(Another stab at cosmology, trying to explain the Universe)
In proven physics, so far, nothing is destroyed without an equal amount of something else being created in the same location. E=mc2: the energy created equals the mass destroyed and the mass created equals the energy used to create it. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Inequalities are relegated to boundary conditions and entropy only. In the totality of any well-defined, isolated system looked at from a singular location, there isn’t even any net acceleration because the vector F1 = m1 *the vector a1 = – F2 (a vector of exactly the same force in the exact opposite direction) = m2*a2 (a vector in this same exact opposite direction to F1 and a1). When the spacecraft is propelled forward, the propellant is propelled backwards with exactly the same force. When gravity tugs at a moving object, it also tugs at the source of that gravity with the same intensity. Proven physics says (so far) that matter+energy is contiguous and continuous over time given a singular, well-defined relative perspective. In chemistry, we have even stricter equalities: energyin = energyout , electronsin = electronsout , atomsin = atomsout .
When, in 1957, two identical clocks were made to show differing times, the physics community hailed this as showing something about time itself rather than indication that the accelerating and decelerating environment had an effect on one of the clocks. In my opinion, the experiment was flawed by assuming the accuracy of the test equipment.
Since time sequences successive equal, continuous, and contiguous, versions of equal amounts of energy plus matter (all matter being positive in mass but having discrete charges of positive and negative electrical energy) and since time is also a component of that energy and since we see atoms from all sorts of past relativistic histories still coordinated together; I conclude that time is unique, all-encompassing, and the unidirectional, monotonic sequencer of all events and NOT the reading on a cesium clock!
It appears to me that we live in a conservative universe that continuously and contiguously reconfigures the same mass+energy in sequence, with unknown origin and fate.
To further my argument, I offer the Lynx Supercluster, two fully-formed 3-dimensional clusters of galaxies as they were almost 13 billion years ago – stars fully-formed into galaxies with vast distances between them – and with the same general loss of energy at the same general relative distances that are ubiquitous and essentially unchanging over the entire detectable universe for the past 13 billion years. We have a fairly reliable distance between where the Lynx Supercluster was 12,900,000,000 years ago and where we are today and these two places are somewhere around 76,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles apart and were supposedly rushing apart back when the Lynx Supercluster was already fully-formed 12,900,000,000 years ago 12,900,000,000 light-years away from this location.
This sequence of events makes no sense to me and doesn’t follow any logical pattern I can think of.
If, on the other hand, we dismiss the part about the Lynx Supercluster’s relative velocity, it makes for a steadier, vaster, older, and more rational universe. Again, I refer back to the things we have learned about the laws of physics with which I began: constant energy+matter; total momentum conserved.
Furthermore, a rotational component of the Universe to keep it from falling back on itself could be extremely small or the Universe might be much larger and much older than the farthest distances we can see in looking back in time and out in space. Our Universe could be infinite or nearly infinite. Gosh. We don’t know. We may never know.
ENERGY LOSS: WEAK LIGHT THEORY
There is a general loss of electromagnetic energy which I see as unchanging both everywhere and over the 13 billion years of cosmic history visible to us. If we conclude that this is an indication of relative speed, we get this extremely odd picture of a universe that has been expanding at the same rate (somewhat like bread in a proofer but without any limits or loss of density) throughout its volume and its history and yet has had a relatively constant density and heat over this history – in all directions! This doesn’t match any of the science we know.
So I speculate that the energy loss is caused by a yet unknown process that saps tiny amounts of electromagnetic energy over vast distances and eons of time. I see no convincing evidence that the universe 13 billion years ago was much different than the universe today. There is no known physical process that supports this “expanding universe” theory. The “echo” might be just the re-release of the light energy absorbed by this yet-undetermined cause.
I’d also like to point out that our ability to measure light energy is limited by the discrete electrical charge and there may be subtle phenomena that we cannot yet detect.
When I was told in a graduate school physics class that vectors don’t add under certain relativistic conditions, it was impossible to convince me. How can a mathematical principle be wrong just so a certain physics postulate can be right? I went back to the original Michelson-Morley experiments and realized that they were NOT running these experiments in a true vacuum, but in a near vacuum, something quite different when it comes to electromagnetic energy. These precise experiments got test results that didn’t measure what they intended to measure because of a few parts per million of atmosphere left within the apparatus, ruining the accuracy of their results as clearly shown by the real speed of light in a vacuum, which misses all but one of their meticulously crafted probability boxes!
In a laboratory, we grad students saw all kinds of interactions between light energy and its environment.
One experiment in particular grabbed my attention. When one interrupted a light with two perpendicular polarizing filters, all the light was blocked, but when a third polarizing filter was added in the middle at an intermediate angle, a percentage of the light made its way through all three filters. This, in turn, had me looking at light as continuously re-emitting energy rather than as a wave or a particle!
From this new viewpoint, I saw the light from the distant source in a new way: as energy re-emitted at c relative to its new reference and matching its (relative) energy and waveform with a new relative frequency and direction.
SIMPLICITY AND ASSUMPTIONS
And then there’s Occam’s Razor. My explanation of cosmology is simpler to understand and requires no cute mathematical tricks as well as respecting vector mathematics. It synchronizes the universe rather than requiring it to coordinate events happening at different “speeds” at the same “time.” And, while Einstein’s suppositions have been around for a century, we’ve had to bend over backwards to explain what our space telescope has been revealing to us: a universe that is more difficult to “see” the farther back in time we go, but that had, even 12,900,000,000 years ago and 12,900,000,000 light-years away from our present position, a couple of three-dimensional clusters of galaxies separated by significant amounts of space!
Electromagnetic energy is clearly and significantly affected by its nearby environment. A “photon” is a concept created by our experimental results which rely on electrons to calculate and doesn’t accurately represent the experiment itself. The above polarizing filter didn’t work to block certain discrete “photons” and allow others to pass unmolested. It organized the available electromagnetic energy to conform to the presented environment. Thus, light effectively slows down and redirects its energy to preserve waveform and energy when encountering my polycarbonate eyeglasses and reflects back when encountering my mirror. It isn’t the same “photon.” It’s the same relative energy.
If this explanation is right, the universe we look at today may be just the visible universe, with the rest unknown and unknowable except for tiny traces of increasingly energetic light from beyond this boundary to our perception. This explanation, if sustained, would force us to (finally!) admit our ignorance about such weighty matters as the Creation and, once again, look up at the sky with awe at its size, immortality, and mysteries.
If this explanation is wrong, it will take more than the assertion that cesium clocks are always accurate and that a drop in light energy must be the Doppler effect, indicating relative speed, to convince me. Since almost all theoretical physicists use these assumptions, I need help in understanding the defects in my thinking untainted by them. I need someone to go beyond what they think they know and look at the old data with fresh eyes unclouded by past assumptions and speculations.
I can’t imagine this hasn’t been tried, but I suggest a simple experiment to test this theory. I expect different elapsed times for light to cross through a low-pressure, high-velocity flow of air working with and against the flow just as there were differing elapsed times through rapidly flowing water.
©David N. Dodson, October, 2019, Phoenix, AZ