Thread: An alternative hypothesis to explain 'the expanding universe'...

I derived from the principle of relativity for being in different fields of gravity:

The laws of physics must be exactly the same in his referenceframe, wherever the observer is.
Therefore, the observer measures space- and timedistortions elsewhere.

For example, the observer in a very fast spaceship near the speed of light, will have a normal idea of time. He will also observe normal properties of space. Nothing is shrinking, dilating, stretching. Because the laws of physics must be the same, wherever he is. (in every frame of reference)
Therefore, he will measure lengthcontractions and timedilations elsewhere.



Do you see the resemblance for observers in different fields of gravity?

Our clock is dilating here on Earth relative to clocks of hypothetical aliens in the voids of space. (without matter).

But according to us, our time flows as usual and we do not measure spaceshrinks at all. Nothing wrong with time and space in our coördinatesystem. Because the laws of physics must work as usual. Therefore, the timeflow of thé aliens is stretching relative to our clocks. And their space is expanding according to the observers here on Earth, relative to their ideas of space.

An observer cannot afford himself space- and timedistortions in his own referenceframe, because the laws of physics must work exactly the same. So, he will project space- and timedistortions elsewhere.

So, the existing observer, is the backbone of the coördinatesystem.
And wherever he is, the laws of physics work properly. No spaceshrinks or timestretches.

When he is repositioning himself, his observations of space- and timedistortions elsewhere are repositioning themselves too.

His normal ticking clock and normal spatial observations in his coördinatesystem, are the norm for observing distortions of space and time elsewhere.

So, when you are in a void region of space, where 'the universe is expanding very fast", you will not observe such an expansion of space, because of the principle of relativity: the laws of physics must be the same for you, wherever you are.

I do not know wether my idea is true or false, but I want to give it to scientists to think about it.
And on a discussion forum, I can confront it with scientific knowledge and falsify it.

I'm not a scientist, but a thinker/philosopher. And I began with the question: how do we observer time and space. And I ended with the idea, that the observer (measuring device, human being, animal) is the backbone of the coördinatesystem.



Maarten Vergucht
thinking about the question:"how do we observe space and time?"

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I derived from the principle of relativity for being in different fields of gravity:

The laws of physics must be exactly the same in his referenceframe, wherever the observer is.

You cannot derive this from relativity as it is one of the axioms the theory is based on.

For example, the observer in a very fast spaceship near the speed of light, will have a normal idea of time. He will also observe normal properties of space. Nothing is shrinking, dilating, stretching. Because the laws of physics must be the same, wherever he is. (in every frame of reference)
Therefore, he will measure lengthcontractions and timedilations elsewhere.

That is pretty much what relativity says, yes.

Our clock is dilating here on Earth relative to clocks of hypothetical aliens in the voids of space. (without matter).

Correct.

So, the existing observer, is the backbone of the coördinatesystem.
And wherever he is, the laws of physics work properly. No spaceshrinks or timestretches.

Yes. Again, this is just an axiom of relativity.

So, when you are in a void region of space, where 'the universe is expanding very fast", you will not observe such an expansion of space, because of the principle of relativity: the laws of physics must be the same for you, wherever you are.

Er, not sure about that... As far as I know, everyone will see expansion (on cosmological scales). But they may measure it slightly differently in their local coordinate system.

I do not know wether my idea is true or false, but I want to give it to scientists to think about it.

It appears to be trivially true (axiomatic). But maybe I am missing something.

thinking about the question:"how do we observe space and time?"

Relatively.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

And I ended with the idea, that the observer (measuring device, human being, animal) is the backbone of the coördinatesystem.

Do you suppose nuclear processes, chemical reactions and the like take place "at the normal rate" from their "own frame of reference"?
In which case humans/ animals aren't required as the "backbone" and the term "measuring device" becomes somewhat nebulous.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I derived from the principle of relativity for being in different fields of gravity:

The laws of physics must be exactly the same in his referenceframe, wherever the observer is.
Therefore, the observer measures space- and timedistortions elsewhere.

For example, the observer in a very fast spaceship near the speed of light, will have a normal idea of time. He will also observe normal properties of space. Nothing is shrinking, dilating, stretching. Because the laws of physics must be the same, wherever he is. (in every frame of reference)
Therefore, he will measure lengthcontractions and timedilations elsewhere.



Do you see the resemblance for observers in different fields of gravity?

Our clock is dilating here on Earth relative to clocks of hypothetical aliens in the voids of space. (without matter).

But according to us, our time flows as usual and we do not measure spaceshrinks at all. Nothing wrong with time and space in our coördinatesystem. Because the laws of physics must work as usual. Therefore, the timeflow of thé aliens is stretching relative to our clocks. And their space is expanding according to the observers here on Earth, relative to their ideas of space.

An observer cannot afford himself space- and timedistortions in his own referenceframe, because the laws of physics must work exactly the same. So, he will project space- and timedistortions elsewhere.

So, the existing observer, is the backbone of the coördinatesystem.
And wherever he is, the laws of physics work properly. No spaceshrinks or timestretches.

When he is repositioning himself, his observations of space- and timedistortions elsewhere are repositioning themselves too.

His normal ticking clock and normal spatial observations in his coördinatesystem, are the norm for observing distortions of space and time elsewhere.

So, when you are in a void region of space, where 'the universe is expanding very fast", you will not observe such an expansion of space, because of the principle of relativity: the laws of physics must be the same for you, wherever you are.

I do not know wether my idea is true or false, but I want to give it to scientists to think about it.
And on a discussion forum, I can confront it with scientific knowledge and falsify it.

I'm not a scientist, but a thinker/philosopher. And I began with the question: how do we observer time and space. And I ended with the idea, that the observer (measuring device, human being, animal) is the backbone of the coördinatesystem.



Maarten Vergucht
thinking about the question:"how do we observe space and time?"

You just posted the same thing here and you just got shut down here.

Oh, he's posting it everywhere. Quantity, not quality, that's the thing.

Originally Posted by Strange

Oh, he's posting it everywhere. Quantity, not quality, that's the thing.

spamming.

~ Please explain the hostile reaction I am seeing ? Yes, he posted the idea across several forums.

So he invites comment and a better understanding. Why the hostile reactions.. I just looked at the 'cosmo-quest' site...

You would think he broke a unwritten rule.. He is, as I see it just putting a idea on the table..

and most of what he has said is just about right.. ( but not all )

Do 'YOU' not want this to be a discussion bd forum.. I am so up front it worries some I know... but.

I can look anyone in the eye and say. " I do not agree." and on that I will comment;

That the reference frame of observation is part of the very system we wish to observe.

Making it hard to pin down observed motion by that fact as we are all in some rate of motion.

That we pin Dark energy as a significant component part of all the known mater and hold it out as a reason for accelerating expansion.

I have never been content with my understanding of this subject. Discussions such as this help our understandings..

'Martens100' might not understand as some of you do.. then help him see it clear...

Originally Posted by astromark

~ Please explain the hostile reaction I am seeing ? Yes, he posted the idea across several forums.

Sorry, my comment was just mean to be a little bit of a joke. Probably not very funny, but I will add a to it ...

(I have provided him various serious answers of different forums.)

I have a final theory about our observations of 'expansion of space', but I want to mention this first:
This article shows that the 'universe might not expand at all' and that our observations of space and time are just relative observations.

(Phys.org) —Cosmologist Christof Wetterich of the University of Heidelberg has uploaded a paper to the arXiv server in which he claims it's possible that the theory of expansion of the universe might be incorrect. He suggests instead that the redshift observed by researchers here on Earth might be caused by an increase in the mass in the universe.
For nearly a century, the consensus among astrophysics has been that the universe started with a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. This hypothesis formed because researchers found that in analyzing the light emitted from stars, a redshift occurred—where its frequency changes as an object that emits light moves away from us. But Wetterich says the redshift might me due to something else—an increase in the total mass in the universe.

---

People, I do not send my idea to scientific magazines, because I don't think they will accept my idea. I do want to post it here, because I believe in the mission of JREF.

But I honestly believe that I have a good alternative to explain the observed expansion of space.

Please give it a change.

The observed velocity-distance-relationship is due to an unobservable gravitational timestretch/distance relationship.

The observed velocity of recession of galaxies, proportional to their distance (Hubble) is an observation of expanding space, because of an invisible timestretch relative to our clocks due to a weaker and weaker gravitational attraction between these receding galaxies, further and further away from each other. The gravitational timedilation is becoming less weaker, when galaxies are further from each other, then when they are close to each other. We can call this ‘gravitational timestretch’ of imaginary clocks in the empty regions between them.
So, the observed velocity-distance relationship is also a field of gravity-distance relationship.

It’s crucial to mention that the empty region of space must be of remote galaxies, because locally, we always measure normal properties of time and normal properties of space. In our own referenceframe, all laws of physics are as usual. (relativity principle). The difference in timeflow is small.

We can say, that there is a stronger field of gravity between two remote galaxies closer to each other then between remote galaxies further away from each other.
Therefore, we know that the empty space between galaxies closer to each other have a slower timeflow then galaxies further away from eachother.

We are part of Earth, a solarsystem, a galaxy with a black hole in the centre of it, the Virgo cluster and the Local Group.
The gravity of these objects are slowing down our clocks, relative to clocks in the empty regions of space without matter. But to us, our time is ticking as usual, wherever we are. And our space doesn’t seem to be distorted.

conclusion
The observed space-distortion is due to the difference between clocks on Earth and the invisible clocks in empty space between remote galaxies because of the difference in gravitational timedistortion. If the timeflow between remote galaxies or stars is faster than our clock, we see a space-expansion, when the timeflow between remote galaxies or stars is slower than our clock, we see a spaceshrink. Locally, we do not observe such differences, because the difference in timeflow is too small and our idea of time in our own referenceframe is always the standard to observe space- and timedistortions elsewhere. We will always observe space- and timedistortions elsewhere.

Summary:

Observed space-expansion is due to a gravitational timestretch relative to our clock and observed space-shrink is due to a gravitational timedilation relative to our clock.

But when the difference in timeflow between clocks on Earth and clocks in the empty regions of space between remote galaxies is almost the same, we do not observe distortions of space.


Testable predictions?

When we leave our solarsystem and our galaxy, the influence of the gravitational timedilation of our galaxy on our clock will decrease. But according to us, our clock is still the standard for observations elsewhere. Our time and our idea of space is the norm for observations of distortions elsewhere, wherever we are. Which means: we observe a spaceshrink of the space between stars in our galaxies closer to the centre of our galaxy then further away from the centre. We observe a decreasing of ‘the expanding universe’ when we leave our galaxy.
When we are further and further away from our Local Group in the voids of space, and we look back, we will see galaxies coming back together. We will see ‘a shrinking universe’.
When we are closer to the black hole in the centre of our galaxy, we will observe ‘an increasing expansion of the universe’ because the difference in timeflow will increase. Our timeflow will always be the standard for observations of space- and timedistortions elsewhere, so the observed expansion rate will be higher when we are closer to the centre of the black hole.

The math

I only like to think about space and time and I was obsessed by the question of observations of time and space. But I invite you to find the mathematical equation, who will explain the relationship I described here in words with the proper well-defined terms.

Maarten Vergucht, Belgium.
Obsessive thinker about our observations of time and space.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I have a final theory about our observations of 'expansion of space', but I want to mention this first:
This article shows that the 'universe might not expand at all' and that our observations of space and time are just relative observations.

There are many alternatives to, and variations of, the big bang. Some of these may do away with expanding space. But none of them fit all the evidence as well as the standard big bang model.

Also, when you quote something, please provide a reference.

People, I do not send my idea to scientific magazines, because I don't think they will accept my idea.

Of course they won't because you refuse to do any science or even take a scientific approach.

I do want to post it here, because I believe in the mission of JREF.

You do realise this is not JREF?

But I honestly believe that I have a good alternative to explain the observed expansion of space.

Yes, we know you do. But no one else will as you provide no evidence.

The observed velocity of recession of galaxies, proportional to their distance (Hubble) is an observation of expanding space, because of an invisible timestretch relative to our clocks due to a weaker and weaker gravitational attraction between these receding galaxies, further and further away from each other. The gravitational timedilation is becoming less weaker, when galaxies are further from each other, then when they are close to each other. We can call this ‘gravitational timestretch’ of imaginary clocks in the empty regions between them.
So, the observed velocity-distance relationship is also a field of gravity-distance relationship.

If you cannot show that the changing gravity with distance is responsible for the observed red-shift and time dilation, then there is no reason for anyone to consider this.

But here is just one trivial reason why it doesn't work.

You assume there is a single source of gravity: our galaxy. But many of those other galaxies out there have a similar mass to ours (some are larger, some smaller). The total redshift of a photon coming from a source is related to the difference in gravitational potential between the source and where it is received. So, if a photon comes from a distant galaxy, it will be red-shifted as it leaves the gravitational well of that galaxy and then it will be blue shifted as it passes into the gravity well of this galaxy. If the galaxies have the same mass then there will be no net red-shift. If the two masses are different then there will be a net red or blue shift.

Therefore we would see a mixture of red and blue shifted galaxies depending on their mass. Guess what: we don't.

Secondly, if you think the universe is not expanding, then you have to believe in some implausible fine tuning of the cosmological constant or discard all of general relativity. Oh, but you can't get rid of GR because your idea depends on it (even if it depends on a failure to understand it).

A non-expanding universe in GR is like trying to balance a kilometre-long pencil on its tip on top of a moving car.

We are part of Earth, a solarsystem, a galaxy with a black hole in the centre of it, the Virgo cluster and the Local Group.

The black hole is a tiny percentage of the mass of the galaxy so is pretty much irrelevant. The fact that you mention it just shows how little basis the idea has.

The gravity of these objects are slowing down our clocks, relative to clocks in the empty regions of space without matter. But to us, our time is ticking as usual, wherever we are. And our space doesn’t seem to be distorted.

Maybe, by an immeasurably small amount relative to empty space.

But you are not talking about empty space. You are talking about distant galaxies where their gravity would cause time dilation, etc. to match ours.

Testable predictions?

When we leave our solarsystem and our galaxy, the influence of the gravitational timedilation of our galaxy on our clock will decrease.

Apart from the fact that this is not going to be testable for decades, possibly centuries or even millennia...

Yes, when we leave our galaxy the gravitational time dilation will decrease but ... and this is the bit you ignore ... when we get to another one it will increase again.

The math[/U]

I only like to think about space and time and I was obsessed by the question of observations of time and space. But I invite you to find the mathematical equation, who will explain the relationship I described here in words with the proper well-defined terms.

Don't be ridiculous. Your idea, so you have the burden of proof. No one is going to do this for you because it is obviously wrong.

Obsessive thinker about our observations of time and space.

Maybe you should stop obsessively thinking and open your mind. You might, for example, consider the possibility that you are wrong. (I know you won't, but I thought it was worth suggesting). Or you might consider learning a little science.

But it is up to you.

I think I know how this is going to go. You will insist you are right (even though you plainly don't understand the theory you are trying to use). You will accuse those who try and correct you of being unimaginative, closed-minded, just repeating what the books say, etc. You will insist that breakthroughs come from "thinking outside the box" and that your idea should therefore be taken seriously.

Breakthroughs come from people who understand the science they are trying to advance. Not from some random guy on the Internet.

Ok, Strange, I understand what you say, and I can agree with the notion that one has to study something first.

My idea 'that the observer positions objects in space and time' is not correct than. period. And I lack the crucial knowledge to say something about nature.


But I ask you to find the fallacies and the missing information in the following reasoning, please. Use my perspective for a moment, and maybe you understand how I deduced my conclusion from true premisses. Because I can not leave my idea about the universe, when you cannot show me the fallacies in my reasoning. in common English, avoiding technical terms or explain them properly, otherwise you can't convince me.

Why I can't do the math and still postulate ideas about the observable universe?

I had a philosophical interest in the concept time. I only wanted to know how we observe time in the first place. To me, it was a very serious philosophical question. I didn’t want to learn something about physics in the first place, but I necessarily met Albert Einstein, when I was thinking about ‘observing’ time. Even if I didn’t want to learn about Einstein's ideas, when I wanted an answer to my question about time, I must confront my ideas with the conclusions of relativity. I must confront my idea of time with Mr. Albert Einstein.

So, I did a lot of thoughtexperiments with just one question in mind: how do observers observe time?"
I walked in the spaceships of the thoughtexperiments of Albert Einstein and only wanted to know, how an observer in this spaceship would measure time. Well, when he would be closer and closer to the speed of light (relative to us), he would see a spaceshrink in the direction of motion in front of him and behind him. (Special Theory of Relativity).

To the perspective of the observer in this fast spacehip, time flows as usual, and space is jus as always. I found this interesting.

So, I soon discovered this idea of Einstein that there is a connection between observing time and observing space. And I soon discovered that the observer will measure distortions of space and distortions of time elsewhere? wherever he is. Because I only wanted to know how an observer measures time (and therefore space).

And then there is General theory of Relativity: about gravitational timedilation. So, I was also standing in heavy fields of gravity in thoughtexperiments to know what an observer would see on his clock.

I discovered that an observer on the moon will have a normal idea of time and a normal idea of space.

Can't we conclude that when an observer has a normal idea of time and space, wherever he is, while his time and space are curved by gravity, that 'we must fill in this missing variable (the curvature of his time) on the other side of the equation'?

When spacetime is curved by gravity, but you measure a normal timeflow, isn't it reasonable to say, that you must see distortions of space and time somewhere else, according to your perspective?

And can't we conclude then that the clock of an observer is the standard to measure time- and spacedistortions elsewhere?


Why can't we say that:

Your clock is always the standard, to measure distortions elsewhere.
Our clock is the standard for talking about ‘slower timeflow’
or ‘faster timeflow’ or ‘same timeflow’ elsewhere. Wherever we are.

And when we move, we will move the observed distortions elsewhere?

Can you also show me the fallacy in the following reasoning:

[b][u]Where is the fallacy here:
We can say, that there is a stronger field of gravity between two remote galaxies closer to each other then between remote galaxies further away from each other.
Therefore, we know that the empty space between galaxies closer to each other have a slower timeflow then galaxies further away from eachother. (because of the influence of the gravitational fields of both galaxies on the invisible clocks in empty space)

So, you don’t see spacedisortions in your immediate environnement, wherever you are, because your timeflow is almost the same of everything around you.

Therefore: the observed space-expansion, due to an observation of a gravitational timecontraction, relative to our clocks will let us observe an even more expanding space, and because of that: the influence of gravity of the bodies on the empty space between them is becoming more weak, so we observe more expanding space. As a result of that, there is more gravitational timecontraction, and that causes us to see more space-expansion etc.


Please, give me feedback about the fallacies in my reasoning, or provide some crucial information I miss, which can change my perspective. I would be glad and would be able to change my mind, based on arguments to the contrary. So I invite everyone here to show me the fallacies in this text only, using common English (and try to avoid technical terms or be able to explain them in common English so everyone can follow the reasoning and can form his opinion based on his own thinking)

And be aware of the fact that I only have another perspective which provides other conclusions. If I had used mathematical equations to derrive it from other math, I would not be able to come to these conclusions.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

But I ask you to find the fallacies and the missing information in the following reasoning, please. Use my perspective for a moment, and maybe you understand how I deduced my conclusion from true premisses. Because I can not leave my idea about the universe, when you cannot show me the fallacies in my reasoning. in common English, avoiding technical terms or explain them properly, otherwise you can't convince me.

See post 11. I can't explain the fallacy any more clearly than that. I have also decided I am not going to waste any more time on ignorant "theories".

You haven't provide any valiable argument to the contrary, and you may also not be able to answer this simple question. But I invite other people, who are scientists to answer this question:


Imagine that your comoving frame was a measuring device. A very big telescope. This object, would have a timeflow. It would be in a ‘relative field of gravity’. Its standard for time will posiition the objects differently, according to my theory.
There is no way to measure the absolute properties of space and time of the universe an sich.

But if you can show me, based on my reasoning here, the fallacies or provide me information in common English why my reasoning is wrong, please be my gast. And I would be in the possibility to change my mind, based on your arguments to the contrary.

Read also the text above, thank you.

A discussion forum is 'about posting threads, discussing arguments, and trying to give counterarguments'. So, as long as you cannot provide valuable arguments to the countrary, you are not in the possibility to convince me.
So, I'm still waiting for showing me the fallacies. If you can't, then my theory is true. (if you cannot falsify it with arguments to the contrary).
We are not talking about 'how they play the game in the scientific community' we are talking about threads, arguments and counterarguments on topic.

This is just another crank playing the game of 'prove me wrong'.

So, I'm still waiting for showing me the fallacies. If you can't, then my theory is true. (if you cannot falsify it with arguments to the contrary)

This is as typical as crackpot nonsense gets. They never seem to grasp the point that simply because they thought of something, it doesn't make it correct.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

So, I'm still waiting for showing me the fallacies. If you can't, then my theory is true.

If that's an example of the "logic" you've employed in coming up with this "theory" then it's not worth the time reading any more.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Imagine that your comoving frame was a measuring device. A very big telescope. This object, would have a timeflow. It would be in a ‘relative field of gravity’. Its standard for time will posiition the objects differently, according to my theory.

Sigh. I know I said I wouldn't... but just one more attempt to get through your thick skull ...

You "measuring device" is in some gravitational field (lets call that "A"). It is observing some distant "thing" which is in a different gravitational field (lets call that "B"). The only thing that matters is the difference between the gravitational potential at A and at B. What the photons pass through on the way from A to B is irrelevant.

So, when we observe photons from a distant galaxy, the only effect of gravity on red-shift and time dilation that we could possibly see is the difference between the gravitational potential here and there.

Now, I can assure you that any such effect is very, very small. In general, immeasurably small. If you doubt me: then prove me wrong.

In reality, what we measure is the difference in scale factor between the source of the photon and here, this is, for obvious reasons, proportional to distance. Which is why we see an increasing red shift proportional to distance.

Oh, and if you want a third (or is it fourth, I've lost track) why your idea doesn't make any sense at all: gravitational potential falls off with a square law. Therefore if red shift was due to changing gravitational potential as you claim, then it too would fall off with a square law. It doesn't.

There is no way to measure the absolute properties of space and time of the universe an sich.

Of course not.

But if you can show me, based on my reasoning here, the fallacies or provide me information in common English why my reasoning is wrong, please be my gast. And I would be in the possibility to change my mind, based on your arguments to the contrary.

You have been given multiple reasons why you idea is (a) wrong, (b) contradicted by evidence, (c) logically flawed, (d) the product of someone totally ignorant of basic science, (e) incompatible with observation, and (f) just totally idiotic.

But I expect you to invoke the usual crackpot mantra of: "well, if no one can prove me wrong then I must be right".

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

So, I'm still waiting for showing me the fallacies. If you can't, then my theory is true.

Bingo! I win. You are a crackpot. Well done.

There is an invisible pink unicorn in my garden. Unless you prove it isn't there, it must be real.

~ Mark looks to garden to see a fore mentioned minions and unicorns and fairies... and has never seen such. Ever.
But as I can only see such a small part of all of reality.
I wonder what I do not see is because it's not there or just some place else..
Yes, this must be true because some blogger on the net said so and... and... ~ Yea-Right ~

It's one thing to have a idea.. That you can form a theory all by your self.. It does NOT make it the truth.
Science has studied this subject in some detail.. and your conclusions are NOT supported by the observations.
Mathematics and calculations have tested the science and have extrapolated theories as known..
Maartenn100 has a idea we can not find support for.. filled as nothing more than fiction as yet Not tested. That's a NO.

Gosh... I just saw some movement.. could it be a pink unicorn ? ...
. . . . OH, it's my cat, lunging hoplessly at a departing bird. >>>

If you can't, then my theory is true.

You are getting this upside down - all models which are contrary to established science are wrong by default until proven otherwise. That is how science works. Hence, the onus to prove the validity of your model lies on you, and you alone.

So, I'm still waiting for showing me the fallacies.

Simple - the mathematical counter argument is :



And the experimental evidence to support of these maths are :

Modern Tests of Relativity

So now, the ball is in your court. Disprove the counter argument, and the experimental evidence in its support. Also, you must now disprove that there is in fact an invisible pink unicorn in Strange's garden.

Good luck

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

If you can't, then my theory is true. (if you cannot falsify it with arguments to the contrary).

Just in case the casual reader (1) thinks the "unicorns" example was just "silly" and shouldn't be taken seriously (2) it may be worth explaining in a bit more detail why this is a fallacious argument.

Firstly, if it were a logical argument, then it should apply to existing science as well (3) but Maartenn has made no effort to show that existing theories are wrong therefore, by his logic, they must be true.

Secondly, there are, on this and every other science forum, an endless stream of people claiming to have a new theory of x, y or z. They all believe that they are right and all say, "prove me wrong". They can't all be right (after all, many of them contradict one another). We need some way of deciding which are possibly correct and which aren't (4).

Finally, there are an infinite number of ideas one can invent that cannot be proved false. Again, not being able to prove something false does not make it true.

And, of course, it is easy to demonstrate that Maartenn's idea doesn't work (5) based on existing theory, simple mathematics and/or evidence.

The scientific approach is not "prove me wrong" but, "I wonder what will prove me wrong." Scientists are, by inclination and by training imaginative and like to "think outside the box". However, they are also trained to test every idea so they know that 99% of the ideas they have can be dismissed with a very quick test. Unfortunately, people like Maartenn are both unable and unwilling to take that step. They have had an idea and therefore it must be correct.

---

(1) There is no point addressing Maartenn, he has already made his mind up and nothing will change it.

(2) It is exactly as silly as Maartenn's idea, but that may not be obvious to all.

(3) The idea of falsifiability, as proposed by Popper, is in fact one part of the scientific method. So a scientific theory needs to be consistent and supported by evidence. But it only requires a single piece of evidence to prove it wrong. However, many facts you have supporting a theory, you can never "prove" it to be correct. The best you can say of a scientific theory is that it appears to be correct and hasn't been falsified yet.

(4) Something like the scientific method, perhaps?

(5) Although, obviously, he will never accept this.

Maartenn100

I think if you read through this thread objectively you will see where you have gone wrong. While it might be fun to speculate away with your own personal "theories" (I do that too), you have to realise that it will necessarily be very far removed from how real, proper science is done.

As Markus' last post illustrates very well, because of you having little real understanding of the mathematics and the more in-depth consequences of it, you are guaranteed to have an incomplete understanding of the subject, even qualitatively. I am pretty sure you have no real clue what that equation means and why it breaks your "theory". That should illustrate to you, if you are honest with yourself, that your ideas can't ever be anything more than flights of fancy, unless you take the time to actually study the subject properly.

Your retort of "So, I'm still waiting for showing me the fallacies. If you can't, then my theory is true.", as highlighted by others, is a very poor attitude indeed to have about any subject.

ok, thanks.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

If you can't, then my theory is true. (if you cannot falsify it with arguments to the contrary).

Just in case the casual reader (1) thinks the "unicorns" example was just "silly" and shouldn't be taken seriously (2) it may be worth explaining in a bit more detail why this is a fallacious argument.

Firstly, if it were a logical argument, then it should apply to existing science as well (3) but Maartenn has made no effort to show that existing theories are wrong therefore, by his logic, they must be true.

Secondly, there are, on this and every other science forum, an endless stream of people claiming to have a new theory of x, y or z. They all believe that they are right and all say, "prove me wrong". They can't all be right (after all, many of them contradict one another). We need some way of deciding which are possibly correct and which aren't (4).

Finally, there are an infinite number of ideas one can invent that cannot be proved false. Again, not being able to prove something false does not make it true.

And, of course, it is easy to demonstrate that Maartenn's idea doesn't work (5) based on existing theory, simple mathematics and/or evidence.

The scientific approach is not "prove me wrong" but, "I wonder what will prove me wrong." Scientists are, by inclination and by training imaginative and like to "think outside the box". However, they are also trained to test every idea so they know that 99% of the ideas they have can be dismissed with a very quick test. Unfortunately, people like Maartenn are both unable and unwilling to take that step. They have had an idea and therefore it must be correct.

---

(1) There is no point addressing Maartenn, he has already made his mind up and nothing will change it.

(2) It is exactly as silly as Maartenn's idea, but that may not be obvious to all.

(3) The idea of falsifiability, as proposed by Popper, is in fact one part of the scientific method. So a scientific theory needs to be consistent and supported by evidence. But it only requires a single piece of evidence to prove it wrong. However, many facts you have supporting a theory, you can never "prove" it to be correct. The best you can say of a scientific theory is that it appears to be correct and hasn't been falsified yet.

(4) Something like the scientific method, perhaps?

(5) Although, obviously, he will never accept this.

I'd say he doesn't know what he's talking about. Then again, I have no idea what the hell is going on with all these mixing of numbers and letters.

An alternative hypothesis to explain the observation of 'the expanding universe' following Hubble's Law

First of all, I want to say that this is a hypothesis of mine.
It's a result of long thinking, but that's not an argument at all of course.
Please be not too hostile, when you destroy it :winkwith arguments). Thank you.


Some true premisses:

Observations of time and space are always relative (referenceframe dependent)

Space and time are like two sides of a coin: when we observe a distortion of space, we must observe a distortion of time and vice versa. (spacetime is one united entity)

For example: when we observe a spaceshrink of a hypothesised accelerating spaceship, closer and closer to the speed of light (relative to us), we know that we should measure a timedilation (relative to our clock).

And: when this very fast spaceship slows down again, the shrinked ship will stretch while time will contract again, relative to our idea of timeflow.



Gravity and relative measurements of space (and time) in the gravitational field

Gravitation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two massive bodies. (Newton). So the more distance (space) between two heavy objects, the less gravity.

Gravitational timedilation tells us that gravity has an influence on clocks.

So, the timeflow of the clocks in the empty regions of space between massive attracting bodies goes faster, relative to our clock, when these bodies are moving away from eachother. Because the (influence of the) gravity between them becomes weaker.

And this 'deduced' difference in timeflow is aligned with the observation of more space-expansion.

Because:

An observation of spaceshrink (lengthcontraction) is measuring (relative) timedilation, so (relative) timecontraction means an observation of space-expansion.
(see Special Theory of Relativity)


My general conclusions:

When we observe a region of space between bodies in the sky, there will be an invisible timeflow outthere between these bodies, ticking faster then our clocks on Earth, Therefore, we observe a space-expansion of our idea of normal space between these bodies. And because of this observed expansion, the gravity between these bodies becomes weaker, so the influence of gravity on the time in the region of space between them becomes weaker. This will let us observe more expansion of space. We know that there must be more timecontraction because of this weaker gravitational attraction, and because of this increased timecontraction, relative to our rulers, we observe more space-expansion. And because of this observation of space-expansion we observe more timecontraction ad infinitum.


An observer will always use the timeflow of his own clock (his own referenceframe) and the measurements of his own ruler, as the standards for observing dilation, contraction, curvature or expansion of space and time elsewhere. That’s not only for observers with relative different speeds, but also for observers in relative different fields of gravity.

So, when we observe a 'relative heavier' field of gravity (then ours), we can assume a timedilation (by gravity), therefore we also observe a (relative) curvature of (our idea of normal) space outthere.

And when we observe a 'relative weaker' field of gravity (then ours) we can assume a timecontraction (by gravity), relative to our idea of 'normal timeflow, therefore we also observe a (relative) expansion of (our idea of normal) space outthere.

a youtubevideo to explain it better

Thanks for your potential feedback.

Maarten Vergucht

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Thanks for your potential feedback.

Maarten Vergucht

You are spamming multiple forums with your fringe misconceptions.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

When we observe a region of space between bodies in the sky, there will be an invisible timeflow outthere between these bodies, ticking faster then our clocks on Earth

You have had the errors in this argument pointed out repeatedly in the past. Are you hoping that by coming back and repeating the same thing that it might be seen as novel? If so, I'm afraid you are out of luck. It is just as wrong now as it was last time.

Which errrors, please provide evidence for your claims.
Where is, what I wrote, argument by argument, explained with counterarguments.
Please give the links. No claims without evidence please.
And not just a link of 'a discussion', but give a link where wich argument was explained with wich counterargument.

To give you a hint: do not do this effort, because I worked on it and re-wrote my ideas completely while I was integrating the feedback I got earlier.

And from now on, I only like on topic arguments!
Where are the mistakes in the reasoning.
Please, argument by argument.

You will not convince me at all without using the content to give counterarguments.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Which errrors, please provide evidence for your claims.

You have been spamming multiple forums simultaneously. Your claims have already been debunked, some time ago, on the "Against the Mainstream" forum. Yet, you persist. This is called trolling and spamming.

On what evidence do you claim that 'it is already been debunked?
What exactly is debunked?
Wich arguments? And wich not.
Wich arguments are good and wich are not?

Who debunked it? A scientist or some guy on a forum without any knowledge?

Do not hesitate to be more specific about the content.

Again: I integrated the feedback I got and re-wrote my hypothesis. But of course, you do not recognize that fact.

Isn't it a forumrule to give arguments on topic?

So, I'm still waiting for real arguments about the subject.

Moving to New hypothesis for now. His ideas have not been refuted on this forum yet. But it won't take too long I fear. Maartin, I hope you can accept constructive criticism on your ideas. Otherwise your thread will be moved to the trash before long. Thanks.

Yes I accept that, of course.

Maarten,

Have you formulated any expressions for this in the wonderful language of mathematics? It can not add up to anything valuable without an mathematical model.

In my opinion: my hypothesis that the observer uses the local time and space as a standard to define distortions of it elsewhere is not a mathematical issue, but a matter of testing and experimenting.


A falsification would be:
Travel to a place in our solarsystem or further away where 'space is curved, according to our observations of space over there here on Earth'.
And try to see wether you will measure a curved space, once you are there.
My theory says no.


That's an experimental falsifiable prediction of a hypothesis.


That's not a matter of math, but a matter of experiments and tests.


Gravitational timedilation, lengthcontraction, special theory of relativity etc. are well defined scientific concepts, and they are mathematically described. So, that's not the issue, in my opinion.
.
i only use these, mathematically, well defined concepts and use valid logic deducion and induction to explain them differently..


The math is already been done, the concepts are well described and been proven. Only the different meaning of it, described in words with these well-defined concepts, is different.
And it predicts different things:


Examples of testable predictions: when you move through space, you will see the curvature, or expansion of the space elsewhere change too. When you change position in the gravitational fields, your observations of space- and timedistortions elsewhere, will move too.
.
That's a scientific hypothesis: it's falsifiable, testable prediction..


Otherwise I have the question for you: where do you need math for (in this hypothesis)?


The expansion is Hubble's Law.
Timedilation and lengthcontraction is special theory of relativity
Referenceframes is relativity
Gravitatational timedilation is a well proven fact, wich is already been mathematically described.


So, I should not know where you need math for, wich isn't already well-formulated..
,
Only the theory wich explains the scientific concepts,differently gives different predictions.
And these predictions are no matter of 'math', but a matter of testing and experiments.

Mathematics allows you to clearly express what you are after. You could write several thousands of words and not really manage to capture the same as you express with a handful of symbols in mathematics. In mathematics there are no misunderstandings similarly as in common languages.

You may of course use already existing equations if you wish...

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Which errrors, please provide evidence for your claims.
Where is, what I wrote, argument by argument, explained with counterarguments.
Please give the links. No claims without evidence please.

Anyone can go and look at your previous threads and the very clear explanations of your errors and misunderstandings. I am not going to waste my time repeating them here. Especially as you have demonstrated that you have a completely closed mind.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

A falsification would be:[/FONT]
Travel to a place in our solarsystem or further away where 'space is curved, according to our observations of space over there here on Earth'.[/FONT]
And try to see wether you will measure a curved space, once you are there.[/FONT]
My theory says no.[/FONT]

You need mathematics to make a falsifiable prediction. No experiment can test a simplistic answer like "no". It needs to be quantified and the error bounds specified.

I missed that you had already opened a thread about this stuff before. Why have you gone and done so again? Why shouldn't I just merge the two threads?

Can you answer my following questions:

1) do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a straight line in our field of gravity to define curved spaces elsewhere, with it? (curved (or stretched) by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)


2) Do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a normal timeflow in our field of gravity to define dilation of it or contraction of it elsewhere? (dilated or contracted by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)


3) Do you agree with my notion that we always will use our idea of a straight line, wherever we are in the fields of gravity, to define 'curved paths' elsewhere?

(curved or stretched (expanded) by relative weaker or relative stronger fields of gravity)

You really know that it is exactly the same thread with exactly the same postulations and arguments? I know that it isn't.
Have you checked it carefully?


Can you answer my following questions:

1) do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a straight line in our field of gravity to define curved spaces elsewhere, with it? (curved (or stretched) by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)


2) Do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a normal timeflow in our field of gravity to define dilation of it or contraction of it elsewhere? (dilated or contracted by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)


3) Do you agree with my notion that we always will use our idea of a straight line, wherever we are in the fields of gravity, to define curved and stretched paths elsewhere?

(curved or stretched (expanded) by relative weaker or relative stronger fields of gravity)

You only need to answer these questions with yes or no... And when you answer 'no', why not.

.

Three posts asking the same nonsense that has been debunked before in another thread. Not only a crank but a boring, repetitive one. This string of near identical post just highlights your room temperature IQ. I suppose that's part of the trouble with you guys. Cranks are like the call of an owl, even if you manage to beat the woo out of them you're still left with a twit... One more for ignore.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

1) do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a straight line in our field of gravity to define curved spaces elsewhere, with it? (curved (or stretched) by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)

No.

2) Do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a normal timeflow in our field of gravity to define dilation of it or contraction of it elsewhere? (dilated or contracted by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)

It is hard to say because your use of terms is so bizarre and nonstandard. Obviously, we use our notion of time locally (proper time). And that would be the same anywhere.

3) Do you agree with my notion that we always will use our idea of a straight line, wherever we are in the fields of gravity, to define 'curved paths' elsewhere?

No. How is this different from Q1.

You just say 'no' without any valuable explanation? That's not a discussion. Please explain why not. And be specific.
In that I am able to learn from you.

So, you seem to believe that the observation of 'a straight path' in a field of gravity isn't relative?
Why not?

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

You just say 'no' without any valuable explanation?

I answered the question asked.

And be specific.

When you make the question specific (mathematical).

Three posts asking the same nonsense that has been debunked before in another thread. Not only a crank but a boring, repetitive one. This string of near identical post just highlights your room temperature IQ. I suppose that's part of the trouble with you guys. Cranks are like the call of an owl, even if you manage to beat the woo out of them you're still left with a twit... One more for ignore.

gibberish nonsense without any evidence, because you can't argue with the content, can you?
Provide us a link with the exact answer to these questions on this forum and why and you will prove your (nonsense) claim.
But you can't provide a link with the answers on these questions, because I never posted them here.

OK, maybe I misremembered and I'm thinking of a different forum. Doesn't take anything away from the rest of my post though. You are a tedious repetitive crackpot (and also a twit). Evidence for this is your previous threads on this forum (as well as others apparently).

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

You really know that it is exactly the same thread with exactly the same postulations and arguments? I know that it isn't.
Have you checked it carefully?

It's not? Then explain how they aren't instead of asking me questions. If the answer is not satisfactory, I will be merging the threads. And why do you use such large fonts?

It appears, in general terms, the same as this:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...elativity.html

Perhaps Maartenn100 can provide a breakdown (in appropriate mathematical detail) of how the two threads differ.

That was the thread I was thinking of but I couldn't be bothered to check (I don't like wasting time running around after cranks) so admitted I may have been mistaken. Looks like I wasn't after all

And still no arguments on topic... Is this a science forum to discuss with arguments?

Originally Posted by Phdemon

You are a tedious repetitive crackpot (and also a twit). Evidence for this is your previous threads on this forum (as well as others apparently).

I don't respect people who are ad hominem calling me a cranck, crackpot or twit or whatever.
That's not nice for someone who worked hard thinking on a problem and want to argue with arguments about it on a 'science forum'.

Isn't it a rule of this forum not be ad hominem? Moderator?



This guy doesn't seem to follow this rule at all.

I only respect people who give arguments.

So, I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions on topic:

1) do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a straight line in our field of gravity to define curved spaces elsewhere, with it? (curved (or stretched) by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)


2) Do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a normal timeflow in our field of gravity to define dilation of it or contraction of it elsewhere? (dilated or contracted by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)


3) Do you agree with my notion that we always will use our idea of a straight line, wherever we are in the fields of gravity, to define 'curved paths' elsewhere?

(curved or stretched (expanded) by relative weaker or relative stronger fields of gravity)

Member Maartenn100, I shall post this only once:

Just ignoring me, huh? Merging.

Ok, I don't want to ignore you. But I have the feeling (and not only that) that no one is busy with the content at all.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Ok, I don't want to ignore you. But I have the feeling (and not only that) that no one is busy with the content at all.

There is no content.

Until you can provide an accurate (i.e. mathematical) description of your idea, all anyone can say is that it is obviously wrong. (See all the posts on this and other forums explaining the reasons.)

. No content? Why did someone give this thread four stars? Because he or she didn't read any content?
Strange.

Why don't you want to answer the questions? Maybe you don't want to admit that your worldview may be wrong?



Tell me exactly: where do you need math for, specifically?


We are talking here about: how do we interprete our observations?
The observations and the mathematical relationship between the observations are already well desribed in Physics (Hubble's Law, gravitational timedilation, etc)

The only thing here is: how do we interprete an observation of space-expansion (redshift), far away form us?

My interpretation: when there is happening something with space, there must something happen with time too.
Because time and space are connected. We live in a 4-dimensional world, not a three-dimensional world.

So when we see an expansion of space over there, there must be timecontraction involved. That's what we can
learn from observations of space and time in special theory of relativity.
That's what we must conclude when we want to accept the notion of a 4-dimensional observations and not three-dimensional.

And guess what: gravity dilates time, so less gravity contracts time. Timecontraction is involved outthere.
That's a logic conclusion you can make based on the already well established observations and their mathematical relationships.

I don't need any math to explain the existing math and existing observations differently.

The only two things I add are:
There is a connection between the observations of time- and space-distortion, wherever we observe them.
I also say that a 'dilation' or 'contraction' of time is a relative expression. Related to the timeflow of the clock of an observer.
And these two, already well proven facts of nature, must let us conclude that it is exactly the same thing in the gravitational fields with space.
The curvature or stretching of space, is the dilation or the contracting of the timeflow of an observer.
General relativity learns us that gravitational timedilation and curvature of space are 'the curvature of spacetime'. They are bounded.

So, we do not need any math to make these logic conclusions about the connection of observations of time and space, by an observer based on some true premisses.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Tell me exactly: where do you need math for, specifically?

So that your idea can be tested against observational data. Otherwise there is no reason to take it seriously.

So that your idea can be tested against observational data. Otherwise there is no reason to take it seriously.

Is Hubble's Law enough for you?
Are the observable data of gravitational timedilation enough for you to know that gravity and timedilation are connected and gravity and timecontraction are connected?
Are the observational data of special theory of relativity enough for you to understand how the observations of timedistortions and spacedistortions are connected?
Are the observable data the general theory of relativity enough for you to understand that space and time are unseparable?

The observations and mathematical connections (the data) are already well described.
Only the theory to explain them is wrong, (my opinion)

Because you think in terms of 'expanding space' but you forget to talk about 'contracting time' and you also forget that we are no neutral observers of space and time. All our observations of it are relative. (theories of relativity)

So, you just have to think logically based on observable data and theories which already exist to conclude that time over there contracts, while space is expanding.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Is Hubble's Law enough for you? The observational data already exist.

Please use your idea to provide some values to compare against this then. (That is how science works.)

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Because you think in terms of 'expanding space' but you forget to talk about 'contracting time' and you also forget that we are no neutral observers of space and time. All our observations of it are relative. (theories of relativity)

Tell me, do you honestly think none of this has already been considered and forms part of the current best estimates? All these things you are talking about that you acknowledge was arrived at by general relativity and direct observation were.....arrived at by general relativity and direct observation. You now are trying to introduce something different here and it is this YOU have to demonstrate as having somehow been missed by all the scientists. You have not simply posted a question, you are actively challenging these conclusions, but you are not doing a very good job, hence the resistance you are getting.

You have to understand that there is an unending torrent of cranks who think they have found a crack in the current best estimates, all without any mathematics or a proper understanding of the current science. If you want to really contribute something, you have to seriously rise out of that cesspool of nonsense if you want to be taken seriously in any way. You have not done that thus far.

I know you are enthusiastic and are very interested in this stuff, but the only way you can really contribute is by putting some effort into really understanding the subject matter, and that includes a full grasp of the theory and especially the mathematics involved. I know the temptation is very strong to try and take a short cut, but unfortunately there just aren't any.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

1) do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a straight line in our field of gravity to define curved spaces elsewhere, with it? (curved (or stretched) by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity)

No. Space-time curvature is a covariant quantity, the Riemann curvature tensor. It is independent of the observer/coordinate system, like all tensors. It is defined not with "straight lines", but via the notion of parallel transport - see my GR Primer thread, which is a sticky in the physics section.

2) Do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a normal timeflow in our field of gravity to define dilation of it or contraction of it elsewhere?

Again, no. The concept of "time flow" does not exist, you are just making that up. Time dilation is defined as a relation between proper times, which are again invariant quantities. Proper time is simply the length of an observer's world line between two given events. Inertial observers always experience the longest proper time, and observers experiencing acceleration or gravity follow shortened world lines.

3) Do you agree with my notion that we always will use our idea of a straight line, wherever we are in the fields of gravity, to define 'curved paths' elsewhere?

Third time no. Curvature has nothing to do with straight lines, but everything with parallel transport and covariant derivatives. Those notions are not observer dependent.

(curved or stretched (expanded) by relative weaker or relative stronger fields of gravity)

Curvature is not relative, it is a covariant tensor quantity. It seems to me that you have a very weak and flawed grasp of the fundamentals of differential geometry; this definitely does not put you in a position to argue about these concepts of cosmology. I recommend thorough study of a relevant textbook, such as Gravitation by Misner/Thorne/Wheeler.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

So when we see an expansion of space over there, there must be timecontraction involved.

Incorrect. The metric expansion coefficient is present only the spatial part of the FLRW metric tensor, it has no influence whatsoever on the time coordinate. If you want I can show you the maths, but I doubt that you are able to understand them.