured.
Galactic redshift could also be caused by charged plasma gas (but not only by it), as apparently there is a phenomenon called `plasma redshift`. This plasma is found in the sun's corona and beyond, and in the galactic halo which surrounds all galaxies. So light has to pass through that plasma gas, which is millions of light years in size. And on the course of milliuon of years it will loose energy when traveling through charged plasma because it collides with electrons and there is an energy transfer. Since E=hf, a drop in energy is equivalent to a drop in frequency, which causes a redshift effect.
Thanks for your videos. I am trying to get my head around what you mean by light is spreading. Would not light be spreading everywhere in all directions? Is there an age to the universe? Or is it eternal? But then why is light still spreading? I'm probably not expressing myself well. There seeems to something very deep and fundamental about photons. Without them, the universe would be dead, in every sense, photons are literally light and life giving. What it all means, who knows, but thats why I watch videos like these, not that I understand much. Can you do a video on the big bang or lack of one? I would like to hear how VSL ties in with that.
Gravity causes redshift, universe is atleast 13.8 billion years old, if you take out cosmological redshift... You know how they say the universe is 93 billion light years across.. it's not. It's only 13.8 billion years across.
Tired light is a better alternative to variable light speed. It immediately follows from E=hf that if light looses energy its frequency drops and causes a redshift. But it does not follow from variable light speed, because c=lambda*f, but lambda is not a constant, so if c slows it doesnt necesarilly mean that the frequency will reduce too. The frequency will reduce only if the wavelenghth lambda remains constant, or increases. Galactic redshift could also be caused by charged plasma gas (but not only by it), as apparently there is a phenomenon called `plasma redshift`. This plasma is found in the sun's corona and beyond, and in the galactic halo which surrounds all galaxies. So light has to pass through that plasma gas, which is millions of light years in size. And on the course of milliuon of years it will loose energy when traveling through charged plasma because it collides with electrons and there is an energy transfer. Since E=hf, a drop in energy is equivalent to a drop in frequency, which causes a redshift effect.
Dr. Unzicker, with reference to your article in Annalen der Physik 18 (2009) 57-70 page 5, my question regards this: (The cosmological redshift in Dicke’s proposal): Citate: ‘Although all matter is at rest in this model there is a galactic red shift. With increasing ǫ [and decreasing c] , the photon emitted in the past has more energy than its present counterpart. This might be thought to cause a ”blue shift”. However, a photon loses energy at twice the rate of loss characteristic of an atom, hence there is a net shift toward the red. ([9], p. 374 right). My question: what is ment with “its present counterpart”. Where can we find that photon? Where and what is the comparison? Ko Tilman alias Radiofun232 on YT 14 August 2022
@@TheMachian The only problem is (in my opinion) that it has no relevance and it cannot be proved. Anyway, thanks for coming back to me. 16 august 2022.
@@radiofun232 except we describe what we observe, then extrapolate to other times we have zero observation of with zero evidence the present description applies.
The horizon of what we see is not defined by the speed of light, but by the light that still arrives, being constantly dispersed, i.e. weakened and additionally absorbed by intersteller stuff... rememember: before we had the hubble-ultra-deep-field-image there seemed to be nothing but darkness, unless we discovered that there was still some very weak light i.e. many more galaxies... and there is light that either just doesn't make it or is too weak to be perceived... objections?
Interesting how as a layman I hypothesized the same thing many years ago when I first contemplated about Cosmological Redshift. I just didn't buy the Metric Expansion hypothesis because not only is it unfalsifiable (Space itself is unobservable) and therefore not Scientific, it is logically incoherent and self contradictory. A thing that is expanding UNIFORMLY as a WHOLE into nothing at all is LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT to something that is NOT EXPANDING AT ALL. It is TAUTOLOGICAL. Not to mention we have absolutely no reason to believe Space as a Whole is finite. What could possibly delineate a finitude to Space?
"The Principle of Conspansive Duality ... says that what appears as cosmic expansion from an interior (local) viewpoint appears as material and temporal contraction from a global viewpoint. Because metric concepts like "size" and "duration" are undefined with respect to the universe as a whole, the spacetime metric is defined strictly intrinsically, and the usual limit of cosmological regress, a pointlike cosmic singularity, becomes the closed spacetime algebra already identified as SCSPL." C.M.Langan (SPSCL = Self Configured Self Processing Language.) Conspansive duality relates the logical equivalence of an expanding system with static-scaled content, and a static system with (virtually) contracting content. If we suppose the universe appears to "expand" at rate "C", then light from a bulb is motionless relative to the expanding edge, and the bulb may as well be modeled as "contracting". Contracting time scales = "rescaling" across time-space, explaining red shift, time frame dilation, dark matter & energy, and even favorable genome selection. CTMU for short.
Could the the Variable Speed of Light idea be explained by light being emergent with an uncertain future continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy? You say "matter in the Universe is on average at rest" a continuous geometrical process could form this concept with the speed of light c² and time t² both squared because of spherical 4π symmetry. I have been looking at the JWST deep field image and we have gravitational lensing based on spherical geometry. We can see that light waves have formed into photons relative to the spherical surface, the light from far distant galaxies forming red arcs. Could we have a infinite Universe in the shape of a sphere as long as the sphere is expanding? One set of calculation for the finite sphere another or the infinite process.
If 'C' is fixed from the moment a photon is emitted from its source, then it would stand up to reason that if the source is moving away from an observer at some fraction of the speed of light, then the wavelength (remaining constant and at 'C' velocity away from source) would appear "red-shifted" when it actually is hitting the observers eyes at 'C' less the speed the source is receding away. It can't be the case where two different calculations of 'C' can be true at the same time (one from the moving source's perspective and one from the observers perspective). This is a flawed assumption from the time it was suggested many decades ago. If one were to calculate the closing speeds of protons traveling in opposing directions at the LHC, then the math says they are closing at nearly 2(C), and yet according to historically accepted Einsteinian Science, nothing can "close" spatial gaps any faster than 'C'. This is a physical and mathematical conundrum.
Now hold on. You can observe two objects with a closing speed greater than c with respect to each other. That is NOT a violation of special relativity. You however, can never observe an object with a closing speed other than c with respect to YOU.
I know that I am 2 months behind but please can some body explain to me what I get wrong. 1) Red shift is lower frequency of the light photon? 2) The energy of a photon is directly related to its frequency? 3) Read shift is lower energy in the photon? 4) Light photons travel slower in a media like air, glass, water etc.? 5) Light does not change color going through a media.? Even if it does slightly that would only mean it looses a little energy. 6) We know that the speed of the light photon slows down in a media so of cause the speed of light is variable. What I believe is said is that the speed of light IN A VACUUM IS CONSTANT. The thing is that we also know that space isn't perfect vacuum so how can we say that the light photon coming from a far away star is constant? 7) Wouldn't we be better off by saying that there is a maximum speed limit like we have absolute zero temperature (Zero Kelvin) and the speed of light in vacuum may be (or is) the same as the maximum speed?
Variable speed of light is a well known refraction phenomenon. No one, including Einstein, has actually proved it can be caused by gravitation. The fact is light both curves and its speed and wave lenght decreases (or shifts to red) as it is refracted from one medium to another. According to Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is also the correct one, so why create new theories to explain the same thing.
The red-shifted light we see is very old, made at a time when the universe was expanding and is evidence of the big-bang. It does not tell us anything about the current expansion rate, if any, of the universe. The ancient objects that we see receding very quickly, from red-shifted light made a long time ago, may be now moving towards us. Looking at objects much closer to us may tell us more about any current universe expansion than looking at distant objects, which is simply old data.
Gravity! Gravity causes the "cosmological redshift"! Gravity stretch's space and the light wave travelling in it. That's why the lightwave is stretched both leaving and approaching mass/gravitational field. It is literally that simple.
This reminds me of an analogy where I pointed out that fiat currency cannot be used to value gold/silver or anything. Precisely because it is not fixed so cannot be used as a basis of mensuration. Here we have light that is also non fixed being used as a unit of mensuration. Thats alchemy/magic for YOU.
I think it would've been nice to derive the hubble constant from these principles. This is a good qualitative explanation, but, well, Unzicker himself has said enough about how quantitative descriptions are superior.
Round about 10 years ago ViaVetoTV "Plasma-Versum" and myself "Die Realitätstheorie" presented a physical explanation for the red shift. The Doppler Interpretation is simply falsified by the non linear red shift, which means all the wavelength or frequencies of a distant source must be red shifted by a constant value, which is equivalent to the velocity gaining distance of the source, but this has not been shown. The physical reason behind the observed fact of red shift is indeed the matter between the source and us. We detect red shift, because due to the interaction of light with the plasma and gaseous matter in the Universe, the energy is lowered, due to absorption. The effects are well known as for example Raman & Rayleigh Scattering, Stokes Shift etc.
I had a thought that light passing through spacetime with no gravity within millions if not billions of light years might cause it to red shift, spacetime expanded due to a lack of gravity. The CMB is easily explained as extremely red shifted light from very distant galaxies. We might find even more distant galaxies with light that has shifted into very faint radio waves. We could look for hydrogen spectrum lines in the microwaves of the CMB. JWT has evidence of distant light passing through 2 hydrogen clouds leaving absorption spectrum lines within the red shift. The light left the galaxy was red shifted, it passed through hydrogen, was red shifted more, hit another cloud, was red shifted more and then hit the JWT mirrors. It's proof.
I didn't get why the ratio of the masses to the radius of the universe is decreasing when actually everything would be at rest. Or does just the observable part of the universe influence the speed of light?
Seems like this theory still requires a rate of expansion, it’s just referred to as the expansion of the horizon. Tired light was mentioned, but that sounds like a much different theory than this one. Tired light just hypothesizes that the ether, or free space, has a very slight attenuation effect on light.
I have long wondered at the change in understanding about "empty space", in the period of time between the invention of the expanding universe to the current day. Specifically, when the theory was proposed, it was universally understood that "space" was entirely empty, a vacuum devoid of matter. Not just interstellar space, but even inside the heliosphere, between the earth and the sun. Now, of course, we know better. We know the solar wind carries a huge number of atomic particles in its low density plasma emissions, and that even interstellar space appears to contain an abundance of gas clouds and low density plasma. We also understand that the reason we see sunsets and sunrises in red hues is because the amount of atmospheric gas the sunlight must pass through at these times is significantly greater than at noon. We do not suppose that the red shift here is because the sun is moving away from the earth at extreme velocities at these times. We reason that more gas, more atomic matter present to absorb light, has the effect of absorbing more blue wave lengths than red, due to the size of the molecules and the wavelengths of light, and so more gas present between light sources causes red shift. Now, if we know that gas clouds pop up in the interstellar medium all over the place, and that the heliosphere of stars is also awash with atomic nuclei in the form of low density plasma (solar wind), then it follows that the farther away a star is from earth, the more gas it has passed through on the way from there to here. That is to say, if gas clouds are spread around the place, the greater the distance you travel across the place, the more gas you must pass through. And thus, the more redshift you must experience, not because of expansion of space, but due only to the attenuation of blue frequencies by gas. The thing is, either the light travelling from star to star goes through a bunch of gas or it doesn't. When the expending universe model was proposed, everyone said it doesn't. On account of space being empty, was the thing. Now we say there are huge clouds of gas in the every which place, and probably more besides that. Everywhere we look, we behold great clouds of gas. In that empty space. So, what's the deal? Does that gas cause red shift, as it does on earth, with the sunrise and the sunset? If it must, then it does, and so we must expect red shift to increase with the distance traveled by light coming to us, and so we don't really have a basis for the expanding universe model.
One thing to note is that distant light passed through very clean space with zero matter interaction as they absorb, diffract and reflect the light - either way, it's not reaching Earth.. The light from distant stars had a clear path for the length of its entire journey. It has to be the (charge density / matter-energy elctro-positronic EM wave and gravity medium) sub-space field itself.. Think of space as a giant, close packed crystal of +ve charge balls bound by free-flowing, compressible, displace-able electro-gas.. -- Knock a cell free and you have an excess cell and excess -ve hole, both of which want to shoot their load to rebalance, while the rest of the field is pretty neatly close-packed and well balanced so doesn't want any excess charge, the fight causes an in-out vibration. These spherical positrons and electrons are the only stable permanent massive matter particles and make up protons and neutrons, thus everything bar unstable, high energy virtual particles (chunks and larger holes of subspace field) that rapidly decay into electrons and positrons.. -- This space is stretchy - the field cell (gap) size can vary, and indeed, electrons trap -1 base charge of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe, as does the positron when it pulls 1 cell''s worth away from the universe (that rapidly goes back to being close-packed, and once it's gone to the positron, it's gone (until the positron hits an electron so space can rebalance back to a close-packed crystal (great wave medium).. -- The thing is, this model is compatible with both idea.. A loss of -ve electro-gas to matter means less to hold the universe together, so a Dark Gravity model is possible with an expansion wave from a Big Bang in effect in the past or ongoing, with a corresponding gradual shrink towards centres of gravity, then a steep density gradient with packed core around protons and neutrons.. . -- Equally,there could simply be galaxies forming all over the universe that has always and will always be huge but finite and the same overall size - a giant ball of course (it's balls all the way up, all the way down, no pun intended much). In this case EVERYTHING slows down proportionally, conformally (like Dicke's view), all processes, while length contracts, in absolute terms, but locally all constants will measure the same no matter how dense the space as all measuring devices are effected too. -- The idea is Red Shift is caused by the changing field (charge) density, entering and leaving galaxies. It's a statistical thing too due to relative homogeneity of the universe but in reality some light will have spread it's wavelength in time more than other light from the same distance depending on the number of galaxies entered and left (and their density / how close to stars it got, though it can't have got very close or it wouldn't have reached us).. The min, max and average density are all pretty close until the centres of massive bodies and focal points of particles.
Redshift: Why cant time just go slower, close to the big bang that cause the redshift ? Same with Galaxy rotation curve: Time go faster in empty space, far away from the center of the galaxy. We all know time slow down close to mass centers like black holes in the center of galaxies.
Stop it, you're making sense. 🤣If it made sense we don't need the gatekeepers, and we wouldn't have 27 gender biology and pick-a-pronoun sociology either. I'm blaming Physicists for all the riff raff, since they're so keen on taking all the credit.
Mach's matter madness. Newton said that it was absurd to believe that inanimate brute matter can communicate at a distance without an intermediary and when I consider the inverse square nature of all things electromagnetic, I am drawn to conclude that Mach's speculation is absurdist materialist reductionism. Infinite distance = infinitesimal effect. It was Hubble's former assistant Halton Arp who first raised questions regarding Redshift being a purely Doppler Effect with his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, where he showed objects with vastly different redshift values attached or bridged by a band of energy and matter. It was his conclusion that at least some of the Redshift observed could be due to the age of the stellar object. Unfortunately, this was incomprehensible to the powers that be. For daring to challenge such a sacred cow, Arp was blackballed by the astronomical community and was denied telescope time and eventually had to leave the US for a position at the Max Planck Institute.
You are definitely an independent thinker, no doubts about that but answer this question, can you throw light? This is discussed in, A Short Treatise on the Space Time Continuum by Piankh.
You mean redshift is explained by refraction. Because thats where einstein got his variable speed of light from. He didnt get it from any gravitation experiment afaik. He even says that the only known physical phenomenon that causes light to bend is refraction. And then he makes up another one, with no proof or experiment what so ever.
The universe doesn’t have a single age. It is both very young and very old depending where it is in the universe. The matter and energy in the universe didn’t make itself and doesn’t direct itself. When it was made and directed, as we see it is inside of us, is relative to our location and the amount of time has to be determined by an intelligent mind. The existence of the universe doesn’t depend on the universe since the energy and matter in the universe can’t make or direct themselves.
The macro effects of the change of speed of light as it enters glass either confirms the observation that light is slowed down by electric charge; therefore the Birkland currents that power the Cosmos redshift the light. So, how much plasma is in the cosmos? Apparently most of the matter is plasma. So all we know about the redshift is that it is redshifted. We cannot use it to measure relative velocity. Or, Light has at least one undiscovered field that is macro in nature. (Credit Charles Hall.) This macro field would interface with the Michaelson Morley instrument and produce the anomalous result obtained. Einstein's 'Bent Nothingness' conjecture must be thrown out as it was based upon an false interpretation.
@@dexter8705 i dont understand this response? gravity is an acceleration. i guess light slowing by 0.5mm/s/year is a deceleration but what has that to do with hubbles observation of redshift the further away you go.
@@chrisoakey9841 just means light is redshifted a certain amount over a certain distance and the value just keeps on being added on top the same as gravity is squared, the visible light spectrum starts at a wavelength 400nm (nanometres) and if you go all the way out the edge of the observable universe the wavelength of the CMB (cosmic microwave background) the wavelength is 1 metre and anything beyond is redshifted to oblivion beyond the 400m radio wave range. I'm saying the wavelength in the coarse of its travels across the universe it's being redshifted at a pretty consistent rate from (wavelength) 400nm-1m and more over 13.7 billion light year distance of the observable universe... Ya get it now?
@@dexter8705 or thee universe isn't expanding to the degree assumed, and the redshift is exponential due to light slowing over time. then we dont need all the common matter that we cant detect. instead of everything moving away from us which either puts us at the center of the universe, or somehow we influence the universe from billions of light years away, we assume light slowing causing more redshift the further it travels. now space doesn't need to expand faster than like. dark matter and energy virtually disappear and the galaxies are rotating more like our solar system, or our galaxy. some coming closer, some going away depending on the change. and further how the spectrum is stretched and compressed can tell us more about the journey. all for the low price of allowing the possibility that light slows down by 0.5mm/s/years. just like everything else slows down as it sheds energy. and the reason the cmb timeframe doesn't fit is because it is based on needing the big bang, and empty space. the trouble is that new telescopes keep finding stuff in the 'dark spaces', and wee found galaxies too old and too far away.
I remember when I first realized that we have no independent (of redshift) way of measuring recessional velocities of galaxies. It all depends on the assumption that redshift is all caused by recessional velocities.
The I learned about Halton Arp’s work. It is amazing not that scientists have a prefered model (cosmological expansion) but that they do not even care to consider observations that seem to contradict that assumption.
@@pedrosura worse, they won't even inform the public (e.g. in text books) of these assumptions or counter-observations or other possible interpretations: everything is sanitised at that level.
FINALLY! I've been contemplating this question for years while doubting expansion. I also have doubts about a "big bang" or any beginning/creation and this explanation helps considerably.
energy can't be created/destroyed.... saying the laws of the universe were different is just another way of saying "SPACE MAGIC" lol better sci-fi in hollywood than academia/modern science.
No one is saying that they are arbitrarily different, but that they change over time. There can still be rules if this is the case.
I’m nowhere near sold on this idea, but I’ll give it a shake.
Best explanation of the cosmological redshift I've seen so far! In my limited view, this has also consequences on how we measure the distances of redshifted stars / galaxies.
I think we have to use redshift to calculate how much the "mistake of the observed spot" of redshifted objects is.
That was a deal-breaker for me in physics in the 1970's, that the speed of galaxies was inferred but not confirmed by direct observation. I had the same qualms about the existence of quarks.
Love your vids on Variable Speed of C!
I'm a 13 year hobby Physicist, and have thought for the past like 7 Years that Variable Speed of C hasn't been done justice, and is heavily contorted by others.
You on the other hand... Are definitely doing it justice which is awesome NGL. 👏
Keep up the good work bruh! 🖤
The most significant paper is those of Broekaert, he definitely demonstrate equivalence between einstein tensor curvature theory of gravitation (general relativity) and scalar-vector couple field in Euclidian space (variable speed of light, or variable refractive index to be precise)
Same, I'm also a physics hobbyist and the variable speed of light theory makes a lot of sense to me. I wish more people in the field would pursue experimentally testing it. This is one of the few videos I could find on TH-cam that actually gives a technical dive into it.
@@mathoph26 Fax tho.
You can also take a look at Einsteins whiteboard left over after death via images online.
It's a Tetrad formalism with killing vector field under flat coordinates (which in this case Preserves the Pseudo-Metric as a result).
And it also uses Scalar Values as a Difference to preserve conformal maps most likely as seen in the bottom right of the board near the degree of freedom calcs.
Hence how the right side of his last board, Derived the same degree's of freedom as the standard Relativistic metric.
Effectively Indicating a equivalance between Flat Space with Variable Speed of Light & Malleable Transforms, and a Constant Speed of Light in Curved Spacetime with Malleable distances.
^
Under this tetrad formalism ofc
@@HEROlCS Yeh.
I always thought in made more sense in particular with unifying Relativistic Field Theories (like General Relativity) to Quantum Field Theories.
@@shadow15kryans23 the tetrad formalism is too complicated for me, does Einstein wrote this still in the frame of GR, with metric variation?
The other point I forget to mention, after doing some computations to check the 4 classical tests of GR using Broekaert scalar-refractive index field theory is that the mass dependant refractive index is not the ONLY mass dependant variable: position, time, mass and other quantity are mass dependants (or gravity dependant). Some are not like the angular momentum (h remains h for instance). Gradient operator for example is ugly transformed too. So yes we do not modify the space curvature in VSL, which I personnaly like, but almost all the rest of variables ! That being said why not
I've never understood why "tired light" theory for red shifting was discounted. Thank you for another, plausible explanation.
A kind of opposite of 'tired' light could be true. Perhaps the leading photons of a light ray (entangled photon stream) SPEED UP when leaving galactic space, entering voids, with this statistically adding up over vast distances to red shift.
--
On average C stays much the same, absolutely and measures the same relative to local spatial and time metrics that also vary with matter density.. I'm imbuing light rays with an elasticity, where leading photons in an entangled set pull on those behind as they speed up for a femto second or so here and there, every trillion miles..
--
NOT TIRED LIGHT THOUGH. As weird as it seems, it could be Red Shift means the light hit us SOONER, with more time spent at slightly above C than closer sourced light, on its long journey. I actually prefer an Expanding Universe to a steady state one with varying speed of light, but it's worth trying to attack the Red Shift phenomenon from all angles... Unlike MS Science,
The conventional view is that gravity does not alter the speed of light, but lengthens its wavelength. The early universe was more dense than todays expanded universe and therefore had a more powerful gravitational field. It seems logical that light climbing away from this denser universe towards us would not slow down but wuld have its wavelength red shifted. Though speed c is 186,000 mp sec in a vaccuum, space is not a perfect vaccuum. It is well known that light slows when passing thro air, for example, so while space is a lot more tenuous than air it has a proton here and there and in some regions substantial clouds of hydrogen and helium, so light must be slowed when passing thro. By how much would light be slowed by passing thro a billion lyr of space?
Given gravity affects time, how fast was the time when it was leaving its parent star, how fast was time when it was under the gravity well of that star, how fast was it when leaving the heliosphere of that star, how fast was it when leaving that cluster in the galaxy, how fast was it when travelling in the intergalactic gap of interstellar space?
We have a relative measurement of time on Earth, we know the satellites have a different rate than we do on the surface, how fast is time in interstellar space vs Earth? How does that affect the speed and wavelength of light?
Einstein might not have written his paper if he knew just how many people would quit asking questions after they accepted his work.
@@glenwaldrop8166 THERE ARE TOO MANY UNKNOWN VARIABLES FOR ANYONE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, THE MASS OF THE ORIGINAL STAR FOR EXAMPLE.
You are doing good work Unzicker. We musn't become too monolithic to question the basic assumptions of our theories- even if they hold exalted status amongst the community.
I have been discussing with colleagues that since light interacts with all mass in the universe that causes light to lose energy and redshift with distance. I was going to use Sciama's (1953) approach to inertia to calculate it where I assume that inertia is a quantum field interaction responsible for inertia and the secondary Machian effect of all matter leads to redshift.
Thanks for another great video. I look forward to reading your paper.
Correct, but the reason for the energy depletion is, that the source isn't any more there to supply this idol we see, with energy, the source had moved on its trajectory, before the light of this idol arrives to us. For the same reason we see, and as the distance grow, more and more idols of the same galaxy. It is only an optical illusion of time and trajectories.
I don't think direct interaction with mass is an option as it will absorb or reflect the light, either way, it's not reaching Earth.. The light from distance stars has to have had a clear path for a long time, the length of it's entire journey. It has to be the (charge density / matter-energy elctro-positronic EM wave and gravity medium) sub-space field itself.. Think of space as a giant, close packed crystal of +ve charge balls bound by free-flowing, compressible, displace-able electro-gas..
--
Knock a cell free and you have an excess cell and excess -ve hole, both of which want to shoot their load to rebalance, while the rest of the field is pretty neatly close-packed and well balanced so doesn't want any excess charge, the fight causes an in-out vibration. These spherical positrons and electrons are the only stable permanent massive matter particles and make up protons and neutrons, thus everything bar unstable, high energy virtual particles (chunks and larger holes of subspace field) that rapidly decay into electrons and positrons..
--
This space is stretchy - the field cell (gap) size can vary, and indeed, electrons trap -1 base charge of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe, as does the positron when it pulls 1 cell''s worth away from the universe (that rapidly goes back to being close-packed, and once it's gone to the positron, it's gone (until the positron hits an electron so space can rebalance back to a close-packed crystal (great wave medium)..
--
The thing is, this model is compatible with both idea.. A loss of -ve electro-gas to matter means less to hold the universe together, so a Dark Gravity model is possible with an expansion wave from a Big Bang in effect in the past or ongoing, with a corresponding gradual shrink towards centres of gravity, then a steep density gradient with packed core around protons and neutrons.. .
--
Equally,there could simply be galaxies forming all over the universe that has always and will always be huge but finite and the same overall size - a giant ball of course (it's balls all the way up, all the way down, no pun intended much). In this case EVERYTHING slows down proportionally, conformally (like Dicke's view), all processes, while length contracts, in absolute terms, but locally all constants will measure the same no matter how dense the space as all measuring devices are effected too.
--
The idea is Red Shift is caused by the changing field (charge) density, entering and leaving galaxies. It's a statistical thing too due to relative homogeneity of the universe but in reality some light will have gone more spread out that other light from the same distance depending on the number of galaxies entered and left.
@@andrewb9409 The interaction has nothing to do with gravity. It is inertial.
@@andrewb9409 .. I certainly agree light we receive from a distant point source is the light that has NOT interacted with matter, but to definitely say gravity has no effect on light is a leap, as it the assertion that a increase in wavelength / red-shifted frequency is an actual 'loss of energy'.. Sure, it is to the receiver / observer / measuring device but was energy actually lost from the collection of photons or is the same amount of energy just stretched further in time (longer wavelength) so at any instant its measured energy will be relatively lower than higher frequency light, but the same number, same amplitude peaks and troughs still hit the receiver when photon streams are considered..
--
Less energy per sample, but same total energy as non-redshifted light.. It's the definition of light energy that is a hindrance he in a way, essential as it is. Just because more photons per second transfer more energy per second does not mean they individually have more energy than further apart photons.
--
If there is a subtle stretching and shrinking of the local spatial metric on galactic scales, or even just solar system scales, this increased sub-space resistance could slow down the light a little each time and when they return to thinner voids with less resistance they speed up. On average the photons still travel at C, and measure C, even if the local spatial metric is a Planck length or two different.
--
Think of sub-space as having variable size 'voxels' and photons skipping one or two every trillion miles or so, depending how close to a galactic centre it is. It's this femtosecond jump of a wave peak happening now and again, statistically, the SPEED INCREASE for a split second that lengthens the wavelength, NOT TIRED LIGHT.. Smaller space, voxels sometimes quantum-leaped over. It also seems photon streams (light rays) are made of groups of entangled photons,
--
I'm not fully on board with idea, just trying to explore it a bit more deeply.
@@andrewb9409 .. Also, do we really know light from super-massive stars has not been slightly redshifted. Sure, star color varies a lot depending on composition and size etc. but all our measurements are relative and we could be way out in terms of distance and brightness, the amount of matter in voids, ++.. It's all PRACTICALLY USELESS science for the tax-robbed money, that's one truth about Deep Space Astronomy and Cosmology will always adhere to, before humanity's demise due to lack of down-to-Earth priorities and love of death & destruction..
--
Perhaps Red Shift is a statistical thing related to time spent in motion, where every so often a photon in a photon set JUMPS FORWARD AN EXTRA sub-space voxel.. Perhaps this effects others in a set, with the front of say 8 photons skipping 8 Planck sized voxels with the trailing 7 each skipping 1 less, forming a stretched photon set with peaks equally spaced apart. Universe Expansion not needed.. I'm just exploring, I still believe expansion (not necessarily a big bang though) is less problematic in some ways and a good, intuitive explanation and starting point for research,
Although VSL theories are an interesting proposition, they raise a number of issues:
- If the speed of light is variable, then how are we supposed to make measurements in the first place, since standardised measures of distance and time rely on the constancy of the speed of light.
- Given a VSL theory, what replaces the definition of a null geodesic?
- VSL theories in which the limiting speed of physical objects changes are not Lorentz invariant. The means by which Lorentz invariance is broken needs to be made clear and further more, if this involves a modification of the Lorentz group, one must make it clear how to determined the dynamical limit of physical objects.
- The physical speed of light is determined by Maxwell's equations. You'd need to propose different equations that govern electromagnetism which lead to a variable speed of light associated with the wavelike solutions satisfying the new equations.
- By introducing variable speed of light, you basically have to re-formulate any equation involving the speed of light. This will lead to a re-formulation of many physical theories and in each one, there will need to be a physical explanation as to why you chose to vary the speed of light in the first place.
Overall, the assumption that the speed of light is variable seems more ad hoc than the assumption that the speed of light is constant, which already naturally follows from Maxwell's equations. In general, you are basically tasked to reformulate most of modern physics just to explain everything that we already know, which seems like more work than is needed. Additionally, how is the nature of causality explained? How do you make a distinction between massive and massless particles? And I'm sure there are many more questions to be asked.
I would class VSL theories as more theoretical curiosities that are not very useful to actual physics, but are nonetheless interesting.
the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. There is no problem considering a lower speed of light in optics where the light enters a different media. No reformulation of Maxwell's equations is necessary. What is actually constant is the limiting value of anything that propagates, not the actual speed of light in a particular circumstance, unless it's in a vacuum.
@@johnpearcey Variable speed of light is not equivalent to a ray of light traveling in an optical medium - these are two completely different things.
@@matasmackevicius5594 Agreed. It was my understanding that the speed of a ray of light through the cosmos was what is being envisaged. The cosmos not being quite the vacuum we assumed it was?
@@johnpearcey Photons always propagate at the same speed - regardless if they are travelling through an optical medium or not. There is of course an apparent change in the speed of the light ray, but that is due to interactions between the light and the medium - you are then measuring group velocity, rather than the speed of photon propagation. Simply put, all massless fields propagate at the same speed c.
I'm not sure what you mean by "The cosmos not being quite the vacuum we assumed it was?".
@Matas Mackevicius Very well said. I couldn't have said it better myself. It's mystifying to me that people seem to want to adhere to words of a man who's doctorate is in neuroscience on matters of cosmological physics...
Besides refraction, the redshift could also be explained by an energy loss of the light wave in the ether medium. That energy loss equates in a drop in frequency (aka redshift) and happens for every other wave...like sound waves, their energy gets lower and lower as distance increases, until it fades completely. If ether exists, as reason requires, and the double slit experiment proves, then a similar phenomenon is to be expected for light waves, altough on much larger distances- which is what we actually observe.
Hi
Can you please let me know how the double slit experiment confirms Ether?
6:06 In the proximity of masses the speed of light is decreased because those masses are surrounded by GASES which REFRACT and slow the speed of light. And this is the same reason why the light coming from those stars or planets is Redshifted, because when light refracts from a gas to a vacuum its speed increases and its wavelength also increases ! And this is why Pound and Rebka used a HELIUM bag in their gravitational redshift experiment. Because they could not get a redshift from gravity otherwise.
The accelerated contraction of the aether (or whatever you want to call the medium which electromagnetic waves propagate through) would also result in the illusion of the expansion of the universe
It's collapse into matter yes, but I've " heard" the sum total is insuficient to "explain" red shift. I still think it's at least partialy due to gravitational collape but may be multiple contributimg causes
@@dananorth895 Whatever the case, I think it's ridiculous to make extrapolations all the way back to the "beginning of time" based a current observation of a redshift (even if it is caused by expansion). For some reason scientist in general want to find the "very beginning" or the "smallest particle" etc etc, ie. some sort of limits or bounds that do not exist. Atomistic thinking, the desire for "completeness." In terms of the infinity of the universe (both large, small, future and past) it is extremely narrow minded in my opinion
@@aaronmarchand999 Creation myths are convenient tools of institutional power - Lemaitre was a Jesuit, and they figure all the way through science history funnily enough..
Really appreciate your effort to describe this and other physics - very apparent that you want to communicate clearly as possible. Thank you & Cheers from Seattle!
This theory would make sense if Gravitational redshift would actually EXIST. But it is more than obvious that what they claim to be a gravitational redshift is purely a Refractional Redshift. It is caused by the refraction of light from the gas surrounding massive objects like stars and planets into the vacuum. The reason is simple and it is due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes but the frequency doesnt. Since f=c/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too. This results in a redshift when light refracts in a less denser material (since its speed increases=> its wavelength increases), like from the heliosphere into space, and in a blueshift when it refracts in a more dense material.
This phenomenon was used by Pound and Rebka in their 'gravitational redshift experiment', which actually required a bag of helium in order to get the light to redshift. So gravitational redshift does not actually exist, and what they observed was just refractional redshift due to helium refraction.
I finally found someone who I agree with. The idea that the universe is expanding is ridiculous. It makes more sense that light would slow as it passes through plasma fields.
I have been thinking about possible causes of the high redshifts of some quasars found by Arp -- Arp showed that these were not due to Doppler, hencely zero Bigbang. Arp introduced a fishy concept involving young atoms & old atoms, but i reckon that the causes might be as follows.....
Einsteinian (ticking) Redshift (1). If photons are emitted (created)(i mean re-created) near the surface of a quasar (a super massive star say), then here the hi gravity (or whatever Einstein called it) slows light, & also slows atomic processes (Einsteinian ticking dilation), & hencely the emitted photons are immediately redshifted during creation (compared to photons emitted at ordinary stars). This redshift does not cause dispersion.
Larmorian (ticking) Redshift (2). During (1) The hi speed of the aetherwind flowing towards the quasar (where aether is destroyed) slows atomic processes by the Larmorian factor (Larmorian ticking dilation)(in addition to the Einsteinian ticking dilation in (1)). No dispersion
Einsteinian (gravity) Redshift (3). The nearness of mass slows light, hencely photons stretch as they propagate away from the quasar. The head of each photon is accelerating faster than the tail. There is a little longitudinal dispersion if photons are propagating directly away from the quasar, & when propagating at an angle then higher frequency photons will be bent towards the quasar hencely giving transverse dispersion. I know that Einstein Shift will not produce dispersion of any kind, but (3) is not due to Einstein Shift even though my naming names Einstein, & the true cause can produce longitudinal dispersion &or transverse dispersion but i wont explain here.
Krafftian Redshift (4). Aether flowing towards the quasar is stretched as the aether accelerates, & photons propagating away from the quasar stretch in the aether. Imagine the head of the photon, this propagates at c km/s in the aether, & the head accelerates in the direction of propagation (according to an observer on the quasar) because the aether inflow is slower at greater distance. Imagine the tail of that photon, this accelerates more slowly than the head, hencely the photon stretches. Krafft wrote about this kind of stretching in 1963. There is no dispersion
Ranzan's (cosmic) Redshift (5). Photons propagating through the cosmic cells of our infinite universe are stretched due to (4) as they approach micro mass (eg electrons) & also as they approach macro mass (eg stars). Plus they get another dose of stretching due to (4) as they depart micro mass & macro mass. This double whammy of stretching (ie firstly during approach & secondly during departure) is counterintuitive (indeed Marmet doesn't understand), but if u think about it u might get it. Aether stretches on both approach & departure, & the photons stretch with the aether. Handy hint -- think of what happens to the head & tail of photons. It produces stretching of photons, & bending of light, but does not produce any dispersion due to frequency, ie all frequencies are stretched by the same %, & all frequencies suffer the same amount of bending (ie contributing to lensing).
Mainstream (faux) Redshifts (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Other doses of cosmic redshift in accordance with old tired light & new tired light theories etc (none of which impress me). And they would all cause lots of dispersion.
Doppler Redshift (11). The genuine Doppler effect due to a quasar's velocity with respect to an observer.
Arp's redshifts of quasars are i think explained by (1)(2)(3)(4), & of course (11). Although there are some exotic complications identified by Arp which i haven’t considered yet.
After (1)(2)(3)(4)(11) have done their job in the vicinity of the quasar, then we get further redshifting due to (5), (5) being the one & only true cause of cosmic redshift. Here i don't count (11) Doppler as being a cosmic redshift, (11) is due to what happens at the quasar & what is happening at the observer, it isn't affected by what happens in the cosmos.
(3) is a potential cause of cosmic redshift, but if u think about it u will see that it produces blueshift on approach to mass, & redshift on departure, the two negating. Ranzan mentions this.
LENSING. (3) does however contribute to lensing, probably in equal measure to the lensing produced by (5). This is indicated by the 1.75 arcsec of bending near the Sun, of which 0.87 arcsec is due to (5)(sometimes called the Newtonian bending), & 0.87 arcsec is due to (3). (3) produces bending because photons are slowed on their nearside to the Sun, & hencely veer towards the Sun.
Gravity, just gravity.
I find it difficult to follow your idea’s. The idea is that propagating light cannot contract, that means: cannot change its frequency. In your words: (around 15.37 in the video: “propagating light has to maintain its wavelength”). The word “has to” is somewhat ambiguous, anyway. On the atomic scale the situation differs. That explains (correct me if I am wrong) why we can e.g. use spectrophotometers and can see frequency shifts in spectral lines when doing experiments with matter. But why has propagating light to maintain its wavelength? And even when this is true: when looking at stars in the galaxy it is that (…that) light/these frequencies that we see on earth on our spectrophotometers or radio telescopes. There is no other “light in a can” of the same (?) frequency (or in the same frequency band) that we can use to compare the light that we see now from star or galaxy X, e.g. sent out a few million years ago or so. On 15.37 you say: “the universe is not expanding materially and the light from galaxies is necessarily redshifted here”. Where does that “necessarily” come from? The crux is around 13.44-13.55 in your video where you say: “talking about propagating light the situation is different because it has to maintain its wavelength, so the wavelength emitted back then compared to the actual decreased wavelength appears longer, that means red-shifted”. Where does “the actual decreased wavelength” in your sentence/explanation come from (the frequency source)? Correct me if I am wrong, I am interested and follow almost all of your video’s. And gave you some tips about audio in the past. Ko Tilman alias Radiofun232 on You Tube. 13 August 2022.
Hi !
A few years ago I developed a theory that explained the accelerating departure of galaxies
and its rapid movement of rotation of them without the need to postulate
the existence of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" respectively.
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 cyber space.
However, searching the web I find something quite promising for me:
"Universe mysteriously expanding, will double in size in 10 billion years, finds Hubble"
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..."]
Link to my theory: www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=91689
So now my theory had strong evidence in its favor :-)
Another evidence I found, in favor of my theory, would be the increase in temperature due to
to the shrinkage of space (as happens in a gas when it is compressed):
Unexpectedly, The Universe Is Getting Hotter and Hotter as It Expands
www.sciencealert.com/the-universe-is-getting-hotter-and-hotter-new-study-finds
There's only one straightforward explanation of accelerating red shift: the rate of expansion is the constant function of a growing size ratio between system and content. Full Stop with the math BS. You're not Einstein.
@@xxxYYZxxx this is not a logical response. And Einsteis was wrong see the prrof: www.omicsonline.org/open-access-pdfs/jocaxians-train-2476-2296-1000154.pdf
@@jocaxx You mean to say that an expanding system with static-scaled objects and time-scales isn't the inversion of a static-scaled system with virtually contracting objects and time scales? Maybe it's just beyond your own level of intelligence to grasp, like me trying to explain Heliocentrism to an ignorant Medieval peasant dirt farmer who's only real concern is emulating authority figures and sucking up to Corporate? Hmm?
Can't the huble redshift be explained by gravity alone? If it can't then why?
Dr. Unzicker, what about the horizon problem? How can opposite regions of the hubble sphere (not causally connected) be at equilibrium if they were not "in touch" at the beginning of time? Maybe c -> infinity as t -> 0, and the entire universe was "connected" in the beginning, almost like a singularly...
A lot needs to be reinterpreted, I try to touch the issue in a future video.
Such problems are artefacts of the presumed model. Observations speak for themselves about what kind of universe we live in, ultimately, even if we wish for more words. So, it depends on how deep you want to picture laws of nature relating to the things that we picture as obeying them, and then see how much, if anything, you can currently measure there. For example, you use the word 'universe', which already means a set of co-existing things, by definition all things that follow the same laws without exception, or there would be no interaction, no observation. If co-existence isn't considered a 'law of nature' in that model, I don't know what would be. As two hypothetical particles from opposite sides of the observable universe approach each other, they don't spontaneously generate their own laws of interactivity, and the distance of interaction is like a limit in calculus, so they must share that information, that they are co-existents, and that is a physical connection, albeit at a directly unobservable level, like any other law of nature deduced from interactiveness. There is no need for things to be in touch in the past to account for homogeneity and isotropy, since they are in touch now as potentially interactive things at any imaginable distance, the fullness of laws produces homogeneity, and, if infinite, as well as with light slowdown, one would expect homogeneity to produce isotopic temperature at the limit of every direction. We furthermore observe co-existence in our light bubble to be homogeneous at the largest levels, and at the radiation/observability limit we see temperature equilibrium. Only the unproved tacit presumption of expansion would cause you to exclude the possibility of an actually infinite (in scope) universe outside of our light bubble, which picture then generates an explicit axiom that the universe must be expanding. Or, starting from the other side, the tacit presumption that the universe must be finite in scope, and so the limit radiation must indicate a prior state of expansion. And, of course, the paradox of why the universe isn't filled with light is supported by a finite, expanding universe model superficially. This kind of approach is an example of circular thinking. If variable light speed is the case, an infinite universe isn't filled with light because light doesn't just get tired, it eventually dies, and our current bubble is a finite component far enough away from the next level up of structure that our radiation limit shows us all the surrounding light on the verge of death, indeed, nothing less than actual infinity manifested. Lastly, because this latter model has no possible explanation of origin or predictability about the future, there is a reluctance to use any model but an evolving cosmos that has a measurable beginning, present, and predictable end. For example, if one takes the universe to be infinite and unchanging, then you must totally give up asking where the universe came from scientifically, and, moreover, and what's worse, you must give up any sense whatsoever of a teleological scientific model, which is exactly what the expanding universe model provides -- possibly the last vestige of peer supported ubiquitously accepted transcendent teleological story-telling left in the modern human secular academic world. Psychologistically, this is almost an aesthetic proof for the expansion model, simply that foundational human intuitions will always be the best tool we have for total shots in the dark. In other words, a more or less fixed, infinite, homogeneous universe (or at least local area) is totally outclasses human capacity to understand, probably forever, whereas an expanding universe model that still fits the data is at least more optimistic and shows us a world we can kind of, if not control, at least have awareness of where everything has been and is going. To reiterate, an infinite universe with dying light, so to speak, is a frightening story, whereas a story about a finite local universe that had a beginning, even if it should itself fade away, the overarching story does not rule out, and indeed perhaps suggests, future creation events, so it's like picturing a mechanism of endless life, as opposed to the unsatisfying ultimate picture of an inconceivable world dying without hope. Much more than any observation, humans (all intelligent life) needs physics stories to leave open a survival path. As a characteristic of the species in total, we can't believe in reaching any terminus of understanding or life. It's not in our communal DNA.
Redshift could be explained by observed increasing movement at greater distance. Observation is not rectilinear. It is bend just like the spirals of a galaxy. This bending could explain redshift in another way. It is like taking a picture with a curtain diafragma. The movement of the curtain creates a deformation of the light on the negative. It is the reason why cars in old pictures are deformed. This effect is also used with a fotofinish at games.
A second question could be: is the center of the universe the same as the center of the observable universe?
A third question: does light also have a kind of Bernoulli effect? (This could explain the randomness of everything we see)
The expansion of the universe is not like blowing up a balloon.
I had come to a similar idea.
I saw it more in terms of us being in a gravity field and going deeper in it, so the gravity increases, and the light speed decrease, all due to time of course. It includes the space time you dislike, but the result is the same.
I think gravity is missing in that model you propose here and the redshift is only an illusion, while it could be actually real, but not materially.
If you think in terms of events, the event of the far star when it emits light, if we stayed put in time, there would be no shift, but since we are moving in time, there is one, and it translates into increased gravity. If we were to try and reach that other place physically, it would still take more energy to get to the synchronized event as time goes on. So in practice it's like we are moving away from each others anyway, just not in the distance planes.
If you use variable speed of light instead of an expanding universe, will you be able to account for the cosmic microwave background?
Why does the idea that the universe is full of light need the idea of an expanding universe. Just because the CMB seems to be red-shifted starlight does not mean it is really simply NON-SHIFTED red light that has always been the same frequency.. It's another arrogant leap of faith by Science to declare expansion as the definitely most likely explanation. Redder stars in the past, or other red-shift mechanisms such as the variable speed of light should not be ignored when their model(s) are incomplete and full of fundamental flaws.
Maybe CMB is pigeons after all
@@emanuelpetre5491 .. lol, or more seriously, because it's been shining light from matter of all shapes and sizes for a long, long time, possibly forever, so there's a lot of light out there in all frequency ranges, in a mixed up mess acting as constant background noise.Most red shift could simply be down to redder sources in the first place. Doesn't have to be a product of expansion.
@@PrivateSi yes i get that, but what im saying is can you use variable speed to produce exact numbers? e.g., can you calculate the temperature of the cosmic microwave background and show that it is 2.7 kelvin, as is observed?
@@husammohamed2371 .. The CMB can be explained in many ways, and any formula can be fudged to relate CMB to other factors, such as the believed age or size of the universe, number of stars, frequency spikes of elements and molecules, spectroscopy - as Big Bangers fudged in their expanding singularity model (that isn't really a singularity, as its PATCHY in their newer fudged model, not one perfectly homogenous entity . (fudged math = made up to fit a preconceived idea and limited data). Their fudge is well promoted by the MSM, unlike other fudge..
--
Fudge is a sweet snack over here that's very easy to make. CMB Radiation does not require a big bang, there are lots of other ways it could emerge from the standard model, let alone more accurate alternatives. Science dismisses too much.
--
Their biggest crime to me was not leaving open the obvious possibility electrons and positrons (not up ad down quarks) make up all proper permanent massive matter.. Their Big Bang obsession is number 2, but even I am more of a Big Banger Believer than Steady State.. I have a Dark Gravity model where the matter-energy wave medium, base field metric shrink around mass, with each electron and positron formed (either continuously or in a big bang) resulting in an expansion of voids too.. There is a finite amount of -ve sub-space charge - SUPER GLUE - in voids, more around matter.
Dr. Unzicker, this is a fascinating presentation. Would you speak to the impact VSL has on cosmological time frames and the observable universe’s age? Additionally, is there an alternative to a steady state universe if expansion is fallacious?
There will be another video on that. However, first on Dirac.
@@TheMachian Eagerly awaiting!
@@TheMachian Are you sure that your next video will explain VSL?
What made me question the interpretation of redshifted galaxies as being due to the Doppler-like effect of recessional velocity and with it the notion that the universe is expanding was the announcement by the astrophysics community that the rate of cosmic expansion is increasing, not decreasing. Since the idea of expansion is based solely upon an inference that redshift is caused by recessional velocity, that the amount of redshift is directly proportional to distance, according to Hubble's Law, and that the further away a galaxy is, the more its spectrum is shifted toward the red, and thus, the further away it is, the faster it is receding, then how did astrophysicists come up with the idea that the expansion of the universe is speeding up and not slowing down? The further away a galaxy is, the further back in time we see it. So if galaxies are observed as being increasingly redshifted and therefore receding from us faster and faster the farther out in distance and back in time they are, then must not the rate of expansion be slowing down and not speeding up? If the universe were expanding faster at present than in the past, wouldn't we see nearby galaxies with greater redshifts than galaxies further away? Didn't Hubble himself state that redshift could also be interpreted as the result of gravity?
Incredible, thank you!
If I may add to this …
Red shift Big Bang could be an error.
This relates to spectrometer error, calibration biased error?
Consider this :
(1) Light speed c shifts each time it passes in and out of - vacuum, gas, clear fluid and solid.
(2) Any charge particles mixed into absolute vacuum causing vacuum permeability e0 to become >e0 so light speed < c.
(3) Space within 1AU of solar are flooded with charged solar particles, made light speed < C.
(4) Spectroscopes calibrated with solar were all in day time when light speed is < C.
(5) Spectroscope calibrated in day time on earth contains blue shift bias (error).
(6) Hubble study his galaxies at night unaware of blue shift error, declare receding galaxies and expanding universe.
(7) hence the Big Bang theory.
Question 1 : does the night sky also liter with charged particles? equalizing the blue shift?
Answer 1a :
If our night sky particle density equals day time then Hubble has nothing to declare with, with regards to galaxy recession.
Answer 1b ;
No, most charged particles were guided to and dissipated at earth’s polar regions with earth’s magnetosphere, leaving our night sky with more vacuum and little to no particles, the blue shift bias error prevailed.
Question 2 :
If all calibrations were made with solar, could all quasar data collected share a common recession rate?
Answer :
no two spectroscope’s calibration results aren’t identical since charged particles density varies by the state of Sun’s corona.
Solar charged particles incur blue shift is just one anomaly and not the only smoking gun against Big Bang theory.
Regarding Question 1, While dust and particles in the Solar system are mostly from the Sun, there is vastly more dust and plasma in the universe than science accounts for. The Voyager encountered this after crossing the Heliopause.
Redshift is measured based on element lines. The place where you take the picture (the place the camera is standing) does not explain any error. A spectroscope doesn't need calibration in any way.
@@BartvandenDonk I know, but if the redshift is an effect of VSL, the universe is not expanding and galaxies are not running away from us - redshift should have a different meaning from what is presently assigned to it.
@@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT I think it has to do with observation being bend in a spiral manner. What is seen in 1 parsec maybe not belongs to that parsec in a straight line but in a bended line. This could explain redshift in another way.
🐚 If space is showing like a cone of a snale we couldn't see it. Because the light is bended back to us. A way to observe this bended light is to look on both sides of a rotating massive object where there is a difference in redshift between those sides.
I think rotation (and consequently the bending) is left out of the equation. It could even be possible that we look at the bachside of a planet but think we look at the front.
Looking along this bending line it seems further away than in a straight line.
@@BartvandenDonk You may be right. I don't have the expertise necessary to comment on it. Just the same instinct that tells me gravity is instant.
You should check the Vasile effect, it explains why redshift occurs during refraction from any gaseous atmosphere into space. Because REFRACTION not only changes the speed of light, but also its WAVELENGTH. So when the speed of light increases, as the light gets refracted from a gas surrounding a star or a planet into the vacuum, its wavelength also increases (in order to preserve the frequency which remains constant during refraction). This is what Vasile calls REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, and it has nothing to do with gravity. Because in the gravitational redshift experiment they had to use a HELIUM bag in order to get the light to redshift. So the only logical conclusion of that experiment should have been that refractional redshift exists and gravitational redshift doesnt.
Red shift happens when we send light down a long fiberoptic cable. So, I am going to stick with photon drag as the biggest portion of red shift (ie. slowing down from passing particles). If it were speed, time, or gravity changing the shift then red shift would change back, similar to musicians on a train where the music changes as it goes through the wind, but changes back for the listeners in the car behind.
@Paul Wolf I hope you teach because you explain that very well.
The sum \sum_i m_i/r_i in general depends on where we set the origin (since this affects the r_i). I claim that it is _impossible_ to make this independent of the location of the origin, if this sum is finite for some location of the origin. Just move the origin close to a nonzero mass to get the sum approaching infinity. Why is this not a problem? Stating it differently: this sum is either infinite, for all locations of the origin, or it depends on the location of the origin.
There is an entirely easy explanation within Electro-statics and Electro-gravitics, with the subject of photons and sub-quantum particulate photinos. Photon have light speed velocity, can undergo gravitational lensing, and also escape. It is the smaller and less-energetic photinos, that undergo gravitational capture, or orbiting.
If such cosmic light (i.e. approaching light) from distant galaxies are seen, then you have a collapsing area of the cosmos TOWARD you (Doppler shift). And you would suspect that any photons shooting away from you would appear as a red shift.
But, the real truth, is that the majority of these other stellar and galactic sites have a vast majority of variable light, less-than-light-speed velocity, and they are captured photinos in that gravitational object's orbit. This makes the appearance of a red shift of the cosmos, when in actuality it is nothing of the sort.
Free photons can mimic an expanding universe, while free (but captured) photinos mimic a collapsing universe.
In truth, there is no quantititave and qualitative technological and engineering machinery that can differentiate between an expanding universe and variable light speed photinos. As such, this comes around to the point that the cosmos -IS- and remains, not necessarily a fixed steady state, but even a small perturbation and cavitation of the cosmos, much like the Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun is so close at maximum and minimum elliptical orbit, that it roughly turns out to be a near-circle. So any cosmic small contraction and expansion all returns back to the qualitative steady state universe.
The experiment is basically flawed from the start, using a conventional terran model of a car or train, and a viewer/listener. The train light shoots out photons (not variable photinos) or a horn with a valid frequency of decibels. This can not be said for all of the many cosmic graviational objects of stars, galaxies, and constellations out there. So, like the Michelson-Morley BS interferometer atop liquid mercury denying the existence of the Aether, ... this experiment is also flawed, and all further extrapolations from this data, and any continuing flawed expansion of thse concepts.
This statement then demands the understanding that the Aether and such photinos at the electrino-level and the graviton-level exist.
Electrino - , Positrino +, Electrino Neutrino, Electrino Photino, ... ELectrino Bosino
Graviton -, Graviton +, Graviton Neutrino, Graviton Photino, ... Graviton Bosino
The Electro-static and Electro-gravitic Model further defines and clarifies all of the many problems with the diversified physics sectors ... and their inability to connect and work with each other, correct many of their obvious mis-statements taken as dogma, ... correction, Reformation, and Renaissance of all physics.
The greatest majority of the Dark Universe (Aether) photino sub-particulates versus the lesser amount of higher electron (photons, muon electron photons, and tau electron) photons, shows up as massive photino "glow" around the event horizon of a black hole - or - the sun's photosphere granulatirty "glow" - or - the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) energetic "glow" as the activity of the entire cosmic Aether boundary to the Physical Universe as the quantum foam.
Red shift is not higher photons flowing from (red shift) or flowing toward (blue shift) to the viewer. The red shift is the majority volume of graviationally captured photinos around larger gravitation objects, distorting the whole simple explanation of the Doppler shift principle.
So this shows that photinos exist, the Aether of the Dark Universe (76% dark energy, 23% dark mattr) exists, while the minimal portion of the Physical Universe photons of the blue Doppler shift are the minimal values in the Hubble constant of cosmic collapse, steady state, and cosmic expansion.
The Hubble "Constant" and the Einstein cosmic "Constant" are both invalid, and misleading ... and the cosmos, the universe, for all of its other massive complications of space-time fabric, 32+ gravitational constants, and matter fabric in outer space, ... a massive correction of physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and cosmogeny MUST BE reformed ... along with minimal portions of each physics sectors.
The other biggest bug-a-boo of the whole cosmic state - is to demand that A-L-L photons must be coming from stellar sources. This is a BS statement. Rogue photons, rogue photinos, rogue (dark) planets (now being stated as 300+ million numbers flying out there, rogue moons, free and rogue electrons and positrons, free and rogue bosons, (asbolutely true free and rogue neutrons and neutrinos). These proportions of photons, can also be from all the cosmogeny of (super)nova events of all the generations of stellar and solar system evolution, then destruction, and recycled accretionalry theory. Like all higher elements come from (super)nova explosions, even so blasted out star core fragments (gravitational objects restarting electro-gravitic accretionary theory), liberated neutrons/neutrinos, photons, photinos have been blasted from these locations and are still shooting around, alongside, and getting deflected much as a 3D cosmic billiard ball game. So any blue shift (said) to be absolutely coming from a singular galaxy or stellar location, is only that producer of such photons (blue shift shooting toward you), while their photinos will be gravitationally captured and reside around the object) ... and you whole concept of Doppler Shift proves to be BS and lies, and a further complication of everything manufactured by physics research upon a faulty foundation. Blue shift and red shift DO NOT prove COSMIC DOPPLER SHIFT. However, they do prove that photons - AND - photinos do exist. Light speed photons and less-than-light-speed (variable light speed) photinos exist. Which then forces back the sub-quantum into equations, validating the ancient's (more knowledgable) views that the Aether and all these sub-quantum particulates are the real foundations for cosmogeny, space-time fabric, matter fabric, string theory, electro-gravitic accretionary theory (electro-static accretionary theory can only get up to 1 meter in accretion), .... You are forced to rip out faulty foundations, correct misstatements, mis-concepts (although honest attempts at initial understandings), and the later created dogmas and idolization of such personalities who created them.
Much of Einstein, Dirac, and so many others' (including Feynmann) mis-statements (or inaccurate words, word definitions, and concepts) need to be corrected with new knowledge, ... and we can solve all these current problems in physics.
It looks like VSL theory is also a tired light model. Am i right?
VSL theories are closer to reality, than GR, because dispersion relations are *nonlinear* (even though can be linearized in the long wavelength regime).
I was never convinced by the hypothetical cosmological expansion of space. And I have previously argued with others over the indiscernibility of local contraction of contents from expansion of the container, except by an external observer. And we are not external.
Light can change wavelength if one adopts the light model of Robert de Hilster. That is another viable explanation of red shift.
Our vision of Balmer line electron transitions gives visible wavelengths of light. Paschen lines n=3 is infrared. Lyman lines are UV. Light decays energy via inverse square law relationship from the point light source. Single atoms coordinated to hexagon rings in neurotransmitters provide an unconscious mind vision system. So red shifted light occurs within the mind also.
VSL, or any other explanation for a red shift dependent on distance travelled (rather than space expansion), would seem to greatly simplify some things. Like dark energy. Gone. Explanation of cause of universe beginning. Not an issue. Heat death of universe. Not required.
I've never felt comfortable with the certainty expressed about the cause of the red shift.
The universe actually appears to be getting hotter and hotter and more and more ordered with time.
@@hoon_sol based on what?
@@clement_jacob:
Based on all the empirical experimental evidence. The Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect in particular demonstrates that the universe is currently everywhere from a few times hotter to an order of magnitude (ten times) hotter than it was several billion years ago.
@@hoon_sol this is not accepted in mainstream science is it?
@@clement_jacob:
Yes, that's fully accepted and a well-known fact.
Isn’t it strange that gravity can be strong enough to counteract the ‘expansion of the universe,’ as evidenced by the existence of blueshifted galaxies?
Is this observed shift real or apparent?
Robert Duke in page 5:00 gave us a snack we didn’t know it took place. Medium of light must exist to make Doppler shift possible and hence for red/blue shifts. Didn’t we that?
In my mind accelerated expansion of the Universe does not do good house with entropy theory. So, I have to admit that You present a far better explanation with VSL theory!
I have a question: We live in a gravity well. Additionally: the vacuum medium of space through which light passes changes its properties (mu and epsilon) nearer to large gravitational masses causing light to correspondingly change its properties. The light from far away galaxies, falls in our gravity well the location from which we can observe their light after it has passed through that medium of interstellar space and then the denser medium in our gravity well. Hence the question: Is the redshift of a distant galaxy measured on the surface of the earth a different value from the value measured vs. a telescope in space near earth, vs. measured from L2? In other words, is the redshift value higher when measured nearer to the surface of the earth? If this is the case, the universe could be, I suppose, on average, static.
Once, scientists had an Idea about 'ether' in the universe, and by measuring the 'wind' from the ether they could understand movements in our solar system, now we know ether do not exist, but we have something else, fields, fields influenced by gravitational waves for example, but, would it not be possible to measure movements in the universe with the field?
I assume the field are at a standstill?
And if we could mark it in some way we could measure our movement in relation to the marking?
It's not c that changes directly, it's that eu.bu = 1/c*2 changes. If you rearrange this equation you get, c = sqr(1/eu.bu), which is exactly the form of the velocity of a transverse wave on a string,
v= sqr(T/D), where T is tension (force , Newtons) and D is density of the string (Kg/m). Einstein explained in GR that where there's lots of mass, space-time curves. I say NO, it's space TENSION increases and of course in huge cosmological voids it would decrease.
I have two questions:
1. Since you have a sum over different masses, the variability depends on our distance from them. I suppose we can assume some homogeneous distribution. In that case, variability is due to variation of distances. If universe is expanding, in all directions, you are back to Dirac's time dependent gravitation constant hypothesis.
2. Is it a good assumption light is travelling in a vacuum through space? Light will interact with whatever on its path however rare the interactions may be, and over long distances it will change course. You can call that variable speed of light as well. Could all these esoteric theories are there because they assume an empty space? If space is not empty, the path of light will have a curvature reflecting its density, which depends on the mass of stars etc.. I think it is silly to assume otherwise. In the case of sun for example, you will have intense em fields with lots of material in it. They will divert
any light passing nearby. I never felt good about the idea of gravitation changing space time. I think it is nonsense.
The galactic redshift from space expansion is easily disproven by the the fact that wee see galaxies with a redshift which coresponds to a speed much greater than the speed of light. Cosmologists say this is because space itself expands faster than the speed of light, but how can light travel through such a space in the first place ? A space expanding at this rate simply does not allow light to travel through it. Therefore, those warp galaxies would not be visible. But since they are, that means that space is not exapanding faster than the speed of light. And that the redshift is not produced by the expansion of space.
Space is filled with aether and acts like an optic filter, distance between the light transmitter and receiver affects the change in the light signal frequency sent, red shift is just due to space medium aethers velocity and density and aethers direction.
Take every particle in existence and assign it a random direction and it's partner with an opposite direction, all with the speed of light. Give them all the same origin position and then start the clock. What do you get?
I don't know if I should be saying this, but today your video has made me realize that we could explain all light experiments and Relativity with transparent matter. To explain the Hubble redshift and accelerating universe we start out with universe more densely populated with transparent matter. Then as time goes on the transparent matter sinks into the galaxies. Speed of light was slower in the past and now got redshifted. We start out with ether of 1800s and sprinkle our transparent matter in and beget the explanation for all light experiments. Just like glass is transparent because light doesn't vibrate electrons in the glass and yet light slows down in the glass, we have transparent matter slowing the light down to speed c at our time. We can see this matter will be attracted to planets and light will appear to be moving relative to the observer. Hubble redshift: transparent matter density goes down vs magic stretchy carpet expanding. Who is going to even believe this magic carpet exists?!
What's not clear to me is, that you seem to assume final light cones. That is there has to be a moment zero, at which light and the effects of mass on the light speed begin to spread. Is that correct?
If the universe is not expanding, then the distant galaxies in the Hubble and Webb deep field pictures should be the same as the nearer galaxies. If we correct the spectra from the distant galaxies for the red shift, are there any differences from the nearer galaxies?
Unfortunately I didn't see that you explained the linear relation between distance and redshift. For a convincing new explanation this is absolutely neccessary. If the speed of light depends on the local mass density, it could be linear if the density is homogeneous. But knowing that there are clusters out there, they could distort linearity quite significantly.
Of course there are peculiar velocities, but this should not affect the general argument.
@@TheMachian But it affects the Hubble diagram. The distance-velocity diagram should then be a 3D position-redshift diagram
Very interesting presentation. Could you perhaps comment, in a future video, on the CMB and how that hangs together with VSL? Or, if you have already done so, please direct me to that video! Thanks.
I asked ChatGPT this question and it said that the amount of red shift that we see in the CMB is consistent with a constant speed of light. It also said that if the universe is static then the CMB would suggest that the size of the observable universe ends at Andromeda. Can you comment on if these statements are correct? I'm guessing this is why you're asking Unzicker about the CMB?
@@HEROlCS I actually don't know why in a static universe the CMB would suggest the observable universe ends at Andromeda. I was asking very generally. In a static universe, what is the CMB at all? Why is it at that frequency? Why are there non-homogeneities in it? I'd be interested in where ChatGPT got that idea, cautiously of course since ChatGPT sometimes just makes up false claims. The Andromeda galaxy is in our local cluster, and galaxies outside of our local cluster are "moving away" from us (in the standard interpretation) with such acceleration that they are unreachable.
When someone (like newton) says something like "time is constant" or (like Einstein) "lightspeed is constant" or "entropy increases" you have to pay attention to the context: axioms and assumptions and where the statement is being applied.
Have you seen the work of Paris Herouni whose researches showed no CMB?
The electrical and magnetic properties of free space would have to change to accommodate the VSL?
"Galaxies farther away are moving away faster" -- no... or at least, we can't assert that as fact, and it is in error that people do assert it as fact. All we can say is that "galaxies father away were moving away faster longer ago". People always forget about time, I don't know why, it's just as important as space.
For the main topic: a decreasing speed of light in a fixed size universe is the same thing as a fixed speed of light in an expanding universe... you're just changing your units of measurement, not the universe. The fact that your yard stick gets smaller means you fit more yard sticks between galaxies... so you do measure more space over time. Remember, all of physics is a model to predict observable measurements... so GR doesn't tell you that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, it tells you that your measurement of the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference... and this makes sense; if you halved the actual speed of light, all physical processes would also slow down as force changes would take longer to be felt, so your measurement of a second would take twice as long to occur, and thus the distance that light will have travelled in that second would be twice as far... cancelling out its reduced speed.
Of course, you do have to take into account the fact that the frequency of the wave is a product of the movement of electrons... moving electrons up and down a tall antenna will produce that light wave that moves up and down at the same rate. A faster speed of light will have effects within this local system, affecting the size or mass of atoms as exchanges within the atom occur faster or more often etc. There would have to be a whole load of structural changes within any system where forces hold the structure together and thus you do not get the same space expansion that you get between galaxies.
You also need the universe to "start" at some point, so that everywhere at that time starts with light at a speed that is the same everywhere... because we see the same amount of red shift in all directions, how did it "know" to be the same speed in all places (that we can see) at the same time without them having the same finite age? Etc etc.
Einstein may have been on the right track with VSL but then he fell off the rails. Gravity became a geometric formalism and no thought was invested into the photon-level physics and interaction with gravitons which have nothing to do with GR but which are routinely discussed as if they do. This lack of microphysical content in gravitational theory has rendered cosmology and astrophysics into a Ptolemaic time waste. It is also a widespread feature of astrophysics to use theory to interpret observations. This is a fundamental corruption since observations are supposed test theories. When theory becomes observation it is game over for progress. Dr. Unzicker is returning to the roots of physics and scientific analysis. He is exposing the epicycle nonsense dominating modern physics.
Thx, I couldn't agree more :-)
At the beginning of your presentation you indicated that Mach's principle can be attributed to a variable speed of light. However, you didn't indicate how. Can you elaborate on it?
There is a video in the same playlist.
It seems that the observation is the redshift. The assumption is that it is caused by recessional velocity. If this assumption was incorrect, Cosmology would collapse. But, It is an assumption. There is no other way of measuring recessional velocity.
I have heard the time dilation of exploding distant supernovae is used as proof of recessional velocity being caused by expansion.
The problem is that every time you measure speed of light, you get a constant and if there is a redshift regarfless the cause, you would get time dilation ib the observation. Thoughts
Thanks for moving the debate closer to (IMHO inevitably) the realisation simply that we cannot explain infinite concepts using finite means. Mathematics is a human construct. Cosmological phenomena are not, and this is why even mathematical genius as this (probably polymathic also) struggle to make sense of what we imagine to be reality. The search for explanation and resolution of reality is a noble and for many irresistible pursuit. Humans are uncomfortable with uncertainty, especially death all that is related to death and part of our unconscious conditioning and addictions. It seems obvious to me that notions of just one universe, or just one beginning, or of light, and what we sense via our brains and bodies (extending to the unknown level of the soul) being explicable, is all based on false premise. I love the maths and the challenges to past assumptions and the moving the debate on, but I wonder if a radically different approach might open possibilities to greater awareness and teachings of what reality actually is. Anyway thanks and love to all. Alan Chapman
If all matter is stationary at the cosmological scale, that would be consistent with a steady state universe. But what isn't are things like low metalicity in far distant stars but not near ones and the fact that things aren't infinitely old but there no new matter appearing to make new stars, etc.
Good points, but there is one simple shift in thought to address both points. What if red-shifted galaxies are not actually further way, but are just younger? Sure, this raises new questions but would answer both of your points. Also, I like new questions.
Halton Arp is most famous for this type of view, as he actually interpreted the evidence this way. He imagined parent galaxies ejecting red-shifted galaxies and even quasars, which also nicely explains away the problem of why quasars are so bright, that is because they're actually a lot closer than the dominant theory proposes.
As for the mechanism to explain the formation of new galaxies, there are many who simply propose using electromagnetism, converting energy to matter and then also transmuting that matter to heavier elements. The big bonus here is that we can then do away with inventing exotic new forces and matter, such as dark energy and dark matter, and instead just stick with what we already know is real, such as electromagnetism. So not having an expanding universe does away the need for dark energy. And dark matter used to explain the impossible rotation of galaxies can be replaced with EM powered galaxies. Even down to Earth things can be more simply explained, such as why we find veins of metal in the crust, which would then be seen as created in situ by large currents, like lightning just scaled up a bit. Seriously, I personally kinda view the dominant theory that these metals were created way longer ago, far, far, way in supernova as like saying aliens did it.
Anyway, there lots of alternatives. You just gotta go looking for them.
Using electron parameters and mass energy conversions, s^2 = kgm/A^2, s^2 = kgm^3/A^2s^2 and s^2 = kg/A^2m. If a kgm^3/A^2s^2 is multiplied by kg/A^2m it yields the numerical equivalent of a kgm/A^2 with an exponential difference of 1 x 10^-7. This calculation ignores the squaring of the second. Time is subject to size and mass and creates itself from the geometry of the area of space that is observed. When I say equivalent I mean numerically.
your equations are incorrect. thus, your sentence explanation needs to be longer....."time is subject...."..... mass energy conversions?....there are many...electron parameters? there are many...1 x 10^-7 numerically pops up everywhere.....its a gross outcome of unifieing "cgs" with "mks" systems, and if not that its the loose permeability constant
So was Fred Hoyle right? The universe is static? So can we test it? If Hubble was right and the universe is really expanding then, in the future the red shift of the galaxies etc. in Hubble's data set will have increased. But if the universe is largely static then we should measure the same red shifts as seen by Hubble. Or have I just not understood your argument?
No! This is not about a static universe. Light spreads, therefore the volume we see increases steadily...
@@TheMachian So there's no way to test the validity of your hypothesis? It's not falsifiable?
@@TheMachian The volume we SEE! I think, in the video, you said that the light spreads out but the matter doesn't. So is the matter, therefore, static?
By the way, I've just bought your book "Einstein's Lost Key". I need to know (understand) more.
Yes, matter is static.
I am all for trying alternative explanations. But just because you have an alternative explanation for a single observation, you don't topple Physics. You need a explanation that ticks off all the boxes. There are two main problems with the variable speed of light are i) the observation that Hubble pictures are too crisp and ii) Gravitational waves have the same speed in the vacuum as light.
i) means that there is no large scale effect in the universe that affects the frequencies and directions of light in a frequency dependent way.
ii) means that gravitational waves behave exactly like light when it comes to propagation. If the speed of light is variable, then so is the speed of Gravitation at exactly the same rate.
You assume several things I am not convinced of:
a) How is the speed of GW measured?
b) Maybe you are shocked, but I even doubt the existence of GW's itself : medium.com/@aunzicker/five-years-of-gravitational-waves-a-chronicle-of-strange-coincidences-7d22be19319d
There are open questions. From a natural pholosophy point of view, there is no reason why such different forms of waves should exist (GW and EM).
@@TheMachian The speed of GW was measured by observing a light impulse 1.5 seconds after a GW event that was determined to be a neutron star merger.
And doubting as such is of no avail. I also doubt your existence, so how would you prove otherwise? Doubting is fine as soon as it leads to some experiment which can serve as a judgement. Albert Einstein for instance was a great doubter of Quantum Mechanics. And thus he took the theory of Quantum Mechanics and invented lots of nifty ideas how to prove Quantum Mechanics possibly wrong. But just saying "I don't want" is cheap. Everyone can do that. Without an experimentum crucis, doubt is unproductive.
Redshift is best described by atomic density in space and within galaxies and quasars.
Redshift due to atomic density mimics redshift by Doppler. Redshift is an intrinsic property.
The evidence is that quasars start out as masses of neutrons, created within the relativistic jets of AGN, and as the neutrons decay into hydrogen the quasar blueshifts with age.
Also there is a vary sparse medium of hydrogen that pervades space causing a slight redshift, AKA the tired light model.
Does this lead to any testable predictions?
Like for example a decrease in frequency must mean that spectral lines are not where they used to be.How do I say this.. redshift is measured by the shift in certain spectral lines. But if there was a way to measure redshift apart from that, the line shift we measure should be double the redshift. Or not. But then is there ANY way to tell Expansion from C-change.
A variable speed of light is a conjecture that was rejected for good reasons in the past and cannot be directly proven by any known measurement or observations. Equivalently, it does not lead to a new predictive theory so far. It is however a long lived background idea that may someday help to solve some of the actual discrepancies that are not correctly accounted for in the standard model (or through new dark complications that ressemble Ptolemee epicycles).
The universe expands, just like all of us, babies, dogs, plants, trees, oranges, seeds, etc...
It is born, grows, consumes, reproduces, and then dies. Our universe, at some unimaginable scale, is itself, a living organism, living within a system of many others. The rabbit hole goes up and out just as far as it goes down and in.
Although I agree that the universe is not expanding I disagree with this (very interesting) VSL idea.
I think the real nature of light is still misunderstood and part of this is thinking that light is a wave of some kind. A much simpler interpretation is that light is particles only. Each particle (quanta) possesses a quantum of action of the Planck constant (h) and then the total energy (per ray of light) becomes: E = hf, with the frequency (f) simply being the number of particles per second (per ray). And, as you say, light spreads out (even a ray of light) so a light ray could "lose" a particle every 'r' ( with r being the radius - which is different for every ligh source - such that when r is doubled the intensity decreases by 1 quarter) which means it takes vast (intergalactic) distances for the frequency to reduce to a measurable redshift.
This is, simply, tired light and is a natural consequence of light teavelling vast distances so no expansion of "space" is required or has actually been measured.
Galactic redshift could also be caused by charged plasma gas (but not only by it), as apparently there is a phenomenon called `plasma redshift`. This plasma is found in the sun's corona and beyond, and in the galactic halo which surrounds all galaxies. So light has to pass through that plasma gas, which is millions of light years in size. And on the course of milliuon of years it will loose energy when traveling through charged plasma because it collides with electrons and there is an energy transfer. Since E=hf, a drop in energy is equivalent to a drop in frequency, which causes a redshift effect.
Thanks for your videos. I am trying to get my head around what you mean by light is spreading. Would not light be spreading everywhere in all directions? Is there an age to the universe? Or is it eternal? But then why is light still spreading? I'm probably not expressing myself well. There seeems to something very deep and fundamental about photons. Without them, the universe would be dead, in every sense, photons are literally light and life giving. What it all means, who knows, but thats why I watch videos like these, not that I understand much. Can you do a video on the big bang or lack of one? I would like to hear how VSL ties in with that.
Gravity causes redshift, universe is atleast 13.8 billion years old, if you take out cosmological redshift... You know how they say the universe is 93 billion light years across.. it's not. It's only 13.8 billion years across.
Tired light is a better alternative to variable light speed. It immediately follows from E=hf that if light looses energy its frequency drops and causes a redshift. But it does not follow from variable light speed, because c=lambda*f, but lambda is not a constant, so if c slows it doesnt necesarilly mean that the frequency will reduce too. The frequency will reduce only if the wavelenghth lambda remains constant, or increases.
Galactic redshift could also be caused by charged plasma gas (but not only by it), as apparently there is a phenomenon called `plasma redshift`. This plasma is found in the sun's corona and beyond, and in the galactic halo which surrounds all galaxies. So light has to pass through that plasma gas, which is millions of light years in size. And on the course of milliuon of years it will loose energy when traveling through charged plasma because it collides with electrons and there is an energy transfer. Since E=hf, a drop in energy is equivalent to a drop in frequency, which causes a redshift effect.
unziker, your VLS theory then what equation? c = c * ( 1 - G/kg)^2 ?
Dr. Unzicker, with reference to your article in Annalen der Physik 18 (2009) 57-70 page 5, my question regards this: (The cosmological redshift in Dicke’s proposal):
Citate:
‘Although all matter is at rest in this model there is a galactic red shift. With increasing ǫ [and decreasing c] , the photon emitted in the past has more energy than its present counterpart. This might be thought to cause a ”blue shift”. However, a photon loses energy at twice the rate of loss characteristic of an atom, hence there is a net shift toward the red. ([9], p. 374 right).
My question: what is ment with “its present counterpart”. Where can we find that photon? Where and what is the comparison?
Ko Tilman alias Radiofun232 on YT 14 August 2022
"The present counterpart" is a photon emitted from the same atom here and now. it's wavelength is shorter than the one emitted in the past.
@@TheMachian The only problem is (in my opinion) that it has no relevance and it cannot be proved. Anyway, thanks for coming back to me. 16 august 2022.
@@radiofun232 it has massive consequences for extrapolating the universes past and future from observations in the present.
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas I don't think so, sorry, the laws of physics are descriptive.
@@radiofun232 except we describe what we observe, then extrapolate to other times we have zero observation of with zero evidence the present description applies.
The horizon of what we see is not defined by the speed of light, but by the light that still arrives, being constantly dispersed, i.e. weakened and additionally absorbed by intersteller stuff... rememember: before we had the hubble-ultra-deep-field-image there seemed to be nothing but darkness, unless we discovered that there was still some very weak light i.e. many more galaxies... and there is light that either just doesn't make it or is too weak to be perceived... objections?
Interesting how as a layman I hypothesized the same thing many years ago when I first contemplated about Cosmological Redshift. I just didn't buy the Metric Expansion hypothesis because not only is it unfalsifiable (Space itself is unobservable) and therefore not Scientific, it is logically incoherent and self contradictory. A thing that is expanding UNIFORMLY as a WHOLE into nothing at all is LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT to something that is NOT EXPANDING AT ALL. It is TAUTOLOGICAL. Not to mention we have absolutely no reason to believe Space as a Whole is finite. What could possibly delineate a finitude to Space?
"The Principle of Conspansive Duality ... says that what appears as cosmic expansion from an interior (local) viewpoint appears as material and temporal contraction from a global viewpoint. Because metric concepts like "size" and "duration" are undefined with respect to the universe as a whole, the spacetime metric is defined strictly intrinsically, and the usual limit of cosmological regress, a pointlike cosmic singularity, becomes the closed spacetime algebra already identified as SCSPL." C.M.Langan (SPSCL = Self Configured Self Processing Language.)
Conspansive duality relates the logical equivalence of an expanding system with static-scaled content, and a static system with (virtually) contracting content. If we suppose the universe appears to "expand" at rate "C", then light from a bulb is motionless relative to the expanding edge, and the bulb may as well be modeled as "contracting". Contracting time scales = "rescaling" across time-space, explaining red shift, time frame dilation, dark matter & energy, and even favorable genome selection. CTMU for short.
Could the the Variable Speed of Light idea be explained by light being emergent with an uncertain future continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy? You say "matter in the Universe is on average at rest" a continuous geometrical process could form this concept with the speed of light c² and time t² both squared because of spherical 4π symmetry. I have been looking at the JWST deep field image and we have gravitational lensing based on spherical geometry. We can see that light waves have formed into photons relative to the spherical surface, the light from far distant galaxies forming red arcs. Could we have a infinite Universe in the shape of a sphere as long as the sphere is expanding? One set of calculation for the finite sphere another or the infinite process.
If 'C' is fixed from the moment a photon is emitted from its source, then it would stand up to reason that if the source is moving away from an observer at some fraction of the speed of light, then the wavelength (remaining constant and at 'C' velocity away from source) would appear "red-shifted" when it actually is hitting the observers eyes at 'C' less the speed the source is receding away. It can't be the case where two different calculations of 'C' can be true at the same time (one from the moving source's perspective and one from the observers perspective). This is a flawed assumption from the time it was suggested many decades ago. If one were to calculate the closing speeds of protons traveling in opposing directions at the LHC, then the math says they are closing at nearly 2(C), and yet according to historically accepted Einsteinian Science, nothing can "close" spatial gaps any faster than 'C'. This is a physical and mathematical conundrum.
Now hold on. You can observe two objects with a closing speed greater than c with respect to each other. That is NOT a violation of special relativity. You however, can never observe an object with a closing speed other than c with respect to YOU.
I know that I am 2 months behind but please can some body explain to me what I get wrong.
1) Red shift is lower frequency of the light photon?
2) The energy of a photon is directly related to its frequency?
3) Read shift is lower energy in the photon?
4) Light photons travel slower in a media like air, glass, water etc.?
5) Light does not change color going through a media.? Even if it does slightly that would only mean it looses a little energy.
6) We know that the speed of the light photon slows down in a media so of cause the speed of light is variable. What I believe is said is that the speed of light IN A VACUUM IS CONSTANT. The thing is that we also know that space isn't perfect vacuum so how can we say that the light photon coming from a far away star is constant?
7) Wouldn't we be better off by saying that there is a maximum speed limit like we have absolute zero temperature (Zero Kelvin) and the speed of light in vacuum may be (or is) the same as the maximum speed?
Very interesting video
You provide interesting information and articles
Thanks Alexander , excelent .
Variable speed of light is a well known refraction phenomenon. No one, including Einstein, has actually proved it can be caused by gravitation. The fact is light both curves and its speed and wave lenght decreases (or shifts to red) as it is refracted from one medium to another. According to Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is also the correct one, so why create new theories to explain the same thing.
The red-shifted light we see is very old, made at a time when the universe was expanding and is evidence of the big-bang. It does not tell us anything about the current expansion rate, if any, of the universe. The ancient objects that we see receding very quickly, from red-shifted light made a long time ago, may be now moving towards us. Looking at objects much closer to us may tell us more about any current universe expansion than looking at distant objects, which is simply old data.
Gravity! Gravity causes the "cosmological redshift"! Gravity stretch's space and the light wave travelling in it. That's why the lightwave is stretched both leaving and approaching mass/gravitational field. It is literally that simple.
This reminds me of an analogy where I pointed out that fiat currency cannot be used to value gold/silver or anything. Precisely because it is not fixed so cannot be used as a basis of mensuration.
Here we have light that is also non fixed being used as a unit of mensuration. Thats alchemy/magic for YOU.
I think it would've been nice to derive the hubble constant from these principles. This is a good qualitative explanation, but, well, Unzicker himself has said enough about how quantitative descriptions are superior.
Round about 10 years ago ViaVetoTV "Plasma-Versum" and myself "Die Realitätstheorie" presented a physical explanation for the red shift. The Doppler Interpretation is simply falsified by the non linear red shift, which means all the wavelength or frequencies of a distant source must be red shifted by a constant value, which is equivalent to the velocity gaining distance of the source, but this has not been shown.
The physical reason behind the observed fact of red shift is indeed the matter between the source and us. We detect red shift, because due to the interaction of light with the plasma and gaseous matter in the Universe, the energy is lowered, due to absorption. The effects are well known as for example Raman & Rayleigh Scattering, Stokes Shift etc.
I had a thought that light passing through spacetime with no gravity within millions if not billions of light years might cause it to red shift, spacetime expanded due to a lack of gravity. The CMB is easily explained as extremely red shifted light from very distant galaxies. We might find even more distant galaxies with light that has shifted into very faint radio waves. We could look for hydrogen spectrum lines in the microwaves of the CMB.
JWT has evidence of distant light passing through 2 hydrogen clouds leaving absorption spectrum lines within the red shift. The light left the galaxy was red shifted, it passed through hydrogen, was red shifted more, hit another cloud, was red shifted more and then hit the JWT mirrors. It's proof.
I didn't get why the ratio of the masses to the radius of the universe is decreasing when actually everything would be at rest. Or does just the observable part of the universe influence the speed of light?
Seems like this theory still requires a rate of expansion, it’s just referred to as the expansion of the horizon. Tired light was mentioned, but that sounds like a much different theory than this one. Tired light just hypothesizes that the ether, or free space, has a very slight attenuation effect on light.
I have long wondered at the change in understanding about "empty space", in the period of time between the invention of the expanding universe to the current day.
Specifically, when the theory was proposed, it was universally understood that "space" was entirely empty, a vacuum devoid of matter. Not just interstellar space, but even inside the heliosphere, between the earth and the sun.
Now, of course, we know better. We know the solar wind carries a huge number of atomic particles in its low density plasma emissions, and that even interstellar space appears to contain an abundance of gas clouds and low density plasma.
We also understand that the reason we see sunsets and sunrises in red hues is because the amount of atmospheric gas the sunlight must pass through at these times is significantly greater than at noon. We do not suppose that the red shift here is because the sun is moving away from the earth at extreme velocities at these times. We reason that more gas, more atomic matter present to absorb light, has the effect of absorbing more blue wave lengths than red, due to the size of the molecules and the wavelengths of light, and so more gas present between light sources causes red shift.
Now, if we know that gas clouds pop up in the interstellar medium all over the place, and that the heliosphere of stars is also awash with atomic nuclei in the form of low density plasma (solar wind), then it follows that the farther away a star is from earth, the more gas it has passed through on the way from there to here. That is to say, if gas clouds are spread around the place, the greater the distance you travel across the place, the more gas you must pass through. And thus, the more redshift you must experience, not because of expansion of space, but due only to the attenuation of blue frequencies by gas.
The thing is, either the light travelling from star to star goes through a bunch of gas or it doesn't. When the expending universe model was proposed, everyone said it doesn't. On account of space being empty, was the thing.
Now we say there are huge clouds of gas in the every which place, and probably more besides that. Everywhere we look, we behold great clouds of gas. In that empty space.
So, what's the deal? Does that gas cause red shift, as it does on earth, with the sunrise and the sunset?
If it must, then it does, and so we must expect red shift to increase with the distance traveled by light coming to us, and so we don't really have a basis for the expanding universe model.
One thing to note is that distant light passed through very clean space with zero matter interaction as they absorb, diffract and reflect the light - either way, it's not reaching Earth.. The light from distant stars had a clear path for the length of its entire journey. It has to be the (charge density / matter-energy elctro-positronic EM wave and gravity medium) sub-space field itself.. Think of space as a giant, close packed crystal of +ve charge balls bound by free-flowing, compressible, displace-able electro-gas..
--
Knock a cell free and you have an excess cell and excess -ve hole, both of which want to shoot their load to rebalance, while the rest of the field is pretty neatly close-packed and well balanced so doesn't want any excess charge, the fight causes an in-out vibration. These spherical positrons and electrons are the only stable permanent massive matter particles and make up protons and neutrons, thus everything bar unstable, high energy virtual particles (chunks and larger holes of subspace field) that rapidly decay into electrons and positrons..
--
This space is stretchy - the field cell (gap) size can vary, and indeed, electrons trap -1 base charge of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe, as does the positron when it pulls 1 cell''s worth away from the universe (that rapidly goes back to being close-packed, and once it's gone to the positron, it's gone (until the positron hits an electron so space can rebalance back to a close-packed crystal (great wave medium)..
--
The thing is, this model is compatible with both idea.. A loss of -ve electro-gas to matter means less to hold the universe together, so a Dark Gravity model is possible with an expansion wave from a Big Bang in effect in the past or ongoing, with a corresponding gradual shrink towards centres of gravity, then a steep density gradient with packed core around protons and neutrons.. .
--
Equally,there could simply be galaxies forming all over the universe that has always and will always be huge but finite and the same overall size - a giant ball of course (it's balls all the way up, all the way down, no pun intended much). In this case EVERYTHING slows down proportionally, conformally (like Dicke's view), all processes, while length contracts, in absolute terms, but locally all constants will measure the same no matter how dense the space as all measuring devices are effected too.
--
The idea is Red Shift is caused by the changing field (charge) density, entering and leaving galaxies. It's a statistical thing too due to relative homogeneity of the universe but in reality some light will have spread it's wavelength in time more than other light from the same distance depending on the number of galaxies entered and left (and their density / how close to stars it got, though it can't have got very close or it wouldn't have reached us).. The min, max and average density are all pretty close until the centres of massive bodies and focal points of particles.
So we look at the Andromeda galaxy and see it is larger than our own galaxy. Could this be because the atoms were larger when the light was emitted?
Photon traveled 13.2 billions light years to get to us , since photons are energy packets so why don't they loose energy during such a large journey?
Redshift: Why cant time just go slower, close to the big bang that cause the redshift ?
Same with Galaxy rotation curve: Time go faster in empty space, far away from the center of the galaxy.
We all know time slow down close to mass centers like black holes in the center of galaxies.
Stop it, you're making sense. 🤣If it made sense we don't need the gatekeepers, and we wouldn't have 27 gender biology and pick-a-pronoun sociology either. I'm blaming Physicists for all the riff raff, since they're so keen on taking all the credit.
Mach's matter madness. Newton said that it was absurd to believe that inanimate brute matter can communicate at a distance without an intermediary and when I consider the inverse square nature of all things electromagnetic, I am drawn to conclude that Mach's speculation is absurdist materialist reductionism. Infinite distance = infinitesimal effect.
It was Hubble's former assistant Halton Arp who first raised questions regarding Redshift being a purely Doppler Effect with his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, where he showed objects with vastly different redshift values attached or bridged by a band of energy and matter. It was his conclusion that at least some of the Redshift observed could be due to the age of the stellar object. Unfortunately, this was incomprehensible to the powers that be. For daring to challenge such a sacred cow, Arp was blackballed by the astronomical community and was denied telescope time and eventually had to leave the US for a position at the Max Planck Institute.
I met Arp there in 2007. Mindful gentleman. Yet, I do not think he was familiar with VSL and Einstein 1911.
In the hypothesis of a non expanding universe, in which I believe, the calculus of the speed of light would not be time-dependent.
You are definitely an independent thinker, no doubts about that but answer this question, can you throw light? This is discussed in, A Short Treatise on the Space Time Continuum by Piankh.
You mean redshift is explained by refraction. Because thats where einstein got his variable speed of light from. He didnt get it from any gravitation experiment afaik. He even says that the only known physical phenomenon that causes light to bend is refraction. And then he makes up another one, with no proof or experiment what so ever.
The universe doesn’t have a single age. It is both very young and very old depending where it is in the universe. The matter and energy in the universe didn’t make itself and doesn’t direct itself. When it was made and directed, as we see it is inside of us, is relative to our location and the amount of time has to be determined by an intelligent mind. The existence of the universe doesn’t depend on the universe since the energy and matter in the universe can’t make or direct themselves.
The macro effects of the change of speed of light as it enters glass either confirms the observation that light is slowed down by electric charge; therefore the Birkland currents that power the Cosmos redshift the light.
So, how much plasma is in the cosmos? Apparently most of the matter is plasma.
So all we know about the redshift is that it is redshifted.
We cannot use it to measure relative velocity.
Or,
Light has at least one undiscovered field that is macro in nature. (Credit Charles Hall.)
This macro field would interface with the Michaelson Morley instrument and produce the anomalous result obtained.
Einstein's 'Bent Nothingness' conjecture must be thrown out as it was based upon an false interpretation.
a much better explanation than using the hubble constant to suggest the universe acts differently the further it gets from our observation. thanks
It's squared, the exact way gravity is squared, like 9.8mps^²
@@dexter8705 i dont understand this response? gravity is an acceleration. i guess light slowing by 0.5mm/s/year is a deceleration but what has that to do with hubbles observation of redshift the further away you go.
@@chrisoakey9841 just means light is redshifted a certain amount over a certain distance and the value just keeps on being added on top the same as gravity is squared, the visible light spectrum starts at a wavelength 400nm (nanometres) and if you go all the way out the edge of the observable universe the wavelength of the CMB (cosmic microwave background) the wavelength is 1 metre and anything beyond is redshifted to oblivion beyond the 400m radio wave range. I'm saying the wavelength in the coarse of its travels across the universe it's being redshifted at a pretty consistent rate from (wavelength) 400nm-1m and more over 13.7 billion light year distance of the observable universe... Ya get it now?
@@dexter8705 or thee universe isn't expanding to the degree assumed, and the redshift is exponential due to light slowing over time. then we dont need all the common matter that we cant detect. instead of everything moving away from us which either puts us at the center of the universe, or somehow we influence the universe from billions of light years away, we assume light slowing causing more redshift the further it travels. now space doesn't need to expand faster than like. dark matter and energy virtually disappear and the galaxies are rotating more like our solar system, or our galaxy. some coming closer, some going away depending on the change. and further how the spectrum is stretched and compressed can tell us more about the journey. all for the low price of allowing the possibility that light slows down by 0.5mm/s/years. just like everything else slows down as it sheds energy.
and the reason the cmb timeframe doesn't fit is because it is based on needing the big bang, and empty space. the trouble is that new telescopes keep finding stuff in the 'dark spaces', and wee found galaxies too old and too far away.