I believe time is the independent sequencer for all systems. Time is NOT the reading of a cesium clock, which, I suggest, errs under acceleration by temporarily gaining mass. I submit that time has no “paths” or deviations, and is never a dependent variable. Furthermore, I submit that time sequences everything and cannot be a variable component of energy+matter.
I believe that the redshift we see in astronomical evidence is sometimes caused by local relative velocities but the overall redshift we see throughout space and over eons of time is caused by some other, as yet unknown, loss of energy as evidenced by highly-redshifted quasars associated with ejecta from galaxies with significantly less redshift. I speculate that this ubiquitous loss of electromagnetic energy might be caused by the presence of tritium in extremely hot or extremely low temperatures.
And I believe that the universe has been relatively stable during the 13 billion years and over the globe of energy+matter currently visible to us.
For proof, I offer the following:
In proven physics, so far, E=mc2. Nothing is destroyed without an equal amount of something else being created in the same location. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In proven physics, inequalities are relegated to boundary conditions and entropy only. There hasn’t yet been an observed physical or chemical reaction when energy+matter was increased or decreased. So far, matter+energy is continuously and contiguously stable. In chemistry, we have even stricter equalities: energyin = energyout, electronsin = electronsout, atomsin = atomsout.
We’ve never found any negative matter or particles that unite with another particle without giving off an equivalent amount of energy which exactly accounts for and takes the place of the mass destroyed. And we have convincing support for an absolute zero degree temperature, suggesting that negative energy does not exist in the real world, either.
This means that there is no known way to produce more or less of the stuff which makes up our Universe. The “relative speeds” we have postulated for the last 90 years by assuming that there was no other possible cause of the redshifts we see may be, for the most part, caused by something else; some other process which saps minute amounts of electomagnetic energy all over but more so in or near quasars.
Locally, redshifts are a function of movement, but the general loss of energy that has remained constant over the entire visible universe during the past 13 billion years has to be something besides an indication of relative speed.
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.
In presuming that there was a start at some time, in presuming the Universe had observable boundaries, and in presuming that we could figure out everything, we may have gotten too far into our imaginations and off the proven path that has made science so successful in the past three or four centuries.
I came to doubt theoretical physicists many years ago when my graduate school physics teacher told me that vectors are not reliable under relativistic circumstances but my physics laboratory demonstrated the many ways light energy interacts with its environment. One experiment in particular taught me to think of light as energy rather than as discrete photons. Two perpendicular polarizing filters blocked all light, but adding an intermediate filter at an intermediate angle allowed some light to pass through all three filters.
For at least 40 years, I’ve been convinced that theoretical physics went off track when they made three assumptions: that cesium clocks were always accurate; that the cosmological redshifts are entirely due to differences in relative velocity; and that the Universe doesn’t extend far past anything that we can see — that the Universe isn’t effectively infinite and what we can see with even the best telescopes is merely the visible Universe, a small part of the entire Universe where the light energy gets to us before all its energy is lost to this mysterious but ubiquitous phenomenon.
Recently, I’ve discovered other evidence against the theories of an expanding universe which has been suppressed by “peer review” that has fallen into the trap of these assumptions. The life work of Halton Arp exists and has been published, but remains mostly in obscurity due to the biases and blind spots of the cosmological community.
And I discovered the existence of the Lynx Supercluster, at least two fully-formed 3D clusters of galaxies as they were about 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. And there were massive galaxies and 3D clusters of galaxies in the opposite direction, indicating a well-formed Universe 13 billion years ago which was at least 26 billion light-years across. And this may be just the limits of visibility!
What I have come to postulate is 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. Whatever this process or family of processes is, it occurs much more frequently in or near quasars. There is no known physical process that supports this “expanding universe” theory. There is no matter going in the opposite direction to account for previous accelerations. The “echo” might be just the re-release of absorbed light energy.
I can see the possibility for many other processes to rob minute bits of energy over eons of time from distant starlight – and that’s what this phase shift of absorbed energy is, a tiny decrease in energy. Every book I read about this Big Bang Theory dismisses all other possible causes without much inquiry at all. I’m particularly interested in tritium, which is rare and very heavy hydrogen which might need a slight boost of energy at near absolute zero temperatures to turn into molecular hydrogen or another isotope of the most common and most elusive element out there.
Halton Arp’s Peculiar Galaxies appear to be associated with anomalous quasars that look and act like they are connected but have radically different redshifts. The Cosmological Community systematically blocked work at presenting Arp’s dissenting opinion.
And finally, of course, there’s Occam’s Razor. If we have to invent new dimensions and a bunch of new mathematics to make these theories work, maybe it’s time to reexamine our assumptions.
Maybe we got started on the wrong foot when we thought there was an “ether” when it was just residual molecules in random Brownian motion. Certainly the Michelson-Morley experiment went off track since a world-class expert in error theory got the speed of light in a vacuum wrong in all but one experiment.
Maybe time is ubiquitous. Maybe it doesn’t have “paths.” Maybe cesium atoms get slightly more massive and it affects their accuracy under relativistic influences. There are two interpretations of the famous experiments in 1957 and later using a difference in identical cesium clocks to “prove” aspects of the theory of relativity. One is that time has “paths.” and that time and distance distort so that cesium clocks are forever accurate. The other is that acceleration and deceleration effect a change in mass which alters the frequency of the clocks slightly. I’d also like to point out that for the first conjecture to be right, vectors cannot add reliably, so we already have to fudge mathematics to make those assumptions work out.
Maybe Halton Arp was right about quasars and they are much closer than their spectrum shifts would suggest. This would make their extreme energy far more realistic if nothing else. It might also be because they contain far too many neutrons and so have far more tritium than elsewhere … or some other substance that steals minute amounts of energy from starlight.
And, since we have clusters and superclusters in three-dimensional glory some 13.8 billion light-years away in all directions, it would seem that the Universe 13.8 billion years ago was individuated into superclusters (in 3-dimensions), clusters, galaxies, and solar systems in a full sphere that was AT LEAST 27.6 billion light-years across back then when it was supposedly just getting started.
And this Big Bang. What started it? What made all this happen? This is about as scientific as the stories in Genesis! It makes no sense. There’s no negative energy. When we get close to absolute zero degrees Kelvin, movement starts stopping. There’s no negative matter. And there’s no known way to increase the total energy+matter!
I don’t pretend to have the answers to all these questions, but I’ve convinced myself (and, I hope you) that there are reasons to doubt the stories spread by wise and learned men about how the Universe came into existence.
There are reasons to doubt the supposition that all phase shifts are caused, ubiquitously, by relative velocity which itself has no apparent cause. There may be chemical or physical phenomena or slight resistance to light energy as it travels across 75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles in 12,800,000,000 years. It’s even possible that light energy itself loses frequency (energy) over eons.
There are reasons to doubt conclusions that require us to throw out vector mathematics.
There are reasons to suspect a community which is receiving vast amounts of money and accolades while adding conjecture upon conjecture, supposition upon supposition with very little to show for their efforts over the last century.
There are reasons to look at the work of dissidents like Halton Arp and his own life spent in an honest effort to find the truth rather than cater to the united physics and cosmological community in their belief that they have left no stone unturned while dismissing evidence that refutes their findings.
When Sir Issac Newton came up with some extremely simple ideas in Principia Mathematica, they refuted centuries of perverted attempts at making sense of our solar system and ushered in an age of reason and growth. I believe that if we step back from our current Big Bang madness and get back to humility and science, we will find simpler, easier ways to explain intermediate phenomena while admitting our ignorance about the larger picture and our ultimate origins.
Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies by Halton Arp, 1987, published by Interstellar Media, 2153 Russell St., Berkeley, California 94705 — and my small blog about it
The Meaning of Relativity by Albert Einstein, Fifth Edition, 1956, published by MJF Books, New York City, NY 10023 — if you look for an unequal equation, you won’t find it as inequalities are limited to entropy and boundary conditions.
The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric J. Lerner, 1992, published by Vintage Books, New York City, NY
Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science by Halton Arp, 1998, published by Aperion, 4405 rue St-Dominique, Montreal, Quebec H2W 2B2 Canada
Space, Time, and Matter and the Falsity of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity by Kamen George Kamenov, 2008, published by Vantage Press, San Bernardino, California
I think it would be interesting to run a speed-of-light experiment in a low-pressure, high-speed wind tunnel. They’ve already run interference experiments in running water and moving air and found differences in phases, but running a straight shot with and against the flow might reveal results without the complication of eddies due to changing directions and the interference of diagonal mirrors.
I predict a difference in speeds close to twice the wind velocity with enough wind to make a difference and enough vacuum to not slow much.
©David N. Dodson, 2006-2020, Phoenix, AZ