Expanding Universe - Maybe not

[Robert Fritzius]

The expanding universe is based on the largely unspoken premise that electrical charge is a universal constant. However, as far as I know, that is an unverified assumption.

I have a web based article that, in addition to summarizing the major themes regarding missing mass, provides an alternate model for explaining cosmological redshifts wtih variations in electrical charge. The variable charge model is in parts 5 and 6 of the article.

Please see:
Cosmology's Missing Mass Problems
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/missmass.htm

An associated, earlier, article on the topic is:
Cosmological Redshift
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/cosmo_rs.htm

If the variable charge model holds water then the whole universe will be comprised strictly of the Milky Way galaxy. Other "galaxies" will revert to their early 1900's
status as local "spiral nebulae."


Bob Fritzius

[baudrunner]

The redder shifted the light the younger the source at the time of emission.

There's the clue. In the practical overview of creation, if the entire event from beginning to end is time-compressed then locally speaking it is but a passing phenomenon -- new at its periphery, old in the "WMAP Cold Spot". If creation simply peters out and everything in existence is ultimately returned to the ether of timelessness then conceivably everything around us and ourselves are shrinking all the time as we are passing slowly out of existence. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the mathematics corroborated this type of reality.

In all serious, you have contributed some briliant material regarding the ambiguity of the large red shift. When generalised into the framework of a Hilbert Space it should throw everything together into some kind of TOE.

[ThirdWorld]

The expanding universe is based on the largely unspoken premise that electrical charge is a universal constant. However, as far as I know, that is an unverified assumption.

*** I am still trying to sort out what is the actual question and its relevance to the quest to find the TOE in physics.

I would however agree that the discussion, being centered around important phenomena in physics, is most welcomed at this point.

With respect to electrical charge being a universal constant my view is that this is correct: time, space and energy are universal constants and charge is a characteristic of a UNOMA [photon particle] in my theory which is a particle made up of time, space and energy.

It follows that the UNOMA, and hence charge, is a universal constant: someone can represent what I have said here in correct math terms. That is that a UNOMA is a function of [T, L, and M or energy] and T, L, and M are universal constants => UNOMA [or charge] is a universal constant.



With respect to the question "why it's expanding, and
more importantly, why the expansion appears to be accelerating...?"

This seems more of a math question than a physics one in my view from my preliminary considerations: if more details about the question are presented then I might say differently.

I am not an astronomer but a theoretical scientist, so I can only take it for granted that the universe is in fact expanding according to those who have actually looked through their instruments.

I actually view it as very believable that the universe started as, or at some time experienced, the Big Bang and small replicas of this event are seen from the manner in which black holes develop into planets and solar systems in my view.

Briefly, if you take an object say a 100 kg steel ball, and suddenly remove all orbiting electrons, then all the remaining nuclei will pull together and the sphere will implode into a miniature black hole.

After the nuclei collide at the center of the implosion they [or more accurately the UNOMAS from which they are made] will bounce off each other so that the entire mass will begin to expand or explode giving off energetic UNOMAS as EMR until the mass re-cools and reforms an object of reduced mass.

Now this is only an illustration of what is theoretical possible because with a mass as small as a 100 kg object the gravity field produced is hardly expected to be large enough to prevent the entire thing from decaying into photons.

Now, I have been very long winded here but back to the question, the universe is expanding in my view because it has gone through and is going through the same processes the steel ball I described above went through.

The particles or objects formed in the process [planets etc in the case of the universe] will all be moving outward radial with constant velocity once they escape the gravity field of the overall mass of matter/ object.

I earlier mentioned that the problem was a math problem: it can easily be shown by any math student that the surface area of a sphere, whose radius is increasing at a constant rate, will increase at a constantly increasing rate since the surface area of the sphere is proportional to r^2.

I would think the astronomers are effectively looking at the surface of a sphere when they peep thru their telescopes and are seeing the rate of increase of area of that sphere which, as I have explained, can be shown mathematically to be increasing at increasing rate for constant rate of increase in radius of that sphere.

I'll leave it here for now until I get comments from other participants.

Roger

[Robert Fritzius]

***

>Snip.

With respect to the question "why it's expanding, and more importantly, why the expansion appears to be accelerating...?"

This seems more of a math question than a physics one in my view from my preliminary considerations: if more details about the question are presented then I might say differently.

>Snip

Briefly, if you take an object say a 100 kg steel ball, and suddenly remove all orbiting electrons, then all the remaining nuclei will pull together and the sphere will implode into a miniature black hole. . . .

I think you might be stuck with a physics problem. The nuclei, sans electron clouds, will repel one another. There would be an explosion instead of an implosion.

Can you work out a satisfactory outcome without the black hole?

Bob

[ThirdWorld]

I think you might be stuck with a physics problem. The nuclei, sans electron clouds, will repel one another. There would be an explosion instead of an implosion.

*** From my point of view as a theoretical physicist this conclusion you make is somewhat elementary: my argument is that positives do attract each other as I explained in other posts as is evidenced also by the fact that protons bind together as well as atoms that are of the same [positive] electrostatic charge.

I can even further draw support from experiments done by one scientist, Mr Hutchinson [and this is not an endorsement of that person as a scientist but an endorsement of the revelations of his experiments].

He allegedly [videos shown] successfully got metal to cold melt and water to shrink: when the metal is charged with a high negative charge its atoms begin to repel each other and to move apart. This results in expansion or 'melting' of the metal into a liquid and it becomes like mercury.

Conversely, when water is charged positively, the removal of electrons causes its atoms to pull more strongly together and the water shrinks. If this process is continued, according to my theory also, the water will completely implode as I suggested in my earlier post.

Can you work out a satisfactory outcome without the black hole?

*** The introduction of idea of the black hole was only incidental to my argument above and it was introduced to explain why the universe should be expanding at all. With or without the black hole however the arguments still stand.

Having given further thought to the topic last night it came to my mind that the increased rate of expansion of the universe witnessed by astronomers may not be only an increased rate of expansion in area that results from constant velocity of celestial objects. Something much more interesting might be going on there.

I said in a different place that the universe is constantly changing between positive and negative electrostatic states many times [of the order of 10^26 times] per second but that the net charge is positive.

What my theory of the UNOMA also predicts is that the range of the negative field of an object, and hence the universe, is greater that the range of its positive field. This means that the range of the field of an object of size 1 cm say during its positive phase might be say 100 cm whereas the range of the field during its negative phase might be 110 cm.

This has important implications to the phenomenon of the expansion of the universe: if planets are actually accelerating away from a point then according to my theory they must be in the repulsive zone of the universe, and I trust you can understand my point of view.

I can further extrapolate from my theory to predict that the center of the universe, depending on the universe's stage of development, could be an imploding black hole.

Astronomers, if they have not already done so, would be advised therefore to identify the largest black holes and consider/investigate them as the probable center of the universe.

Roger

[Robert Fritzius]

*** From my point of view as a theoretical physicist this conclusion you make is somewhat elementary: my argument is that positives do attract each other as I explained in other posts as is evidenced also by the fact that protons bind together as well as atoms that are of the same [positive] electrostatic charge.

Elementary is a very good place to start. In your theory what is the half life of proton pairs (di-protons)? The reason I ask is beause the last time I checked, di-protons were so short-lived (if they exist at all) that they don't have a published half life.

Please see: The EAS Nuclear Glue
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/strong.htm


>Snip

I said in a different place that the universe is constantly changing between positive and negative electrostatic states many times [of the order of 10^26 times] per second but that the net charge is positive. Roger

Is there some way to falsify this?

My physics runs out of "poop" at around 10exp22 Hz. I calculate that to be the approximate orbital frequency of electrons orbiting protons to form neutrons. (Back in the 1920s it was OK to talk about nuclear electrons and I think a regression to that viewpoint is in order.)

For more on the nuclear electrons orbiting protons at about 10exp22 Hz, please see:

Neutron Beta Decay
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/weak.htm

>Snip

Bob

[ThirdWorld]

Elementary is a very good place to start. In your theory what is the half life of proton pairs (di-protons)? The reason I ask is because the last time I checked, di-protons were so short-lived (if they exist at all) that they don't have a published half life.

*** In my theory there is no difference between protons and neutrons: if here are in fact nuclear 'particles' that carry no charge as the neutron is held to be then my theory will interpret neutrons as hydrogen atoms, the orbiting electrons being responsible for the 'neutralizing' of its charge.

It therefore follows that deuterium, comprising a proton + neutron nucleus, is the di-protons of which you speak.

Having said this I will elaborate by saying that no amount of nuclear particles [ie protons] would be safe without the protection of an electron cloud: bombardment by or interaction with other particles in the air will soon lead either to their demise or to their transformation into atoms of some element. So indeed radioactive decay of a nuclear particle is affected by its exposure to the environment which will result in "proton pairs" either decaying or becoming deuterium.

Roger

[ThirdWorld]

My physics runs out of "poop" at around 10exp22 Hz.

*** You are correct, I pulled the 10^26 figure out of my head but when I rechecked the text I have been consulting it does say 10^22: I really don't know where I got the 10^26 figure from.

I calculate that to be the approximate orbital frequency of electrons orbiting protons to form neutrons.

*** I browsed through this post earlier but I didn't notice you were referring to "electrons orbiting protons to form neutrons". This agrees with what my theory would predict as I mentioned above. At least we seem to be sitting in the same class on this one.

With respect to the frequency with which the electrostatic state of the universe changes, the figure represents the highest frequency of a gamma photon and according to my theory the fundamental particle of physics is a UNOMA which is such a gamma photon particle at rest.

Some texts give a figure of 10^23 and upwards for the highest frequency. All matter has this fundamental frequency, the other frequencies of EMR are superimposed on this fundamental and they [the other frequencies] give the characteristics of the EMR ie visible light etc.

Finally, the orbit period of an electron must be an integral number of the fundamental frequency for electrovalent materials so you are also correct that the fundamental frequency CAN be equal to the period of orbit of an electron about a proton.

For covalent materials the electron's orbit must be an integral number of half the fundamental frequency.

(Back in the 1920s it was OK to talk about nuclear electrons and I think a regression to that viewpoint is in order.)

*** It might be but only if neutrons are indeed neutral. I see no real logic or science in the attempts made to have a so called electrostatic balance between the nuclear charge and the electron cloud. It is actually nonsensical in my view to affirm that there is such a balance because the charge of a proton is actually over 3000 times the charge of an electron. There is therefore no need for making neutrons neutral in a theory to balance some electrostatic equation.

Having said this it will be interesting to me to find out what the relevance of this alleged electrostatic balance actually represents since indeed it seems to be related to some reality of matter that is made use of in chemistry.

Roger