Suggestions for the ACG Newsletter

[MJoseph315]

When will we get a new Newsletter? We haven’t gotten one since 2024…

[RedshiftDrift]

There's one coming soon. These past two years have been tough on me, on my health, and with a few rejected papers. But I have plenty of material for the next newsletters including a list compiled by Mike Helland on galaxy formation problems...

"The ACG Newsletter highlights observational results that are anomalous in terms of the Big Bang paradigm."

Suggestions are welcome. Post them here in this conversation!

[MJoseph315]

I’m very sorry to hear that Louis. If you don’t mind me asking, what happened? Why did your papers get rejected and what went wrong with your health?

[RedshiftDrift]

@MJoseph315 I made the mistake to submit my last three papers to astronomy journals. STz redshift is now a non-relativistic fully quantized calculation, so it predicts many astrophysical phenomena but is not advanced enough to accurately describe the CMB (a relativistic version of STz is needed for that). My papers were rejected because reviewers expect a fully completed cosmology, "STz is obviously wrong since it can't predict the CMB."

---

Pneumonia & stress triggered an hemolytic anemia. I've been improving slowly since then, but a brain with more oxygen works faster! 😉

[HanDeBruijn]

@RedshiftDrift writes:

not advanced enough to accurately describe the CMB (a relativistic version of STz is needed for that).

How can people be so sure that relativity is a panacea for anything?
And by the way, I have always thought that Quantum ElectroDynamics IS already - by definition - relativistically invariant.

My papers were rejected because reviewers expect a fully completed cosmology,

Take the advice by Goethe: In die Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister.
With other words: showing some restraint (and cutting into pieces) would help.

a brain with more oxygen works faster!

Let them drill a few holes in your skull, like they did to me after I fell, though not in the bathtub.🤕

[Francois-Zinserling]

I was just wondering where to post this and still not sure if this is the right discussion, but I grappled with a GR vs ΛCDM paradox this morning.

It is difficult to refute the claim that cosmic expansion cannot overcome atomic and molecular forces. The expansion is too weak and too slow. So even if one suspects this argument is flawed, it cannot be easily disproven. The same 'slow' can be argued to not rip apart a gravitational bound system.

But the 'slow expansion of space' is also changing the properties of space, upon which GR is built.

The same defense fails for gravitationally bound systems. A star, a galaxy, or even a galaxy cluster is held together by gravity, which, in General Relativity, is the spacetime metric. If space expands, the metric must expand, and gravity must change accordingly. This is not a question of forces overcoming expansion, it is a question of the very fabric of spacetime evolving. Since space and therefore spacetime itself permeates matter (stars, galaxies...) it (spacetime) must also expand. The 'too weak' argument then fails over a cosmic time period.

Reminder that ΛCDM does not say that 'space does not expand within matter'; it merely states that expansion is too weak to pull local forces apart, thereby acknowledging that all space expands. For ΛCDM to deny that space expands within systems, would be tantamount to saying 'gravity is keeping space together'; a logical fallacy.

Over billions of years, space has expanded by a factor of $$(1+z)$$ since recombination. A primordial cubic meter of spacetime has grown to a cube of $$(1+z)^3$$ cubic meters today. This expansion must have altered the local properties of spacetime — its curvature, its energy density, and its coupling to matter, even within stars, galaxies, and clusters. Yet no such changes are observed. Gravity today appears to behave identically to gravity billions of years ago. The ΛCDM response — that expansion does not affect bound systems — is a logical convenience, not a physical mechanism. If a cubic meter of spacetime has grown, but the matter within it has not expanded at all, the metric must show signs of this tension.

The FLRW metric:
$$ds^2=−c^2dt^2+a(t)^2(dr^2+r^2dΩ^2)$$

In flat space c=s/t must remain constant. In vicinity of matter it requires that the local metric evolve with a(t). An expanding 'flat space' requires s to change to give redshift, but then t must also change for c to remain constant. All clocks would be affected. ΛCDM would refute this by saying all clocks are within bound systems, and we are back where we started.

However, if a(t) has also changed by a factor of $$10^3$$ since recombination (or insert your own favorite value for z into $$(1+z)^3$$), then local spacetime properties (within bound systems) must have changed by a corresponding amount. Since no such changes are observed in the gravitational behavior of stars, galaxies, or clusters, the hypothesis of expanding space must be refuted — or at least recognized as a logical paradox that conflicts GR with ΛCDM. Since ΛCDM is built on GR, this paradox cannot remain unresolved.

The claim that bound systems are exempt from expansion is logically circular: it asserts that the metric does not apply inside bound systems, which contradicts the very definition of spacetime. Since it is agreed that bound systems do not expand, it must be concluded the metric does not expand. The only coherent resolution is that redshift is not a metric effect.

[Francois-Zinserling]

Oooff! Keep going @HanDeBruijn. I agree with the exponenial but still working on my own version of it.
Do you have a fundamental equation for VM that is based on distance (or time) and not include $$H_0$$?

My own version (work in progress)
$$1+z=e^τ$$ , where $$τ=∫κρ(x)dx$$ from 0-d
$$κρ(x)dx$$ is the cumulative optical depth. For nearby sources $$(τ≪1)$$ , a Taylor simplification reduces to the Hubble law $$z≈κρ_0d$$ , with $$H_0=κρ_0c$$. The integral can be avoided if homegeneity is certain.

For distant sources, the full exponential form must be used. This implies there is an eventual optic horison. (Opposite of Olber's paradox, or a solution thereto). Same would apply for your exponential, I think.
​
τ (Tau – Optical Depth)
The cumulative attenuation of the flux along a path, defined by the integral of the opacity over density and distance.

κ (Kappa – Opacity)
The effective cross-section per unit mass for the interaction of photons with matter or the aether.

ρ (Rho – Density)
The local mass density of matter or aether constituents that contributes to the attenuation of the flux.

[HanDeBruijn]

An interesting quote from Estimations of Total Mass and Energy of the Observable Universe follows.

The recent astronomical observations indicate that the expanding universe is homogeneous, isotropic and asymptotically flat. The Euclidean geometry of the universe enables to determine the total gravitational and kinetic energy of the universe by Newtonian gravity in a flat space. By dimensional analysis, we have found the mass of the universe close to the Hoyle-Carvalho formula $M\sim c^3/(GH)$. This value is independent from the cosmological model and infers a size (radius) of the universe close to [or two times the] Hubble distance. [ .. ] Both, the total gravitational and kinetic energies of the universe have been determined in relation to an observer at an arbitrary location. The relativistic calculations for total kinetic energy have been made and the dark energy has been excluded from calculations. The total mechanical energy of the universe has been found close to zero, which is a remarkable result. This result supports the conjecture that the gravitational energy of the universe is approximately balanced with its kinetic energy [ .. ]

According to (our version of) the Variable Mass theory the Hoyle-Carvalho formula is recovered if we replace our beloved constant $W=3.383634283$ by a much simpler value, namely

$$ M_O = \frac{Wc^3}{2GH} \quad \mbox{with} \quad W=2 $$

Same story for the integral gives

$$ II = \int_0^{W=2} e^{4x}x^2dx = e^{4\times 2}\left(\frac{1}{4}2^2-\frac{1}{8}2+\frac{1}{32}\right)-\frac{1}{32} = \frac{25}{32}e^8 $$

Then a miracle happens (silently employing the Hubble tension).

W := 2;
H := 67; # CMB
# ..
# Rest as before
# ..
Theta_0 := evalf(Theta_0);

And the outcome is $\large \Theta_0 \approx 2.9098 \mbox{ K} \approx 2.7255 \mbox{ K}$ for the CMB temperature here and now. But there is more ..

x = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 } ; y = { 0.0 , 0.1 , 0.2 , 0.3 , 0.4 , 0.5 } .
It is seen in the picture that $x\approx 2$ corresponds with the ΛCDM value for the radius of the Observable universe. Analytically:

$$ f(x) = \frac{2-e^{-x}(x^2+2x+2)}{x} = \frac{1}{3} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad x = 2.096433787 \approx 2 $$

where $f(x)$ is the Observability function as defined by formula (8) in #377.
The quantity $R_O=x.c/H\approx (2/H).c = A.c$ corresponds with the "age" of the VM universe times light speed.

Coincidence, or conspiracy, or neither, or both? Anyway the above seems closer to the CMB model by @ExpEarth than ever.

[HanDeBruijn]

By the way, @ExpEarth , your thread #127 seems to be gone. Where is it?

[RedshiftDrift]

@HanDeBruijn Thanks for pointing this out.
@ExpEarth There seems to be a part of the discussion that is corrupt...
See notification #389

[HanDeBruijn]

For me, here and now, the interesting part in discussion #127 is given in the text as saved in notification #389 :

In my model the temperature of the CMB varies from a maximum value of 29 K near the rim of the visible universe to a value of 2.7 K at our position.

Our own calculations "near the rim" follow. Make a choice between once or twice the Hubble distance.

$$ R_O = \frac{c}{H} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad 1+z = e^{(H/c)(c/H)} = e \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \Theta = \Theta_0 (1+z) = 2.725\times 2.718 = 7.407 \mbox{ K} $$

$$ R_O = 2\frac{c}{H} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad 1+z = e^{(H/c)2(c/H)} = e^2 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \Theta = \Theta_0 (1+z) = 2.725\times 7.389 = 20.135 \mbox{ K} $$

where $R_O=$ radius of Observable (visible) universe, $c=$ speed of light in empty space, $H=$ Hubble parameter (with tension eventually), $z=$ cosmological redshift, $\Theta=$ CMB temperature, $\Theta_0=$ same here and now.

Update

It turns out that the outcomes are extremely sensitive to the precise value of W. If we take W=2.096433787 (for ΛCDM) instead of W=2 then the outcome is $\Theta_0 \approx 2.6041 \mbox{ K}$ instead of $\approx 2.9098 \mbox{ K}$ for the CMB temperature here and now. And the CMB temperature near the rim becomes $\approx 22\mbox{ K}$ instead of $\approx 20\mbox{ K}$.

But if we employ the Hubble tension and use H=73.4 km/s/Mpc (: Riess) together with W=2.096433787 (: ΛCDM ⊂ VM) then the outcome is Θ₀ = 2.725 K , which accurately equals the empirical value !!