First post was deleted and I was told I had to post the original content..... so here it is.
Dark Foundations
Let’s go on a journey. That journey starts with assumptions; the whole “makes an ass out of you and me” part, especially. The current Standard Cosmological Model (SCM) has been built on a number of assumptions that are proving to perhaps not hold true, especially given the vast amount of new and shocking discoveries presented by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Yet, a Ptolemaic effort is made to make the new data fit the prior assumptions: specifically concerning light red shift, photon decay, accelerating expansion, the cosmic microwave background, and the age of the universe. Researching alternative models is exceedingly difficult, since even the alternatives are based from the same assumptions. The result is always the dark dead ends of Dark Matter and Dark Energy: magical black boxes used to conjure an explanation to the inexplainable.
A model is supposed to predict a behavior, meaning new observations of behavior should agree with the model’s prediction. If that predictive function fails, the model requires change. What we see today in Cosmology is data that does not agree with the model, but the model has a built-in trap door in the form of a Constant that simply gets adjusted to fit the new data. It seems to defeat the purpose of calling something a “constant” if it can be “adjusted”. Unfortunately, the SCM has taken assumptions and created predictions from them. Those predictions are that the universe is less than 14Billion years old and that cosmic expansion is accelerating. Data must then fit this prediction for the SCM to remain a functional model. If not, it should be discarded. Keeping the SCM alive until a way is “figured out” to squeeze the new data into it is entirely anathema to the scientific process. But, it has happened before, so it is not entirely surprising.
The SCM is proving to be non-predictive, so it has become post-dictive to survive as a model. Lots and lots of examples of this in science throughout history. The geocentric Solar System Model required ever-more convoluted retrograde orbits to explain the very simple, yet ignored, heliocentricity of reality. ‘Flat-Earth’, as a failed model, still exists to this day fanatically justified by its faithful adherents. Once upon a time there were only four elements: earth, air, fire, and water, and demons could fly up your nose when you sneezed. Such is the power of belief. The two main pillars holding up the foundations of the SCM are the distance-red shift relation and the cosmic microwave background. These pillars are supported by three assumptions: light waves exhibit a Doppler Effect, photons do not decay, and the speed of light is constant in all dimensions. A critical fault in any of these assumptions should result in the restructuring of the model. A critical fault in all of them should eliminate it as a model altogether.
Language supporting the SCM, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy is ubiquitous. For example, from a prominent journal concerning the cosmic microwave background: “The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of Space with the total amount of matter in the universe.” That’s a pretty brazen confession. Either the geometry of the universe, as bounded by the cosmic microwave background, is incorrect, or the total amount of matter is. Notice how the first criteria is never questioned, even to the extent of fabricating the second to balance the error. The Standard Cosmological Model would rather create invisible matter and energy than dare to reconfigure a failed cosmic geometry. But, when a model begins fabricating reasons to stay alive it is no longer adaptive, it is parasitic, and must be allowed to pass through the intestines of scientific inquiry.
A Difference in Views
All assumptions about the cosmic expansion rate start with red shift, but light red shift is a catch-22. Standard Cosmology states that light red shift is caused by ‘cosmic expansion’, meaning photon wavelengths lengthen as the ‘fabric of the universe’ stretches faster the farther a photon travels. Mathematically, though, this is still a transfer of energy, yet this photon energy exchange is not accounted. Three solutions can be proposed for this:
I. Photon Energy Loss is Causing Accelerating Cosmic Expansion
This view states that all matter in the universe is expanding from Big Bang inertia as celestial bodies move away from each other. By the “Doppler Effect”, this receding movement causes light emitted from a star to shift towards longer wavelengths. The wavelength difference, times Planck’s constant, calculates into energy “spent” by the photon which is turned into “work” that pushes matter even farther away in a non-linear accelerating feedback loop. This is a perpetual motion machine, allowing expansion to create energy to create expansion, which violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. Expansion acceleration isn’t being confirmed by red shift data, it is being extrapolated from red shift data and is assumed to be happening because it has to or the model won’t work.
II. Accelerating Cosmic Expansion is Causing Non-Linear Photon Wavelength Shift
This is the current SCM view, yet still begs the question: “Where did the photon energy go?” This view states that there is no photon energy lost during red shift because it is impossible: photons don’t decay. The difference in wavelengths is simply observer dependent. The actual photon energy has not changed, the wavelength difference is just an observational effect. This is circular logic, a catch-22. There is no viable solution to the discrepancy so one is created, by necessity, out of thin Nothingness. Mathematically, though, the energy still has to go somewhere. Having no idea where it goes and nowhere to put it, the SCM solution becomes to push it into more Space. It truly is convenient that Space is infinite, having an unlimited amount of space to add all this extra Space to. But, so far I have not found the carrier that translates photon frequency change into “more Space”. And neither has Cosmology, hence why the hunt for Dark Solutions continues.
If it is known that the energy of a photon is Planck times the frequency (inverse of wavelength) and that red shifted light has two different frequencies, what it started at and what it is observed at, then it must have two different energies: what it started at and what it ended at. Mathematically there is an energy difference between when the light is created and when it is detected and this energy must be accounted. If indeed it is “absorbed into the expansion of the universe” then there must be an illuminated mechanism by which it does this, such that the expansion can be directly correlated to the difference in photon energies via a carrier. Nor can the difference in energies just be un-counted. It is a bit insincere to brush the question aside as a “difference in view.”
III. Neither is Causing nor is Caused by the Other
We find further evidence of the continual rhetoric on another physics website describing the phenomenon as: “we ‘know' that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, from observed light red shift,” but then goes on to describe the dozen varied hypotheses around the how, when, and by what unknown mechanism any of this ‘knowing’ happens. Cosmology cannot agree on much else about the universe, from how it began [Big Bang, Eternal Inflation, Oscillation], unexplained observed phenomenon [Super-Massive Black Holes, Ancient Galaxies], or certainly how it ends [Big Freeze, Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Bounce, Big Slurp]. The JWST exceeded all expectations from the first images it collected, and began cracking paradigms just as quickly. To read anywhere that we “know" something about the cosmos elicits a super-massive big belly laugh. We know very little.
The only reason standard cosmology say it “knows” that the cosmic fabric is stretching is that it HAS TO according to the boundaries established by standard cosmology, boundaries that are only immutable because it has set them so. But then the SCM can’t reconcile the distance discrepancies in a supposedly flat universe, or explain why we find galaxies more mature than the age limit that those boundaries has calculated. It is an assumption that cosmic expansion is accelerating, extrapolated from a misinterpretation of light red shift, set within equation constraints that force a variable, creating an incorrect causation out of a temporary correlation. That isn’t “knowing”, it is arrogance.
Ptolemy gave way to Copernicus only after much astrological in-fighting and hand-wringing, and the condemnation of Galileo. But eventually the truth won out and heliocentricity has since become self-evident. It has become self-evident that we live on a spherical planet, not a flat one, and yet some people still deny the evidence even while using satellite technology to rant about the flat-earth on social media (how ironic). Newton is still a genius for his time but we teach his ground-breaking theory in high school, or younger, because gravity has become self-evident. Newtonian physics gave way to Einsteinian Relativity when more was learned about the universe around us. Relativity will also certainly fall to a new paradigm, as soon as its limits of predictability are surpassed. This is literally how science works. Cosmic geocentricity is no longer “self-evident.” Perhaps the speed of light isn’t actually constant, perhaps photons actually do decay. Perhaps the universe isn’t flat, but curved, like most everything else that exists in it. Perhaps universe expansion isn’t really accelerating, some humans just got their math wrong. It happens all the time.
A Difference in Distances
I. Some Light Math
Or, perhaps simply our assumptions about the geometry of the universe are incorrect. A different cosmic shape would also solve the dilemma of non-linear distance-red shift and doesn’t require dark magic, tensile voids, or immortal photons. Consider:
Eg, moving at 90 degrees apart gives a ‘y’ on the surface perimeter that is one-quarter the entire circumference, y = 2pi(r) times 90/360; y = 1.5708(r)
Eg, at 90 degrees apart gives a chord line between A and B of d2 = 2(r)2; d = 1.4142(r).
The postulation presented here is that the two bodies moving apart have an actual distance (d) between them that is straight across the interior of the circle. But if the means of measurement is constrained to a surface arc (y), to the observer at A the object B appears farther away than it actually is, spatially. If an object’s velocity is then calculated from ‘y’ instead of ‘d’, and to the observer the object travelled farther than it actually did, then given the known time it took to travel that distance the object must have moved faster than expected. Time being held constant forces the velocities to change to correct the distance discrepancy. But the speed of light is also a constant (c). The only way to reconcile this dilemma is to allow the distances to change (curve). That is also impossible in a flat universe and so requires ‘distance itself’ to stretch (ie: today’s inch is longer than yesterday’s inch). This is a unit change, not a change in any real measurement. That’s as if by wishing to be younger I make one year equal twenty-four months. Viola, youth restored!
There are only three variables in the equation, and yet two of them have been forced to constants (time and velocity). The only “plausible” solution then is to force ‘d’ to equal ‘y’ by making the circle expand. To fix the distance dilemma the SCM just makes the units larger; neat trick. But it is not a solution, it is an illusion. It creates the cyclical logic where light red shift requires cosmic expansion requires light red shift in a feed back loop. Reconciling ‘a’ requires inflating the circle, which further increases ‘a’. The effect is the cause is the effect.
II. The Dark Path
This distance discrepancy (a) is representationally the same whether or not the objects move outward from a center point or start at a single point on the surface (eg: the “north pole”) and move apart along the perimeter. Imagine two 1D explorers leaving the north pole of the circle. One goes right, the other goes left, each heading south towards the equator in opposite directions. The circle is infinitely larger than the travelers, so they each observe the surface to be “flat” (like the Earth). They believe each other to be moving on a straight path east and west (1D line), never realizing that to an outside observer in 2D they are actually moving east/south and west/south along curved 2D paths.
With each horizontal (x-axis) step they take, steps that would be moving them ‘off the circle’, an increasing fraction is translated into descent south (y-axis), like a force (gravity) keeping them attached to the surface. If gravity was actually pulling ‘down’, as in their 1D view, they would quite literally slip off the curved path (the edge) into the void. Yet they are saved because gravity actually pulls ‘in’ towards the center of the circle. To the explorers, in their 1D view, the 2D y-axis does not exist. But it certainly does exist, and profoundly impacts their reality.
III. A Heavy Premise
The observers existing on the 1D surface of a 2D world view it as flat even though it is curved. They think they are walking straight, but with each step are in fact shifting into an unseen 2nd Euclidean dimension. This is identical to how observers on the 2D surface of a spherical 3D Earth viewed it as “flat” for centuries. Any Flat-Earther will tell you if you walk in any direction you go straight into the horizon until you reach an edge and fall off. The rest of us know that actually if you keep going you’ll come all the way around full circle to your backside. This is because each step across the “flat” surface plane translates into an incremental shift ‘down’ into the unseen 3rd Euclidean dimension. The Earth is a sphere and so, spatially, it is shorter to cut through the core than to go around the surface. Duh. We regard the Flat-Earth concept as ridiculous in the 3D reality, but for some reason still accept Flat-Space in 4D. It is not a far “stretch” then to at least allow the possibility that observers in a 3D physical universe see it as ‘flat’ because it is the hyperspherical surface of a 4D hyperball.
Time is not a ‘4th Euclidean dimension’: there are three of those, and one dimension of Time. The three Euclidean axes comprise a hypersphere with the Time axis forming the radius of the underlying hyperball. This hypersphere universe is unbounded, like the surface of our own globe, and has no edge to fall off of. Yet we still believe if we travel straight into Space in any direction we go off into the cosmic horizon looking for an edge. This “straightness” is only a perception because with each step into the void the Space-traveller curves an increasing amount into the unseen Time dimension. We believe we are traveling straight through our 3D universe, but to any outside observer in 4D our paths are very much curving.
This is what causes the red shift-luminosity discrepancy, not any accelerating expansion of the universe. Standard Cosmology is based on the assumption that light is traveling a straight path towards us, when it is not. To us observing our 3D world, the 4th axis does not affect us. But it certainly does affect us, and profoundly impacts our reality. As we aim our rocket ships into the cosmos, time, like gravity, is not pulling us ‘up’ from a surface, or even ‘outward’ from a center. It pulls us ‘forward’, from a beginning. Unlike the Euclidean axes, Time is deterministic.
The Trinity of Assumptions
I. Red shift is a Doppler Effect of Light.
A. The Doppler Effect
There must have been quite the mental leap from observing frequency changes in moving-emitter longitudinal waves that propagate asymmetrically through a physical medium of matter (sound) and extrapolating that onto frequency changes of moving-emitter transverse wave-particles that travel symmetrically through a vacuum (starlight). There is little doubt that photon light from distant stars is shifted to the red, nor that luminosity data shows celestial bodies are moving away from us. The doubt is that these red shift observations are caused by a “light Doppler Effect”.
In the real Doppler Effect the change on the sound wave is caused by the compression or expansion of the physical matter it is moving through, not by the movement of its source. The wave is the medium is the wave: it is the very particles of the medium itself that propagate the force of the wave. It just so happens that the energy and momentum of the emitting source is often also the cause of the compression/expansion of the medium, like an ambulance siren rushing into the air in front of it. But this is an indirect association; it is the compression of the air that increases the frequency of the siren, not the forward movement of the ambulance.
Subtle distinction, but the same effect can be made by pushing the air with an external force - just ask any child who has done the Darth Vader voice into a box fan. The child, as the sound-emitter, is not creating the frequency increase with their own movement. The fan’s movement is modifying the frequency, as it echo-bounces the altered sound back to the child’s observing ears. The wave cares not how the air is moved. A medium is required to carry the sound wave and compressing or expanding that medium will compress or expand the wavelength, regardless of whether that compression/expansion comes from the emitter or elsewhere. Sound waves require energy and matter, and can be altered by the manipulation of either.
By comparison, a light wave does not touch a physical medium and does not require it; it is a wave and particle all-in-one. It does not propagate through anything at all, except time. Since there is no physical medium to translate the movement of the source into wave energy (ie: without compressing or expanding the medium itself) there can be no true Doppler Effect. There is no medium in Space for the light to move through, but this is what the SCM has mathematically created. Expanding Space itself provides the “medium expansion” required by the Doppler Effect. But, if light actually moves through Time then it would be the expansion of the Time vector that stretches the photon wavelength, not an expansion of Euclidean Space.
Firstly, Space is not a medium, it is the absence of one: a vacuum. And the concept of Aether was discarded long ago. Secondly, the Doppler Effect is dependent upon the density of the matter that the wave is moving through. Yet the density of open Space is near zero, and 'tired light' has been disproven. This is why a sound wave cannot propagate in Space (thank you, Alien). So whereas sound waves live in density they die in a vacuum. Conversely, a light wave hitting something made of matter (like a planet or an eyeball) terminates the wave. Light waves live in a vacuum and die in density. Light waves are a product of energy and time, and can be altered by the manipulation of either.
How can these both be Doppler Effects? They can’t be. This is why using distance-red shift to explain cosmic acceleration is reverse logic. In sound wave Doppler an observed expansion of the medium can be directly measured and directly correlated to the lengthening of the wavelength. In light wave Doppler an expansion of the medium cannot be measured at all (there is none), and so the observed lengthening of the wavelength is used to indirectly construct the unobserved expansion of the medium. But Space is a vacuum, and having no physical medium to expand requires an expansion of the vacuum itself, ie: mathematically stretching Nothingness. Neat!
Furthermore, the Doppler Effect with respect to matter waves has no relation to distance, at all. As with the ambulance example, the frequency shift is generated at the source of the wave, but the wave moves through the air at a speed faster than the source. The ambulance moving towards the observer compresses the siren’s wave into the air in front of it, giving it energy, and increasing its frequency (blue shift). Or, an ambulance moving away from an observer pulls the air away from the wave, taking energy from it, and reducing its frequency (redshift). Regardless, the wave continues moving away from the source, quickly reducing the shifting effect. In fact, we have a special term for when the emitter moves faster than the speed of sound: super sonic. We cannot observe the same effect in light unless the emitter is moving faster than light, which so far no stars have been seen doing. Even Cherenkov Light requires a medium and does not exist in a vacuum.
The result of a Doppler frequency shift is a velocity change, not a distance change. A Doppler shift can only detect the speed of the emitter, not how far away it is. Doppler shift on sound waves is a direct relationship between two velocities: the source and the observer. Velocities go into the equation and a velocity comes out. The effect is asymmetric because it propagates through a medium, meaning that the effect is strongest at the point of emission and disappears as the wave escapes the source (it changes at first and then stops changing). This is why a Doppler Effect can only be used to measure speed and not distance; distance is not part of its function. The only way to generate a distance from a Doppler Effect is to measure the time the wave takes to travel from source to observation (ie: collect more data) and multiply that time-of-flight by the velocity. A Doppler frequency shift alone provides neither distance nor time-of-flight data, those must be collected separately.
Therefore, light Doppler must also be a direct relationship between two velocities as defined by the ratio between source and observed frequencies. Velocities go in and a velocity comes out. But in this case the effect is symmetrical and propagates along the entire path of the photon without a medium (it changes at first and then keeps changing). If this was really a Doppler Effect it would also provide neither distance nor time-of-flight data without collecting more information, yet it supposedly does. This symmetrical propagation is why red shift was used to measure star-distance even while being incorrectly called a Doppler Effect.
B: Sound Navigation and Ranging
In Doppler sonar we send out a known sound frequency at a known time: a ping. Then we wait. It bounces off an object and then returns to the emitter. It will record the same initial frequency if the object is stationary. It will record a “blue shift” to a higher frequency if the object is approaching, or a “red shift” to a lower frequency if the object is retreating. This Doppler Effect is still caused by the object compressing or expanding the medium it travels through (ala, an ambulance siren), the object is just not the source of the ping (ala, the child and the box fan). After leaving the emitter, the ping remains unchanged until it enters the object’s ‘asymmetric zone’, pitch shifts with the changing medium as if it had been injected into the object, strikes the object and reverses course. It then pitch shifts a second time as it leaves the object’s ‘asymmetric zone’ as if it had been emitted from it, and travels back to the original emitter/receiver. The change of the ping’s frequency results in a measurement twice the object’s velocity, as expected. It does not provide time-of-flight, or distance, as expected.
The Doppler frequency shift provides the velocity of the object. The total time-of-flight of the ping (leaving, echoing, and returning) multiplied by the speed of sound in the medium (air, water, or rock) equals the total distance the wave travelled. Half of that total distance is the object’s location from the observer. The frequency shift of the wave gives us one measurement (velocity), echoing provides the second measurement (space-distance). Together they calculate the third variable: how long it will take the object to reach us, or time-distance (age). This is called Ranging, and is how ultrasound technology is used in the medical field every day. This is how submarines navigate the dark oceans. This is how bats fly. The Doppler Effect is a phenomenon of matter, it does not work in the vacuum of Space. Therefore, sonar does not work in the vacuum of Space. But, lightwaves do travel through the vacuum of Space, therefore red shifting of light cannot be a sonar (Doppler) effect.
C. Radio Detecting and Ranging
Unlike sonar’s sound waves, radar uses radio waves, which are electromagnetic waves like light. They are not longitudinal sound waves: they do not act like longitudinal sound waves. They are transverse waves and propagate symmetrically. Also like light they can be absorbed into matter, reducing the bounce (echo) effect utilized by sonar. The property of electromagnetic waves that allows them to “bounce”, or scatter, is called reflectivity. Light and other high-frequency waves need more reflectivity to echo than radio waves need: they absorb into molecular matter easier (all Earth life relies on this). This is exactly how a microwave oven works: the electromagnetic microwaves have a wavelength of the same magnitude as the oxygen-hydrogen bond in water. Shooting wet food with these microwaves causes the water molecules to absorb them (resonate), heating the food from the inside. Microwaves reflect off metal, like a fork, but go through dry matter, like paper and glass. This is a factor of wavelength and density (particle size). Microwaves are the next-shorter wavelengths above radio waves, which means they interact with matter more than radar, but less than infrared or visible light.
This is how our eyes can see ‘color’ from an object. Energetic interactions of the visible light spectrum are now below even the molecular bond size and are energizing an electron shell of the atoms, causing electrons to shift up an energy level. Coming back down from that energized level ejects a photon of a specific frequency depending on the energy of the light wave. One wavelength creates one frequency of photon emission creates one color, all the rest are discarded (reflected), or absorbed as heat (infrared). Our eyes receive the collection of otherwise white light minus the missing color(s). Our brain sorts through the wavelength pile and says, ah, red and blue are missing, that thing is purple.
Ultraviolet light becomes even more reflection-specific (ie, more absorptive) and is why sunlight will first burn your skin and then your cells and then your DNA. By the time we reach x-ray and gamma radiation the scattering is dependent on atomic-sized interactions, which is why most of this energy passes straight through matter. Gamma rays need something really, really small to scatter them, like an atomic nucleus. This is the realm of nuclear radiation.
Scattering is caused when a wave crosses from one medium to another. This is why sound travels super fast in solids (metal) but will reflect off that metal (submarine) if it is traveling in water. In the same fashion, sound waves traveling in air will reflect off solids and liquids because they are more dense than the air the wave is propagating through. How far the sound wave penetrates into the substance it hits is a factor of amplitude (energy) and vibration tolerance, which is why a certain pitch can shatter glass if it reaches a specific resonant frequency, and why soldiers must break step when crossing bridges.
Electromagnetic waves, though, scatter as soon as they hit something made of matter, and then absorb or reflect at various resonant frequencies determined by particle size. RF are the lowest frequency (longest wavelength) transverse waves. They also scatter in a variety of ways depending on their frequency compared to the size of the object. If the wavelength is much shorter than the target’s size (like a building or a mountain) the wave will reflect easily. But if the wavelength is much longer than the target’s size (like a drone or a small plane) it may not be visible at all, because of poor reflection. Like sound, low-frequency radar is dependent on resonances for detection, but not identification, of objects.
Comparatively, the shifting of the radio frequency in radar is just like the shifting of the sound frequency in sonar: the absorption/reflection/scattering of the wave causes a change in its “power” (energy), which in turn changes the frequency. The wavelength change is a function of momentum (radial velocity), which is directly proportional to the velocity of the target and the scattering coefficient of the material. The ability of radio waves to “bounce” off of large objects more than “absorb” makes them useful in this technology, even though the effect is not technically a true Doppler Effect. Like Doppler, it is an exchange of energy. Unlike Doppler, it comes from the collision with the object itself and not movement of the medium. So it is a pseudo-Doppler, more like a baseball being struck by a bat than an ambulance rushing down the highway.
Radar’s usability depends upon whether the configuration is active (ranging) or passive (non-ranging). Active radar transmits a signal that is reflected back to the receiver. It is echo-location, just like sonar. This is visualized by the rotating radar antenna: each sweep gives a measurement of how fast an object is going, but it does not tell us distance. To solve that variable, each sweep is periodic, providing a measured pulse. That pulse, just like the sonar ping, gives time-of-flight data between when it was sent and when it was received. The time-of-flight multiplied by the speed of radio waves calculates space-distance. This pulse data can also be generated by modulating the frequency itself.
Passive (continuous wave) radar, on the other hand, depends upon the object itself sending a signal to the receiver. There is no transmitter to send out a wave to bounce back, the object is the transmitter. Passive radar relies not only on receiving signals coming directly from the object, but the signal also bouncing off other known third-party objects. The relation of the target object’s straight signal compared with the bounced signals calculates velocity. In passive radar the waves are not scattered off the moving object, but off something the object is passing near. Unmodulated passive radar, by definition, cannot determine distance. Without a pulsed time-reference to calculate time-of-flight, distance cannot be determined.
Enter modulated passive radar. In this case it is the object’s frequency itself that is periodically changing, like a police siren. This pulsing, once again, provides the time-of-flight data to determine distance - it just comes from the object and not the observer. In this sense, it is actually once again ‘active’ radar. A pulsed siren cycles through pitches from high to low. When far away the wah-wah is slow, but as it approaches the tempo increases. As the object advances it takes less time for the frequency cycle to reach us, quickening its pace. Modulated passive radar combines both the "Doppler" shifting of the frequencies with a known periodic cycle, allowing us to determine both the speed and location of the object. It’s all the same equation, just different means of acquiring the variables.
D. The Not-a-Doppler Effect
Radar still produces a frequency-velocity relationship just like a Doppler Effect, but being electromagnetic it can be used in the vacuum of Space (not-Doppler). Hence, it did not take long for astrophysics to start using radar on our local stellar bodies. But, while radio waves can indeed be used to measure velocities in direct relation to the change in frequency, this is not a true Doppler Effect. It just “works out” the same, and still requires echo-bouncing the signal off an object (active radar). The lesson remains obvious, without a pulsed time-of-flight measurement to determine length-distance there is a missing variable and therefore no way to calculate time-distance.
This missing variable was not a problem at first since we have other means to calculate the distances of local stellar bodies. Frequency shifts in star light matched up with what was expected from the Doppler equation and so ‘light red shift’ became an entrenched paradigm. In effect, astrophysicists calibrated cosmic radar measurements to these local distances, and removed the two-way echoing in favor of a one-way red shift measurement. Passive radar begins to be treated as active radar. We have now evolved from a Doppler Effect through a pseudo-Doppler Effect to a not-a-Doppler Effect at all.
Radio wave radar “works the same” as Doppler sonar even though it is a different waveform. This is because they are both affected by the same energy source: collision. Both waves, asymmetrical or symmetrical, are changed because of interaction with the target, not contactless along their paths. This allows the symmetrical radio wave to ACT like an asymmetrical sound wave. Sonar and radar are both an asymmetrical transfer of energy upon echoing off the target, regardless of the differing waveforms. Radar is not a Doppler effect, but the theme had become established. Radio wave radar just adopted a pseudonym from its sound sonar father and suddenly ‘Doppler Radar’ shows up on all the weather channels. But hey, “close enough”, especially for weather forecasting. Quit splitting hairs.
This would be fine if “Doppler Radar” had stayed on Earth where it was constructed. But it did not, having that magical vacuum-propagating property that sonar lacks, and so was aimed into Space. Using radar to calculate distances between our planet neighbors was useful, “true Doppler” or not. Unfortunately, radio waves as low-energy electromagnetic middlemen only get us around the Solar System. They certainly cannot measure anything on a galactic scale. This is where light Doppler and Radio Astronomy were born. The non-Doppler properties of electromagnetic radio waves were transferred onto electromagnetic light waves. We’ve now travelled even further up the frequency scale and are able to misuse the term on photons as well. Also, no longer able to echo-bounce a signal off a distant target at all, astrophysics just gave up determining time-of-flight altogether and decided that data could come straight from passive red shift.
There are even two “Doppler Effect” equations, one for active radar and one for passive radar. These equations are different by a factor of two, which is super obvious considering the ‘2x’ in the active radar equation is because of the ‘two-way’ echo. A one-way passive radar does not have that. Fittingly enough passive radar is used mostly in Radio Astronomy. Astrophysics ignores the fact that it is the active collision of the radio wave with the target that creates the frequency shift in radar. It is an energy transfer. Lacking collision energy requires the frequency shift to be medium-generated, like in sonar. Yet again, there is no medium in Space.
So where is the energy transfer in red shift? Light from a star has not “hit” anything, so why is it shedding energy the farther it travels? And where is that energy going, since there is no medium in Space to absorb it? Modern cosmology has ignored the Law of Conservation of Energy and simply brushed it away into the accelerating expansion paradigm. Is it any wonder at all that the Standard Cosmological Model avoids the topic of photon decay like a universal plague. There is no mechanism for any energy transfer to cause red shifting of the photon frequency, and therefore the entire hypothesis relies solely on “expanding the vacuum of Space” to resolve the dilemma.
Both properties of “Doppler Radar” (energy transfer and echolocation) have been completely removed in Radio Astronomy. How is it then that either a velocity or a length-distance are measured, let alone a time-distance? There are now none of the three necessary variables: but astrophysics still assumes that it is getting a velocity from light frequency shift. Why? Because it worked! Using photon wavelength shift to calculate star velocity (in near stars), and luminosity data to calculate length-distance, produced two of the three variables. This allowed the calculation of the time-distance (age) of a star. Assuming a constant speed of light, this ‘age of the light’ multiplied by the velocity of light (c) gave the ‘distance the light travelled’: which matched up “close enough” to the luminosity distance, echo location data, and other measurement techniques. Viola! There was now a scale that correlated ‘light frequency shift’ directly to 'distance the light travelled’: luminosity “et al.” had become irrelevant.
E. Slippage
The Not-a-Doppler Effect was further extended to include measurements of ever more distant stars, beyond the reaches of our own galaxy, even to the Great Microwave Boundary. Astrophysics now had a distance-red shift equation that justified itself with three assumptions and a small subset of “nearly linear” short-distance luminosity and modulated passive radio data to back it up. But a strange thing was found when they used this equation on ever more distant stars: the star distances increased faster the farther out a star was. They were speeding up. Hmm, that should have seemed really super weird. No, instead of questioning the process by which the distances were calculated astrophysics stood by the holy assumptions and questioned the cosmic expansion rate instead. This resulted in the creation of the Standard Cosmological Model and the accelerating vacuum-expansion it mathematically contrives.
The distance-red shift non-linearity is a result of first the misapplication of a Doppler Effect, second the exclusion of echolocating, and third a total disregard for energy conservation. The Earth-sized “worked good enough” paradigm devolved into a Cosmic-sized “wait, this isn’t working anymore” dilemma. The distance differences were slipping as Space and Time uncoupled, but no one was going to go back and revisit that entrenched Not-a-Doppler Effect assumption. That scientific paradigm still has yet to be broken. [Crack #1].
F. A Difference in Functions
Two different waves, two different effects. Sound waves do not act like light waves in our reality, how do we possibly allow light waves to act like sound waves in our astrophysics? How is red shift, being a one-way time-of-flight measurement, even used to measure a distance? It is because light traveling at a constant speed assumes time and distance are interchangeable, even though they are not. Distance is additive linearly, but time compounds computationally. In ‘recent light’ the distance-red shift function gives us a “nearly-linear” calibration scale. But as time goes on and the light travels farther, distance and time uncouple creating the accelerating expansion expressed in the maths. Red shift is a function of time but has been incorrectly used as a function of distance. This is due to two other faulty assumptions: photons do not decay and light travels at (c) through all dimensions (Space and Time). These two assumptions, along with the Doppler Effect assumption, create the holy trinity of the SCM paradigm.
Yet the discrepancy still has to play out somewhere. Once assumed to be a measure of distance, red shift was used to correlate with distance-luminosity. At “short” distances these two completely different effects show similar observations. The beginning of the red shift curve starts out “nearly linear” because the compounding effect is extremely small. This is nothing unusual, many known functions start this way. Distance-red shift data statistically matched to luminosity data and so it became a useful scale to calculate stellar distances. Until it didn’t. Short distances were ok, but at larger distances this convenient relationship becomes increasingly inconvenient and requires seeking an inconvenient truth. The underlying exponential curve eventually takes over and reveals the true non-linearity of the red shift function.
In the early years of radio astronomy the “near-linear” portion of the red shift curve was as far into the depths of the cosmos we could see… it was still Earth-distant. It was assumed to be a linear relationship. As our view expanded so did the “not-so-linear-anymore” aspect of the compounding curve. But the assumption that light red shift was not only a Doppler Effect but a reliable measure of distance was already entrenched and written into the textbooks. Changing it will require a paradigm shift in the fundamental thinking of astrophysics, another change that has yet to happen. Stretching a vacuum is easier than changing a scientific paradigm, it seems, and so the former was opted over the latter. This is where the SCM uses cosmic acceleration to provide mathematical causation to the dissociation of the two pieces of photon data: distance and time.
II. Photon’s Don’t Decay.
We are still brought back to the question: Where does photon energy go during red shift? Energy Conservation demands we account for it somewhere, and since we cannot account for it in the three Euclidean dimensions the energy must be passed along the Time dimension. So the answer to “Where does the photon energy go?” is “to the compounding computational record of digital information experienced by the photon, written onto the time vector for each quantum moment of its existence.” It is documenting history. This digital information storage is a system of increasing complexity and violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. To do this requires an energy input to record the data, and a medium to record it on. As the photon spends energy through frequency decay it translates that energy into a digital record of quantum vector movements expressed as gravitational waves recorded onto graviton matter.
Things don’t just “exist” where they are, they evolved to that position through a sequence of events. Whether it is a black hole devouring stars, a radio transmission zooming off into the void, or a human being crawling from cradle to grave, everything exists as a collection of data from the moment of its creation plus every step it took along its path. A photo at a funeral says nothing about the life that the deceased led. A snapshot of today’s current events is devoid of information without the context of how the situation evolved, since every moment directly affects the moments following it. A photo of an “ancient galaxy” from the JWST has no crisis-inducing consequences without the context of the Hubble Constant to cause them. Indeed, without an incorrect age of the universe to make them “ancient” they would just be other old galaxies that we can now see more clearly. Time is deterministic.
For each quantum moment that a photon exists it travels a quantum leap of distance in 3D Space and records that movement in a quanta of 4D Time, requiring a quanta of energy to pay for it: like a block chain. This audit trail includes the origin point of the photon, its directions and velocities, and every event that happens to it along the way. It documents if the photon bends around a star’s gravity, is refracted through a prism, or reflects off a mirror. It stores the colors and images, dots and dashes, and ones and zeros carried by that light until it is finally consumed at observation: end transmission.
This data storage requires energy, and that energy is expressed in a reduction of velocity by the photon on the time-axis. This slowing below (c) allows an otherwise timeless photon to “experience time”. The photon is allowed to “age” and record its experience as memory data along the way. Upon observation in 3D this light is traveling at (c) again. Balancing the equation with the now lower photon energy results in a lower photon frequency expressed on the Space axes. The red shifting effect increases symmetrically the longer the photon exists, not how far it exists. Therefore, red shifted light represents a property of time not distance, and can only be used to calculate how old a photon is, not the distance it has travelled. Red shift is a function of photon decay. That scientific paradigm also has yet to be broken. [Crack #2].
III. Light is Moving at (c) in All Dimensions.
Current ‘Variable Speed of Light’ (VSL) hypotheses fail because they attempt to alter photon speeds within the same dimension. This violates Special Relativity. More specifically, they do not differentiate between a speed of light traveling in Space and one traveling through Time. They merely attempt to force a varying velocity as their solution to the incorrect cosmic geometry. Indeed, light speed is constant and invariable in 3D Space. Indeed, light speed is constant and invariable along the Time axis. Indeed, these two speeds need not be the same, and there is plenty of hard evidence to suggest they are not.
Unfortunately, VSL’s all sit within the same paradigm as the SCM: light speed is constant in all dimensions because Time is just another axis of Euclidean Space. But, if Time is actually not just another Euclidean dimension, then light traveling at different speeds in the two different mediums is not only allowed but most likely expected. This is exactly how a prism works. This possibility has been hinted at in certain VSL models but no solid definition is found in them to correctly define the geometry.
Light traveling at a velocity (c) through Space experiences absolute time dilation, ie: time stops and distances shrink to a point. That means every photon emitted from a source that travels the same time-distance experiences an instantaneous transition and should exhibit the exact same effects across all vectors. But that is not what is observed. Frequency shift in light is non-linear with distance even though distance is supposedly not experienced by the photon. One source explained light as “having zero time” or “not moving in the time vector”. This can’t be true, as all things in Space-Time are moving through Space AND Time. Light has to be affected by time just like everything else; it has to age like everything else. In that regards, hypotheses around “tired light” should be viewed more-so as “old light”.
Just as air is a different medium than water, light moves faster through one than the other. So it can be implied that light just moves at a different speed along the Time axis than it does on the Space axes. As with the circle analogy above, light coming from an emitter has travelled a 3D arc-distance (y) across Space to the observer, but a shorter 4D chord-distance (d) across Time to the observer. The light in 4D had to travel slower than the light in 3D to stay “connected” in Space-Time and arrive at the same observation point. Plus, it had to be able to do so at any quantum moment that it may be observed, being unable to predict the future.
Each inch the light travels in Space is a longer inch than it travels in Time. If the speed of light in 3D is (c), then in 4D it is (<c) by an amount directly proportional to the ratio in distances travelled: (d/y)(c) = ((y-a)/y)(c) = (1-(a/y))(c). For objects moving a maximum 180 degrees apart, a = 1.141(r) and y = pi(r). Therefore: (d/y)(c) = (1-(1.141(r)/(pi(r))))(c) = (1-(1.141/pi))(c) = 0.637(c). Note that the radius of the circle is entirely irrelevant. Light on the time axis moves at ~63.7% of (c) and therefore experiences a measurable time dilation. Per Special Relativity, moving at ‘0.64c’ equates to 77.1% time dilation. [Crack #3].
The Time-axis is a separate dimension than the three Euclidean’s and therefore will not have the same properties, including the speed that light travels through it. On the Time axis the photon does not experience distance, it experiences time. Time, being a deterministic quantity, is a store of information: the data collected by the photon as it travels. Storing information (increasing complexity) requires an input of energy; or, negentropy. That energy comes from the photon itself as a function of decay. That decay process is the conversion of simple light into complex matter: reverse entropy. Otherwise known as intelligence.
So I call ‘shenanigans’ on light Doppler Effect. Its assumptive presence has caused decades of search for the elusive Dark Energy and presumed an accelerating expansion of the universe in order to close the equation gaps that it created itself. Cosmic expansion can also be explained by a Hyperspherical Cosmological Model where the observable universe is the unbounded hypersphere surface of a 4D hyperball: a surface that is curved and stretches isotropically at all points in proportion to the expanding time-volume contained within it.
One Shifts Red, One Shifts Blue. The First is Old, The Second New
But what about blue shift? If red shift is light aging, then the existence of blue shift negates the premise. It implies a photon that reverses time. Not necessarily, light blue shift is simply caused by a different process. This also creates two kinds of red shift: one from the aging of light of over time (decay) and one that is created at the source along with a blue shift counterpart. Blue shift is only observed in local stars, not distant ones. This implies it is new light, not old light, and perhaps an asymmetric effect at the source, not symmetrical along its path.
According to General Relativity bodies of huge mass and gravity (stars) warp Space-Time creating a gravitational potential. Graphics show this as a depression that the star sits in, a bowl, such that objects moving close to them whip around the gravitational bowl and come out the other side. This is called gravitational microlensing. Note that a photon whipping around this bowl creates a difference in distances, where the observed path appears shorter, spatially, from origin to detection than the actual curved path. Light emitted from around the star has travelled an arc-distance that is farther than its chord-distance appears and so is older in time than the observed distance it traveled. That means it would exhibit more red shift than its actual location would imply.
Astrophysics has already taken gravitational microlensing into account when observing light that has travelled PASSED a star, but this effect is independent of the star’s velocity. Micolensing is not caused by the movement of the gravitational field but by the movement of the external photon through the gravitational field. Regardless, it is proof that light is affected by gravity, so the same effect also applies to the emitted photons that are escaping FROM the star. In this case though, it is the shifting of the gravity bowl that affects the light: ie, there would be no red or blue shift if the gravitational potential was stationary. A moving star sloshes this gravity bowl around with it, pushing it in font and simultaneously dragging it behind, compressing/expanding the gravitational field in proportion to its velocity… see where this is going? Red/blue shift is occurring in this regard because of a local asymmetric energy exchange caused by a moving gravity medium: a Relativistic Doppler Effect.
Just like the shifting air medium affects a sound wave in a Doppler Effect, it is the shifting gravity medium that affects a light wave in a Relativistic Doppler Effect. Imagine the bowl with a star floating in it is moving away from the observer. The light coming out its back not only has to scoop up out of the bowl and escape the star’s gravity, but now the side of the bowl itself is rushing into it, forcing the photons back, giving them drag, increasing the slope they must travel up, slowing them with gravitational momentum. To escape the increased gravity each photon must expend more energy to maintain a velocity of (c) and stay connected to 4D Time-of-flight. The engine has to rev, so to speak, expelling energy as a function of relativistic momentum and boosting the photon over the gravity hump. As the photon moves out of the range of gravitational potential it now has an energy deficit and must express this as an increase in wavelength. In short, the photon consumes its own frequency to climb out of the increased gravity potential caused by the moving star.
During this red shifting, a blue shift would also be occurring on the other side of the star emitter. In this case the bowl is moving towards the observer so the emitted light now has an easier path ahead of it: less gradient to climb. The gravity potential pushes the photons forward allowing them to let off the gas, like going downhill. The photon needs less energy to maintain (c) and remain coupled to the time movement happening in 4D. This energy surplus increases the photon frequency and shifts the wavelength towards blue. This also balances out the energy expended from the red shifted light ejected 180 degrees to the other side. All energy and momentum have been conserved, as they should be.
This effect, like Doppler, is asymmetrical and short-lived. Once the photon crosses out of the gravity bowl and travels away from the emitter the frequency shifting stops. Just like a sound wave Doppler Effect, a gravity wave Doppler Effect caused by the moving star is close-acting and stops as soon as the wave leaves its effective range. In leu of a physical frequency-shifting medium to travel through, which does not exist in a void, the light wave is effected by the “medium” of gravity, which indeed does exist in a void.
Once again, like sound Doppler, this can only calculate speed, not distance. A Relativistic Doppler does not continue affecting the photon across billions of light years of Space. It is asymmetric, otherwise we would feel the gravity effect of every star in our galaxy, if not the universe, carried by light. We would be “Doppler Effect-ed” all over the place. It would be universal chaos; no structures could form. Luckily, star blue shift, as a true Doppler Effect, stops as soon as the photon leaves the effective range of the gravity. Furthermore, since this is new light the time-distance curve is still near-linear and so time “pretty much” equals distance. This is why Relativistic Doppler can be used to correlate with distance-luminosity… in near stars. It takes the length-distance measurement of luminosity divided by the velocity output of the Relativistic Doppler effect to get the red shifted time-distance of the photons, their age. Multiply that by the speed of light and you’re right back to the red shifted length-distance of the star. It correlated with luminosity data because it was calibrated with luminosity data, and a linear curve was extrapolated past the known luminosity data points.
Red or blue, this young light shifting happens at the emitting source (asymmetric). Then the light red shifts (ages) evermore as it travels on into Space becoming old light (symmetric). The red shift we observe is the sum of both the velocity of the star and the age of the photon. In near stars it is mostly velocity, but since the age of the photon continues to grow, while the star velocity does not, we observe a perceived acceleration in distant light when there is none. The blue shift we observe is the difference between the star’s velocity and the age of the photon. Because of this, blue shifted light will gradually disappear the farther away from us the star is, even if it is headed towards us. This is why we do not see blue shift in distant light: after a certain distance observing blue shifted light is impossible. It simply grows up.
To Accelerate, or Not to Accelerate? That is the Question
I. A Hollow Sphere?
If the Big Bang happened according to the Standard Cosmological Model we exist in an empty, flat, 4D Euclidean universe stretching out from an origin point to infinity. The Bang was a singularity that ejected all the “stuff” of the cosmos outward from the origin into that empty universe in one moment. After that fraction of a second, the Bang ended and there wasn’t anything more ejected. This cosmic stuff drifted on, eventually evolving into protons, hydrogen, stars, and planets. If that was so wouldn’t the observable universe be a hollow sphere? With all of existing matter riding on the expanding edge and nothing in the center?
When we talk about the universe being ‘uniform in density and temperature’ does that include the spot where the Big Bang happened? Because you would imagine that spot should be empty, having exploded everything outward already. In order for stuff to still exist at the point of singularity it has to be motionless from the beginning, which is contrary to an explosion that ejected materials at the speed of light, or faster. This implies an explosion of varying but uniformly distributed velocities of energy, including zero. This is not plausible. In the movie, when the Death Star exploded it ejected matter out in all different directions and at all different speeds because of the differing masses and momentums of the chunks. That ‘singularity’ explosion created an expanding cloud of debris, but nothing was left resting in the middle. It created a hollow sphere, just a varyingly thick one because of the variety of velocities, non-uniformly distributed.
Anyone who has seen a smoke ring knows that the smoke doesn’t come out uniformly from the center to the edge forming a 2-dimensional disc. It comes out all at once and collects on the edge forming an expanding ring… hence smoke ring and not smoke disc. The observed universe blown out of the mouth of the Big Bang should be a hollow smoke sphere, yet it is not, it is a 3-dimensional disc. Not only that, the Big Bang exploded at the speed of light. So while the “fastest” particles came out traveling at (c) the “slowest” ones also came out at (c). That cloud of debris still spreads outward in all different directions and at all different speeds, but those “different” speeds are all (c). There should be no dispersion of matter anywhere from center-to-edge, it should be all edge. The Big Bang should create a hollow sphere of infinite thinness. Again, not what we observe.
II. Or a Hyper Sphere?
Instead, imagine a huge hyperball general universe with a hyperspherical surface. The Big Bang is a singularity at one point on its void and empty surface (an unbounded 3D plane), let’s say at the “north pole”. The resulting shockwave of the event would travel outward from the pole in all directions creating an expanding 3D spherical “ring” that ripples toward the equator. This “ring” is the material universe expanding along the surface of the general universe. Everything ejected from the Big Bang is in this ring. Everything ejected is traveling at the same cosmic speed of (c) so there is nothing left behind the ring and nothing speeding ahead of it. 3D Space is uniformly dense in all directions because growth is consistent in all three Euclidian dimensions. The “hollow center” would then be on the 4th time axis that isn’t moving (the radius is static) making the ring infinitesimally thin in that dimension. History would not exist, nor the future.
The analogy of a singularity spreading across the surface of a hyperball does not hold with observations. It would produce a deceleration of 3D growth: expanding rapidly during the early angles away from the north pole then slowing in those axes as it reached the equator. The speed of time would start at zero and increase exponentially as energy is transferred from 3D growth to 4D. At maximum circumference, 3D growth would slow to a stop while time speed is at its maximum. The universe then would begin shrinking in an accelerating function back to a singularity at the south pole, as time slows to a stop. This is not what we see.
Also, if an “explosion” on the hyperspherical surface creates an expanding 3D shockwave ring of infinite 4D thinness we wouldn’t be able to see “behind us” in time. “Where the universe was” would no longer be part of “where the universe is” and so we wouldn’t be able to observe it. It would have moved. There would also be no future to project into. “Where the universe is” will not be a part of “Where the universe will be” which makes any attempt at prediction futile. For history to happen, the cosmos must expand with 4D, not move across it.
What we do observe is a universe shaped as a 3D spherical disc equal on all axes with a growing time vector. We have a record of the past and can project into the future. We can do this because “where the universe was” is exactly still “where the universe is”. It hasn’t moved, it just got thicker. The past is all around us, recorded in everything from light, to rock, to cosmic radiation. We can see back almost as far as there is to see, and that’s a whole lot of data. “More space” is not what is filling up the gaps as the universe spreads. “Time” is filling up the gaps in Space, accumulating more and more Past in the form of recorded memory. It is all interconnected. That’s why it is called Space-Time: three dimensions of Space and one of Time, all expanding at the same proportional rate but with different mathematical functions. Time is not a “4th Euclidean Dimension”, it is a separate individual vector, a line with direction and magnitude. That means it expands at a different rate than the three Euclideans.
III. The Small Bang
So let’s restart the entire hyperball, but shrink it down until it is also at a singularity point, and then let it expand the cosmos instead of eject it. At creation, the volume of both the hyperball and its hypersphere surface are zero, they exist simultaneously at the same point in Space-Time. Upon expansion, the volume of the hyperball increases with time-growth causing a proportional increase in the volume of its hypersphere surface. This surface is the physical Euclidean universe, the observed universe of matter and light, being the unbounded plane of the hyperball’s ballooning surface, stretching from the hyperball expansion. On this crust, the ‘stretching’ of the energy contained in the original singularity point dilutes and cools into physical matter. The volume of the hyperball is filling with computationally growing deterministic information at a rate determined by the time algorithm.
This creates an inflating bubble, on which the singularity point consumes its entire expanding surface. Cosmic expansion is caused by the growth of the underlying 4th dimensional radius, by a time vector (t). As the hyperball volume increases, filling its internal hard drive with experience (knowledge), it translates that into an equivalent volume expansion in the hypersphere of Euclidean Space (structure). There is movement in all four dimensions allowing for equal dispersion and uniformity across the entire system. The universe becomes a spherical smoke disk, as we observe it to be. A disc that encompasses the entire surface of a hyperball ballon filling up with computational time data.
IV. Steady, As She Goes
Back to our analogy of two travelers moving east and west along the surface of their infinite globe. This time, instead of sailing around a planet they are in rocket ships zooming off into parts unknown. Their “globe” is now the 4D hypercosmos. But the analogy holds; for each step their spaceships move “east” and “west” into the open waters of Space they shift evermore “south” along the unseen 4th axis. In a 2D universe that unseen axis is the 3rd Euclidean dimension. In a 3D universe that unseen axis is the Time dimension. In the astronauts’ observational frame they are each moving straight through a cosmic cube into nothingness, but actually follow a curving path across a uniformly populated cosmic sphere. Time is the gravity keeping them connected to the “surface” of the cosmic globe, as they curve through a “flat” 3D.
For each quanta of accumulating Time (t) there is an equal quanta of accumulating Space (x,y,z). The hyperball is growing at a constant vector rate and increasing its volume by: V(h) = pi2r(h)4/2, where ‘r(h)’ is the radius of the hyperball. delta V(h) = 2pi2(delta r(h))3, showing that time-volume data accumulation is a power of 3. The surface area of the hyperball equals 2pi2r(h)3. This equals the 3D Euclidean sphere volume of 4pi(r(u))3/3, where r(u) is the radius of the hypersphere. Therefore, 4pi(r(u))3/3 = 2pi2r(h)3; r(u) = (3pi(r(h))3/2)1/3 = (4.7124)1/3((r(h))3)1/3 = 1.6765 r(h). If delta r(u) = 1.6765 delta r(h), then for each 1 unit increase (t) in the time radius of the hyperball the radius of the hypersphere universe expands by 1.6765.
This is linear growth, not acceleration, which makes sense. Since the expansion of the universe is an expression of the expansion of the hyperball it is not possible that the increasing radius of the observed universe is accelerating unless time is also accelerating. Yes, hyperball time-volume is increasing exponentially, but that mathematically creates a hypersphere with linear growth. The surface area of the hyperball grows by a square of its radius, suggesting cosmic expansion is accelerating with time. Indeed, 3D cosmic volume is expanding exponentially, by a power of 2 [delta V(u) = 4pi(delta r(u))2]. But cosmic area (radius) is one exponent less [delta SA(u) = 8pi(delta r(u))], growing at a power of 1: or linearly. Super convenient: cosmic expansion is steady, not accelerating.
The perceived expansion acceleration is due to the combination of both linear photon decay and linear hypersphere expansion. Such that a 22.9% red shift per unit time multiplied by 67.7% cosmic expansion per unit time equals ~15.5% “acceleration” per unit of time squared. But this is a misapplication of the maths, by using red shift as proof of vacuum expansion instead of proof of photon decay. The SCM-generated estimate of the light age of the universe, from the Cosmic Microwave Background, is ~13.8BY old. Starting at 1BY and compounding 15.5% per 1BY for 13.8 iterations calculates an observed cosmic radius of ~41.0BLY. The current SCM estimate of the observed cosmic radius is ~46.5BLY, a difference of 13.4%.
A Candy-Coated Cosmos
If the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is currently the limit of our view into the vast knowledge of the universe, then breaking this boundary and understanding what lies beyond it is the galactic test our astrophysics has to surpass. The cosmic microwave boundary offers the final conundrum of the Standard Model of Cosmology. Indeed, the red shift-luminosity distance discrepancy and the CMB are THE TWO MAIN OBSERVATIONS that support its continued use. It is amazing then that not just the first of these assumptions, but both, can be called into question. These are not very stout pillars by which to build the Foundation of the Universe.
The current description of the CMB brings us back to the hollow sphere analogy mentioned above. We are told that microwave background is seen in every direction we look in the cosmos at around 13.8BLY away - sort of like a candy shell surrounding the gooey bits of the physical universe. This makes sense if it exploded outward from a singularity: looking out into space represents a backwards timeline, where each light year takes us further back in history. The CMB then presumably shows us the ‘Age of the Cosmos’, all the way to the beginnings of the universe and the creation of matter itself. With us conveniently right in the center of it.
There is one huge problem with this view, as any student of Copernicus would see - How are we the center of it? We are to believe the CMB extends in a globe in every direction around US? Even a current map of the known universe has the Milky Way in the middle, with other observed galaxies extending outward from us in a sphere. That is a very logical view, considering what we can observe. But it is not at all logical to assume that what we can see is all that there is. It is the peak of hubris to once again, given the example of history, make a map of the universe with ourselves at the center. And then literally bend the maths of physics to “make it so”. It is as if astrophysics is, yet again, stuck in a self-centered model of the heavens.
The SCM’s CMB assumption falls to two Occam slices, the first being the assumption that we are at the center of it all: this likelihood being so small as to be laughable in today’s modern Cosmology. If indeed the CMB is a shell representing the "limit of the universe” and contains the sum of all matter inside it, it would be more believable for us to be offset from the center, maybe part-way across, even near the edge. Given that the Milky Way itself isn’t even the oldest galaxy in the universe, how can it be the center? It can’t, because it isn’t. Since it is highly improbable that we are at the center of the universe, and if the CMB is actually the ‘exploded edge’, we should see one side of that shell as closer than the opposite side. But that is not what we see.
The second failure of the CMB is the analogy of the hollow sphere itself. If the CMB represents the “edge” of the observable universe, almost to the beginning of time itself, then we should be able to find a true “center” other than ourselves. There should be a huge, spherical, and observably empty chunk of space at the singularity. This spot is nowhere to be found - the universe is uniform from edge to edge of the CMB shell. There may be density differences, but certainly no huge “middle” where everything exploded out from.
That is because the cosmos didn’t explode out of the Big Bang singularity. It has grown on the surface of the singularity, as it expands with time. The center of the universe is still exactly where it was from the beginning: everywhere. Everything in the universe was once at the center, and still is, the center just grew. The physical matter that became the Milky Way is still in the same respective space in relation to all other matter, and it always has been, as has every other galaxy. We are spreading apart, not moving apart, and is why the Metaphysicists claim “we are all connected”, having “all” came from “one point”. The reason everything in the universe is quantum entangled is because everything in the universe is, and has been, connected from inception. The only thing spreading us apart is Time.
The entire SCM interpretation of the CMB, from its placement as a “globe” around us, to its use to calculate the age of the universe, if shown to not hold, must be discarded. If the CMB is truly the background radiation left over from the Big Bang, we would see it everywhere at every point in the universe, near and far, not just the observable “edge.” It would fill the space between every galaxy. The fact that we see it as a globe all around us, placing us at the center, actually makes it appear contrived, and unnatural. It certainly shows that it is an observational effect coming from US, not the greater cosmos.
The ancient galaxies being found by the JWST collapse both pillars of the Standard Model: red shift acceleration and the CMB age. There is no argument that ‘distant light’ is ‘older light’, but the red shift assumption limits the age of these anomalous galaxies to ‘how far away they are’, regardless of if that is actually their true age. This is because distance is measured along the surface of our 4D hypersphere universe but age is measured along its radius. Crack: one pillar gone. Which is really all that is required, because truthfully there is only one pillar anyway: the Hubble Constant.
From Wikipedia, “With few exceptions, distances based on direct measurements are available only out to about a thousand parsecs, which is a modest portion of our own galaxy. For distances beyond that, measures depend upon physical assumptions …” Which means every distance we calculate beyond our own Milky Way is a “best guess” from a variety of overlapping sources. By the time we get to the outer limits of the CMB, the math relies entirely upon … you guessed it … red shift. The only reason we calculate the Age of the Cosmos as 13.8BLY away is because of the Hubble Constant, calculated from red shift data. If red shift is just an illusion, then the Hubble Constant is the magician’s wand. From it are calculated the extreme cosmic distances, and from those come the cosmic age via the CMB edge. If red shift assumptions are wrong then so is Hubble, so is the CMB, and so is the contrived age of the universe. They are all the same pillar supported by red shift, and a mis-applied Doppler Effect.
As of right now the JWST has kicked the age of the universe out from under Hubble’s feet. Because it works in reverse as well: if the age is wrong, so is the CMB distance. That makes the Hubble Constant wrong and blows a hole in the red shift lifeboat of the Standard Model. We need to just let that boat sink. Without the “shell” of the CMB defining the age boundary of the universe, we wouldn’t see these ancient galaxies as “older than the edge”. Would we even see an edge at all? The analogies given so far suggest not, that with powerful enough technology we could actually see far enough to wrap around the entire hypersphere globe and view ourselves from the back side: just like we use satellites to see around the Earth globe.
The CMB is not the “age limit” of the universe, it is an observational effect viewed by us here in the Milky Way and is not an attribute of the universe itself. Assuming the distance from "us to it” marks the age of the universe is analogous to using the distance to our visual horizon as the age of the Earth = pretty young Earth. Using a length as a unit of time? Silly, huh. The proof of this is simply and literally that the CMB shell is uniformly distant from us in all directions. It is actually geo-centric. So unless we are indeed the ‘center of the universe’ the CMB can have nothing to do with the ‘center of the universe’. Or the ‘edge of the universe’ either, since, also like the Earth, the universe is unbounded. That means it curves.
Here on our Earth globe, looking out to our 2D horizon has a physical limit even though the ground itself continues to curve onward beyond that limit. Better telescopes can refine what we see within that physical border, expanding what is clear to us, but line-of-site is still line-of-site, until we learn how to bend light. The best telescopes in the world cannot see around the globe, that requires satellites. The CMB is our own visual Time horizon stretching out from us in all three Euclidian directions. So aiming our telescopes into the void and expecting not to hit a visual horizon sounds a bit… short-sighted. Light refracts as it moves through our atmosphere, distorting our linear ground view until there is no more view at all. The same is with the CMB, the farther we look the more bent and distorted it gets, until eventually the picture is so warped that it’s just a bunch of noise. Why should we expect to see past the cosmic event horizon with current technology?
Crossing any barrier, natural or manufactured, requires a measurable and quantifiable amount of activation energy to solve and overcome. We solved the horizon paradox here on Earth, not by trying to create a better telescope, but by launching satellites around the globe and breaking the single line-of-site into multiple parts. We turned a curve into a sequence of lines. A quantifiable amount of technology was required to materialize that solution, and the oil energy to power it. It was a technological filter we had to cross to advance our understanding of our own planet. The CMB then becomes another technology filter: a test that requires the advancement of an intelligence to solve. Cracking the CMB shell is our cosmic horizon we are trying to see around, doing so will allow us a full view of the entire universe.
A Difference in Ages
Per the Bell graphic of universe expansion, the ‘Inflation Period’ provided 84.6BLY of the current 93BLY in observed universe diameter in just a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. That is about 91%. After that moment, over the next 13.8BY, the background expansion of the universe progressed slowly with a “near linearity”. Then over the most recent 4.7BY it accelerated 8.4BLY = a 10% increase. It seems that cosmic expansion is anything but predictable, and no real cause has been floated for the eradicate behavior.
Even as a layman, regardless of any belief in expansion acceleration, a cursory look at this graphic suggests that it would reduce backwards evenly in time along a definable function if allowed to do so. But that regression stops once we hit the CMB, a contrived boundary that has been used to back-calculate an “age of the universe”. Why the dance? Just make the universe older, as the curve clearly suggests, and figure out why the CMB doesn’t fit that model, not the reverse.
What we have in the Bell graphic is a compressed infancy of the universe constructed to fit the model, instead of a refined model that accurately defines the age of the universe. To reconcile this we have an initial universe inflation happening at velocities of multiple times faster than the speed of light, breaking the SCM’s own rules of physics. It seems light travels at (c) until it no longer works in the maths. My suggestion that light speed can change in different dimensions doesn’t appear so strange when compared.
The JWST is breaking this back-calculation. Galaxies that have no business being as developed as they are suggest a universe much older than we have assumed. Again, this makes sense if you extrapolate that Bell curve backwards past the current age assumption. If this age calculation is directly related to the CMB, then any fault in the assumptions about the CMB changes the age of the universe. Pretty crucial then that this is correct. The CMB boundary is the very reason the infancy of the universe is compressed into such a small timeframe, compared to the rest of known cosmic time. A compression that makes zero sense unless you constrain it via the CMB.
What if the CMB does not represent how far back in time we can see, but how far across the universe we can see, given that it curves like a horizon. If you look out to the horizon on our 3D globe and spin around viewing it in 360 degrees you form a circle. In this analogy, viewing out into our 4D cosmos and spinning around to see the horizon in 360 degrees you form a sphere. If the CMB is a 4D ‘horizon’ it would look like an equidistant sphere all around us, at the edge of the observable universe, like a crust or a shell. Which is exactly what we see.
A ship sailing off into the ocean horizon not only shrinks with distance but also gradually slips downwards out of view. A picture of power lines should show a line straight off to a point, but instead it shows a downward curve into nothingness as they wrap around the globe (thanks, Neil). If the Earth was actually straight, this wouldn’t happen. So it is a perfect analogy that viewing off into the horizon of the cosmos, and observing stellar ships traveling towards it, we would see them not only shrink in size, but drift out of our view entirely. It is unfortunate we don't have a string of galactic power lines to reenforce this point.
This CMB shell is not an age boundary. It is a distance measurement boundary and again makes the assumption that we are viewing out from a cosmic center to the “edge of the universe”. It is only the edge of what we can detect with our technology. Which means ancient galaxies can be much closer to us in distance yet still be older than that distance implies. Assuming a flat 4D Euclidean universe means the distance the CMB is away from us (y) equals its age (r(h)), when it does not. It assumes a length (km) is the same as a time (year). But a 4D hypersphere universe uncouples 3D distance vectors from the 4D time vector, meaning ‘how far away a galaxy is from us’ has only partly to do with ‘how old it is’. It limits its youth, not its maturity.
The JWST is not discovering galaxies that are 'older than the universe’. Indeed they are no older than any other point of Space-Time, including where the Milky Way sits; everything in the universe is the exact same age. These “ancient galaxies” are just more developed. ‘All of the universe’ has experienced the same amount of ‘all of time’ and therefore there is no “older”, just “more mature” and “more spread out”. Certainly the JWST is finding light that has travelled farther than we have detected before. It is simply a refinement of our measurements, now being able to see more clearly to the blurry horizon. The JWST is, quite literally, just a “better telescope”.
The light coming from these galaxies is the oldest we’ve detected, but that doesn’t mean the galaxy is that young. Indeed, light from a galaxy that is 13.5BLY DISTANT implies a galaxy AT LEAST that old, and therefore a universe AT LEAST that old. What the JWST is actually discovering is that our use of the CMB to calculate the age of the universe is incorrect. Just like viewing to the horizon on Earth, there is a whole lot left to see beyond that horizon than is visible to the eyes (light). If the view of the world was constrained to that circular horizon (line-of-sight) it would be vastly smaller than the entire real globe. Refining our telescopes and aiming them horizontally doesn’t improve how far around the planet we can see. It simply means we eventually look straight through the crust of atmosphere and then into Space.
No telescope invented will be able to view Beijing from Boston. Similarly, our observed view of the cosmos is restricted by this hyperspherical line-of-sight horizon, limiting us from seeing the extended universe beyond, however big or finite it may be. Light measurements are constrained to travel along the circumference of the hypersphere, yet age is defined by radius from the center. Two different measurements: two different results. Since we are unable to physically view any part of the universe past this horizon, we are left with the only thing there is to see: the CMB.
The question that remains is: how far around the cosmos does this view reach? On Earth our physical view is very much limited compared to globe size. In Space we seem to have a farther gaze, thanks to, but also limited by, the properties of light. If the 3D cosmic radius is 67.65% of the time vector, then the measurement of the age of the CMB is 32.35% too young. The age of the universe is actually closer to 20.4BY. Or more, because this measurement has also assumed an ability to measure the entire sphere of universe (y=r(u)). If we are constrained to a 90 degree measurement limit (instead of 180 degrees), for example, we are only seeing 50% of the universe. Now we have a cosmos that is 40.8BY old.
Consider that we can only see light as far away as the age of the universe. But from expansion, the physical universe extends farther than that light detection limit. Basically, the universe is bigger than it is old, and we have to find a way other than light to measure distant galaxies. From the ‘Big Bang’ singularity, matter has spread apart along any arc-line on the hypersphere surface at a rate of 1.6765 times the growth of the radius. Traversing one LightYear of that perimeter is 59.65% of the total 1.6765LY, therefore we can currently view 40.35% around the hypersphere before any light heading our way is too young to reach us. That creates a cosmic age of 50.6BY.
But that’s original light, light from the Big Bang itself. As new light is created in an expanding general universe, our observable portion of that light is also shrinking. Since each LY of existence creates another 1.68LY of cosmic diameter, an additional 1.36LY of observable space is lost (40.35%). Such that at 1LY old the cosmos is 3.36LY across, and we see 1.36LY of it. This is a radius of 1.68LY, the farthest away any two points can be at 1LY old. Light emitted from the singularity would take 1.68LY to reach the observer, but after traveling 1LY the radius of the cosmos is now 3.36LY. The light only made it 29.8% of the way: still 2.36LY to go.
Another light year closer leaves 3.03LY to go, geesh, made it 39.8% of the way and there’s still further to go than we it started. Makes it feel like one of those extending hallway scenes in a horror movie: the faster you run the farther away the escape door gets. Another light year leaves yet another 4.4LY to go: made it 44.7% of the way, etc. Until the reduction of that asymptotic function means that the new light, no matter how far it travels, will never reach the observer. It will eventually settle into a position 59.65% along the hypersphere, never passing the 40.35% horizon.
The same boundary is found with light created at year 2, 3, 1000, 1000000 and beyond. The function is asymptotic, always settling at 59.65%. Therefore, all light created beyond this boundary eventually settles at it before reaching us. That means the CMB is the accumulation of all light from the remaining unseeable 59.65% of the universe beyond it. It is literally white noise… or more accurately, red noise. That distant light, regardless of its inability to move ‘closer’ to us, keeps aging. It keeps red shifting. It is still traveling towards us, we are just moving away from it at the exact same pace.
Since light settles to rest on a defined boundary, inside that boundary represents an entirely different set of conditions than outside it. Inside the boundary we can detect individual light sources, outside the boundary they all overlap into a growing pile of old-light needles that have smashed against the CMB pincushion. This is why the CMB is an infinitesimally thin shell of microwave (red shifted) light. It is all the light from the unobservable universe stacking up on the edge, never getting closer but always getting older.
Therefore, at any time, 59.65% of the universe is unobservable to us using light as our tool of measurement. It physically can’t reach us. As the universe spreads, old light becomes ever more blurry and new light becomes ever more unreachable. This means that only light from galaxies existing within the CMB boundary has ever or will ever reach us, regardless of how old the universe is or how far it extends beyond the CMB. In fact, any new light generated from within the CMB, yet beyond 40.35% of its distance from us (>5.6BLY away) will never reach us either. The universe will expand before it ever gets here. Eventually it just ends up as more elderly microwave light stacked on the edge.
We could potentially “unstack” the CMB data: technically, all the rest of cosmic information is in there. But that would require the computational power of AI to accomplish. The lowest realms of the CMB frequency range (0.3 Ghz) uncovers the “oldest light possible” right down to the very bottom of microwave frequencies. “Old light” may not actually ever “die”, it seems, but just sits forever asymptotically aging in the Elysian Fields of the CMB retirement home. Otherwise, in order to see beyond this barrier requires a tool other than light. And as time moves on, that dome of visibility will continue to shrink, as all matter moves outside its lens. If the Milky Way exists long enough, it will eventually be all alone in the vast nothingness of CMB blindness, like a milky cosmic cataract.
The Cosmic Microwave Background, as a limit of distance measurement, has been incorrectly used as a limit of age for the universe. This incorrect age then trickles through every concept of the Standard Cosmological Model and creates a crisis when objects are found to be older than that age boundary. A cosmos 50.6BY old can very well accommodate ancient galaxies, super-massive black holes, and would provide a much needed facelift to the puckered beginnings of the Bell expansion. Instead of viewing the CMB as an age limit we should view it as a limit of light detection, and pursue other technologies to ‘satellite’ our way around this barrier.
Conclusion
In summation, there are no straight lines or flat planes in the universe. That has become self-evident. Therefore, straight lines and flat planes should be removed from our models of the universe. The cosmos is built of spirals, from the Golden to the Lituus, and it is pretty silly that we still think anything in the universe is straight. We thought sailing to the horizon was a straight line, it is not. We still seem to think that light coming from distance stars travels to us in a straight line: it does not. And we will still think that Time itself is straight, when it is not.
The “proof” of this is the 13.4% variance of this Hyperspherical Model’s estimate of the observed radius of the universe compared to the Standard Model’s observed radius. This is not an error, it represents the curvature of the Time vector as it has expanded the hyberball over the last 50.6Billion Years. Abandoning 4D Euclidean geometry and exploring this curvature of Time may allow us insight into the future of the cosmos, whether it will end, create a steady-state, or quantum leap into a recycled singularity.
Correcting the cosmic geometry will also allow further insights into creating technologies that will cross the CMB barrier. On Earth we use satellites to break the line-of-site conundrum which prevents us from using a telescope to peer around the globe. In that same regard, we should stop attempting to invent a "better telescope" to peer around the entire circumference of the universe. Unfortunately, building "satellites" to solve the CMB barrier involves stepping outside of the hyperball universe, into the extending horosphere that it floats in. This is a route best left to the spiritual. Instead, we must develop technologies to 'drill' into the hyberball itself. As on Earth, if we had a telescope that could peer through rock we would not need satellites to encircle the planet, we would simply go through the core. In that same regard, we will be better served finding technologies that peer straight into and through the hyperball's time-volume, instead of around its curved surface. This is the realm of wormholes.
I will rely on others to check my maths, and to delve into the equations solving the 5D curvature of Time. Regardless, this model is merely an attempt to address the current failed geometry of the SCM universe, instead of perpetuating the enduring hunt for Dark Avoidance. If indeed there is a need to "reconcile the measured geometry of Space with the total amount of matter in the universe” then addressing the former is as important as dwelling on the later.
Sean Myers
Oct 28, 2023
Dark Foundations
Let’s go on a journey. That journey starts with assumptions; the whole “makes an ass out of you and me” part, especially. The current Standard Cosmological Model (SCM) has been built on a number of assumptions that are proving to perhaps not hold true, especially given the vast amount of new and shocking discoveries presented by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Yet, a Ptolemaic effort is made to make the new data fit the prior assumptions: specifically concerning light red shift, photon decay, accelerating expansion, the cosmic microwave background, and the age of the universe. Researching alternative models is exceedingly difficult, since even the alternatives are based from the same assumptions. The result is always the dark dead ends of Dark Matter and Dark Energy: magical black boxes used to conjure an explanation to the inexplainable.
A model is supposed to predict a behavior, meaning new observations of behavior should agree with the model’s prediction. If that predictive function fails, the model requires change. What we see today in Cosmology is data that does not agree with the model, but the model has a built-in trap door in the form of a Constant that simply gets adjusted to fit the new data. It seems to defeat the purpose of calling something a “constant” if it can be “adjusted”. Unfortunately, the SCM has taken assumptions and created predictions from them. Those predictions are that the universe is less than 14Billion years old and that cosmic expansion is accelerating. Data must then fit this prediction for the SCM to remain a functional model. If not, it should be discarded. Keeping the SCM alive until a way is “figured out” to squeeze the new data into it is entirely anathema to the scientific process. But, it has happened before, so it is not entirely surprising.
The SCM is proving to be non-predictive, so it has become post-dictive to survive as a model. Lots and lots of examples of this in science throughout history. The geocentric Solar System Model required ever-more convoluted retrograde orbits to explain the very simple, yet ignored, heliocentricity of reality. ‘Flat-Earth’, as a failed model, still exists to this day fanatically justified by its faithful adherents. Once upon a time there were only four elements: earth, air, fire, and water, and demons could fly up your nose when you sneezed. Such is the power of belief. The two main pillars holding up the foundations of the SCM are the distance-red shift relation and the cosmic microwave background. These pillars are supported by three assumptions: light waves exhibit a Doppler Effect, photons do not decay, and the speed of light is constant in all dimensions. A critical fault in any of these assumptions should result in the restructuring of the model. A critical fault in all of them should eliminate it as a model altogether.
Language supporting the SCM, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy is ubiquitous. For example, from a prominent journal concerning the cosmic microwave background: “The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of Space with the total amount of matter in the universe.” That’s a pretty brazen confession. Either the geometry of the universe, as bounded by the cosmic microwave background, is incorrect, or the total amount of matter is. Notice how the first criteria is never questioned, even to the extent of fabricating the second to balance the error. The Standard Cosmological Model would rather create invisible matter and energy than dare to reconfigure a failed cosmic geometry. But, when a model begins fabricating reasons to stay alive it is no longer adaptive, it is parasitic, and must be allowed to pass through the intestines of scientific inquiry.
A Difference in Views
All assumptions about the cosmic expansion rate start with red shift, but light red shift is a catch-22. Standard Cosmology states that light red shift is caused by ‘cosmic expansion’, meaning photon wavelengths lengthen as the ‘fabric of the universe’ stretches faster the farther a photon travels. Mathematically, though, this is still a transfer of energy, yet this photon energy exchange is not accounted. Three solutions can be proposed for this:
I. Photon Energy Loss is Causing Accelerating Cosmic Expansion
This view states that all matter in the universe is expanding from Big Bang inertia as celestial bodies move away from each other. By the “Doppler Effect”, this receding movement causes light emitted from a star to shift towards longer wavelengths. The wavelength difference, times Planck’s constant, calculates into energy “spent” by the photon which is turned into “work” that pushes matter even farther away in a non-linear accelerating feedback loop. This is a perpetual motion machine, allowing expansion to create energy to create expansion, which violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. Expansion acceleration isn’t being confirmed by red shift data, it is being extrapolated from red shift data and is assumed to be happening because it has to or the model won’t work.
II. Accelerating Cosmic Expansion is Causing Non-Linear Photon Wavelength Shift
This is the current SCM view, yet still begs the question: “Where did the photon energy go?” This view states that there is no photon energy lost during red shift because it is impossible: photons don’t decay. The difference in wavelengths is simply observer dependent. The actual photon energy has not changed, the wavelength difference is just an observational effect. This is circular logic, a catch-22. There is no viable solution to the discrepancy so one is created, by necessity, out of thin Nothingness. Mathematically, though, the energy still has to go somewhere. Having no idea where it goes and nowhere to put it, the SCM solution becomes to push it into more Space. It truly is convenient that Space is infinite, having an unlimited amount of space to add all this extra Space to. But, so far I have not found the carrier that translates photon frequency change into “more Space”. And neither has Cosmology, hence why the hunt for Dark Solutions continues.
If it is known that the energy of a photon is Planck times the frequency (inverse of wavelength) and that red shifted light has two different frequencies, what it started at and what it is observed at, then it must have two different energies: what it started at and what it ended at. Mathematically there is an energy difference between when the light is created and when it is detected and this energy must be accounted. If indeed it is “absorbed into the expansion of the universe” then there must be an illuminated mechanism by which it does this, such that the expansion can be directly correlated to the difference in photon energies via a carrier. Nor can the difference in energies just be un-counted. It is a bit insincere to brush the question aside as a “difference in view.”
III. Neither is Causing nor is Caused by the Other
We find further evidence of the continual rhetoric on another physics website describing the phenomenon as: “we ‘know' that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, from observed light red shift,” but then goes on to describe the dozen varied hypotheses around the how, when, and by what unknown mechanism any of this ‘knowing’ happens. Cosmology cannot agree on much else about the universe, from how it began [Big Bang, Eternal Inflation, Oscillation], unexplained observed phenomenon [Super-Massive Black Holes, Ancient Galaxies], or certainly how it ends [Big Freeze, Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Bounce, Big Slurp]. The JWST exceeded all expectations from the first images it collected, and began cracking paradigms just as quickly. To read anywhere that we “know" something about the cosmos elicits a super-massive big belly laugh. We know very little.
The only reason standard cosmology say it “knows” that the cosmic fabric is stretching is that it HAS TO according to the boundaries established by standard cosmology, boundaries that are only immutable because it has set them so. But then the SCM can’t reconcile the distance discrepancies in a supposedly flat universe, or explain why we find galaxies more mature than the age limit that those boundaries has calculated. It is an assumption that cosmic expansion is accelerating, extrapolated from a misinterpretation of light red shift, set within equation constraints that force a variable, creating an incorrect causation out of a temporary correlation. That isn’t “knowing”, it is arrogance.
Ptolemy gave way to Copernicus only after much astrological in-fighting and hand-wringing, and the condemnation of Galileo. But eventually the truth won out and heliocentricity has since become self-evident. It has become self-evident that we live on a spherical planet, not a flat one, and yet some people still deny the evidence even while using satellite technology to rant about the flat-earth on social media (how ironic). Newton is still a genius for his time but we teach his ground-breaking theory in high school, or younger, because gravity has become self-evident. Newtonian physics gave way to Einsteinian Relativity when more was learned about the universe around us. Relativity will also certainly fall to a new paradigm, as soon as its limits of predictability are surpassed. This is literally how science works. Cosmic geocentricity is no longer “self-evident.” Perhaps the speed of light isn’t actually constant, perhaps photons actually do decay. Perhaps the universe isn’t flat, but curved, like most everything else that exists in it. Perhaps universe expansion isn’t really accelerating, some humans just got their math wrong. It happens all the time.
A Difference in Distances
I. Some Light Math
Or, perhaps simply our assumptions about the geometry of the universe are incorrect. A different cosmic shape would also solve the dilemma of non-linear distance-red shift and doesn’t require dark magic, tensile voids, or immortal photons. Consider:
- On a 2D circle of radius (r), two points A and B moving out from the center at any given angle between them create an arc ‘y’ along the edge of the circle.
Eg, moving at 90 degrees apart gives a ‘y’ on the surface perimeter that is one-quarter the entire circumference, y = 2pi(r) times 90/360; y = 1.5708(r)
- There is also a chord line ‘d’ that can be drawn directly between the two points, cutting across the interior area of the circle. ‘d’, by definition, is shorter than ‘y’.
Eg, at 90 degrees apart gives a chord line between A and B of d2 = 2(r)2; d = 1.4142(r).
- Therefore, there is a difference ‘a’ = ‘y’-‘d’, depending on the arc angle between the two points, where a = ((pi(angle/180)) - (2sin(angle/2))(r).
- When ‘a’ is plotted for every 1 degree of separation up to 180 degrees it produces an accelerating polynomial curve. The distance discrepancy between ‘y’ and ‘d’ increases rapidly with angle, maximizing at 180 degrees where ‘y’ is then half the circumference, y = pi(r), and ‘d’ is the diameter of the circle, d = 2(r).
The postulation presented here is that the two bodies moving apart have an actual distance (d) between them that is straight across the interior of the circle. But if the means of measurement is constrained to a surface arc (y), to the observer at A the object B appears farther away than it actually is, spatially. If an object’s velocity is then calculated from ‘y’ instead of ‘d’, and to the observer the object travelled farther than it actually did, then given the known time it took to travel that distance the object must have moved faster than expected. Time being held constant forces the velocities to change to correct the distance discrepancy. But the speed of light is also a constant (c). The only way to reconcile this dilemma is to allow the distances to change (curve). That is also impossible in a flat universe and so requires ‘distance itself’ to stretch (ie: today’s inch is longer than yesterday’s inch). This is a unit change, not a change in any real measurement. That’s as if by wishing to be younger I make one year equal twenty-four months. Viola, youth restored!
There are only three variables in the equation, and yet two of them have been forced to constants (time and velocity). The only “plausible” solution then is to force ‘d’ to equal ‘y’ by making the circle expand. To fix the distance dilemma the SCM just makes the units larger; neat trick. But it is not a solution, it is an illusion. It creates the cyclical logic where light red shift requires cosmic expansion requires light red shift in a feed back loop. Reconciling ‘a’ requires inflating the circle, which further increases ‘a’. The effect is the cause is the effect.
II. The Dark Path
This distance discrepancy (a) is representationally the same whether or not the objects move outward from a center point or start at a single point on the surface (eg: the “north pole”) and move apart along the perimeter. Imagine two 1D explorers leaving the north pole of the circle. One goes right, the other goes left, each heading south towards the equator in opposite directions. The circle is infinitely larger than the travelers, so they each observe the surface to be “flat” (like the Earth). They believe each other to be moving on a straight path east and west (1D line), never realizing that to an outside observer in 2D they are actually moving east/south and west/south along curved 2D paths.
With each horizontal (x-axis) step they take, steps that would be moving them ‘off the circle’, an increasing fraction is translated into descent south (y-axis), like a force (gravity) keeping them attached to the surface. If gravity was actually pulling ‘down’, as in their 1D view, they would quite literally slip off the curved path (the edge) into the void. Yet they are saved because gravity actually pulls ‘in’ towards the center of the circle. To the explorers, in their 1D view, the 2D y-axis does not exist. But it certainly does exist, and profoundly impacts their reality.
III. A Heavy Premise
The observers existing on the 1D surface of a 2D world view it as flat even though it is curved. They think they are walking straight, but with each step are in fact shifting into an unseen 2nd Euclidean dimension. This is identical to how observers on the 2D surface of a spherical 3D Earth viewed it as “flat” for centuries. Any Flat-Earther will tell you if you walk in any direction you go straight into the horizon until you reach an edge and fall off. The rest of us know that actually if you keep going you’ll come all the way around full circle to your backside. This is because each step across the “flat” surface plane translates into an incremental shift ‘down’ into the unseen 3rd Euclidean dimension. The Earth is a sphere and so, spatially, it is shorter to cut through the core than to go around the surface. Duh. We regard the Flat-Earth concept as ridiculous in the 3D reality, but for some reason still accept Flat-Space in 4D. It is not a far “stretch” then to at least allow the possibility that observers in a 3D physical universe see it as ‘flat’ because it is the hyperspherical surface of a 4D hyperball.
Time is not a ‘4th Euclidean dimension’: there are three of those, and one dimension of Time. The three Euclidean axes comprise a hypersphere with the Time axis forming the radius of the underlying hyperball. This hypersphere universe is unbounded, like the surface of our own globe, and has no edge to fall off of. Yet we still believe if we travel straight into Space in any direction we go off into the cosmic horizon looking for an edge. This “straightness” is only a perception because with each step into the void the Space-traveller curves an increasing amount into the unseen Time dimension. We believe we are traveling straight through our 3D universe, but to any outside observer in 4D our paths are very much curving.
This is what causes the red shift-luminosity discrepancy, not any accelerating expansion of the universe. Standard Cosmology is based on the assumption that light is traveling a straight path towards us, when it is not. To us observing our 3D world, the 4th axis does not affect us. But it certainly does affect us, and profoundly impacts our reality. As we aim our rocket ships into the cosmos, time, like gravity, is not pulling us ‘up’ from a surface, or even ‘outward’ from a center. It pulls us ‘forward’, from a beginning. Unlike the Euclidean axes, Time is deterministic.
The Trinity of Assumptions
I. Red shift is a Doppler Effect of Light.
A. The Doppler Effect
There must have been quite the mental leap from observing frequency changes in moving-emitter longitudinal waves that propagate asymmetrically through a physical medium of matter (sound) and extrapolating that onto frequency changes of moving-emitter transverse wave-particles that travel symmetrically through a vacuum (starlight). There is little doubt that photon light from distant stars is shifted to the red, nor that luminosity data shows celestial bodies are moving away from us. The doubt is that these red shift observations are caused by a “light Doppler Effect”.
In the real Doppler Effect the change on the sound wave is caused by the compression or expansion of the physical matter it is moving through, not by the movement of its source. The wave is the medium is the wave: it is the very particles of the medium itself that propagate the force of the wave. It just so happens that the energy and momentum of the emitting source is often also the cause of the compression/expansion of the medium, like an ambulance siren rushing into the air in front of it. But this is an indirect association; it is the compression of the air that increases the frequency of the siren, not the forward movement of the ambulance.
Subtle distinction, but the same effect can be made by pushing the air with an external force - just ask any child who has done the Darth Vader voice into a box fan. The child, as the sound-emitter, is not creating the frequency increase with their own movement. The fan’s movement is modifying the frequency, as it echo-bounces the altered sound back to the child’s observing ears. The wave cares not how the air is moved. A medium is required to carry the sound wave and compressing or expanding that medium will compress or expand the wavelength, regardless of whether that compression/expansion comes from the emitter or elsewhere. Sound waves require energy and matter, and can be altered by the manipulation of either.
By comparison, a light wave does not touch a physical medium and does not require it; it is a wave and particle all-in-one. It does not propagate through anything at all, except time. Since there is no physical medium to translate the movement of the source into wave energy (ie: without compressing or expanding the medium itself) there can be no true Doppler Effect. There is no medium in Space for the light to move through, but this is what the SCM has mathematically created. Expanding Space itself provides the “medium expansion” required by the Doppler Effect. But, if light actually moves through Time then it would be the expansion of the Time vector that stretches the photon wavelength, not an expansion of Euclidean Space.
Firstly, Space is not a medium, it is the absence of one: a vacuum. And the concept of Aether was discarded long ago. Secondly, the Doppler Effect is dependent upon the density of the matter that the wave is moving through. Yet the density of open Space is near zero, and 'tired light' has been disproven. This is why a sound wave cannot propagate in Space (thank you, Alien). So whereas sound waves live in density they die in a vacuum. Conversely, a light wave hitting something made of matter (like a planet or an eyeball) terminates the wave. Light waves live in a vacuum and die in density. Light waves are a product of energy and time, and can be altered by the manipulation of either.
How can these both be Doppler Effects? They can’t be. This is why using distance-red shift to explain cosmic acceleration is reverse logic. In sound wave Doppler an observed expansion of the medium can be directly measured and directly correlated to the lengthening of the wavelength. In light wave Doppler an expansion of the medium cannot be measured at all (there is none), and so the observed lengthening of the wavelength is used to indirectly construct the unobserved expansion of the medium. But Space is a vacuum, and having no physical medium to expand requires an expansion of the vacuum itself, ie: mathematically stretching Nothingness. Neat!
Furthermore, the Doppler Effect with respect to matter waves has no relation to distance, at all. As with the ambulance example, the frequency shift is generated at the source of the wave, but the wave moves through the air at a speed faster than the source. The ambulance moving towards the observer compresses the siren’s wave into the air in front of it, giving it energy, and increasing its frequency (blue shift). Or, an ambulance moving away from an observer pulls the air away from the wave, taking energy from it, and reducing its frequency (redshift). Regardless, the wave continues moving away from the source, quickly reducing the shifting effect. In fact, we have a special term for when the emitter moves faster than the speed of sound: super sonic. We cannot observe the same effect in light unless the emitter is moving faster than light, which so far no stars have been seen doing. Even Cherenkov Light requires a medium and does not exist in a vacuum.
The result of a Doppler frequency shift is a velocity change, not a distance change. A Doppler shift can only detect the speed of the emitter, not how far away it is. Doppler shift on sound waves is a direct relationship between two velocities: the source and the observer. Velocities go into the equation and a velocity comes out. The effect is asymmetric because it propagates through a medium, meaning that the effect is strongest at the point of emission and disappears as the wave escapes the source (it changes at first and then stops changing). This is why a Doppler Effect can only be used to measure speed and not distance; distance is not part of its function. The only way to generate a distance from a Doppler Effect is to measure the time the wave takes to travel from source to observation (ie: collect more data) and multiply that time-of-flight by the velocity. A Doppler frequency shift alone provides neither distance nor time-of-flight data, those must be collected separately.
Therefore, light Doppler must also be a direct relationship between two velocities as defined by the ratio between source and observed frequencies. Velocities go in and a velocity comes out. But in this case the effect is symmetrical and propagates along the entire path of the photon without a medium (it changes at first and then keeps changing). If this was really a Doppler Effect it would also provide neither distance nor time-of-flight data without collecting more information, yet it supposedly does. This symmetrical propagation is why red shift was used to measure star-distance even while being incorrectly called a Doppler Effect.
B: Sound Navigation and Ranging
In Doppler sonar we send out a known sound frequency at a known time: a ping. Then we wait. It bounces off an object and then returns to the emitter. It will record the same initial frequency if the object is stationary. It will record a “blue shift” to a higher frequency if the object is approaching, or a “red shift” to a lower frequency if the object is retreating. This Doppler Effect is still caused by the object compressing or expanding the medium it travels through (ala, an ambulance siren), the object is just not the source of the ping (ala, the child and the box fan). After leaving the emitter, the ping remains unchanged until it enters the object’s ‘asymmetric zone’, pitch shifts with the changing medium as if it had been injected into the object, strikes the object and reverses course. It then pitch shifts a second time as it leaves the object’s ‘asymmetric zone’ as if it had been emitted from it, and travels back to the original emitter/receiver. The change of the ping’s frequency results in a measurement twice the object’s velocity, as expected. It does not provide time-of-flight, or distance, as expected.
The Doppler frequency shift provides the velocity of the object. The total time-of-flight of the ping (leaving, echoing, and returning) multiplied by the speed of sound in the medium (air, water, or rock) equals the total distance the wave travelled. Half of that total distance is the object’s location from the observer. The frequency shift of the wave gives us one measurement (velocity), echoing provides the second measurement (space-distance). Together they calculate the third variable: how long it will take the object to reach us, or time-distance (age). This is called Ranging, and is how ultrasound technology is used in the medical field every day. This is how submarines navigate the dark oceans. This is how bats fly. The Doppler Effect is a phenomenon of matter, it does not work in the vacuum of Space. Therefore, sonar does not work in the vacuum of Space. But, lightwaves do travel through the vacuum of Space, therefore red shifting of light cannot be a sonar (Doppler) effect.
C. Radio Detecting and Ranging
Unlike sonar’s sound waves, radar uses radio waves, which are electromagnetic waves like light. They are not longitudinal sound waves: they do not act like longitudinal sound waves. They are transverse waves and propagate symmetrically. Also like light they can be absorbed into matter, reducing the bounce (echo) effect utilized by sonar. The property of electromagnetic waves that allows them to “bounce”, or scatter, is called reflectivity. Light and other high-frequency waves need more reflectivity to echo than radio waves need: they absorb into molecular matter easier (all Earth life relies on this). This is exactly how a microwave oven works: the electromagnetic microwaves have a wavelength of the same magnitude as the oxygen-hydrogen bond in water. Shooting wet food with these microwaves causes the water molecules to absorb them (resonate), heating the food from the inside. Microwaves reflect off metal, like a fork, but go through dry matter, like paper and glass. This is a factor of wavelength and density (particle size). Microwaves are the next-shorter wavelengths above radio waves, which means they interact with matter more than radar, but less than infrared or visible light.
This is how our eyes can see ‘color’ from an object. Energetic interactions of the visible light spectrum are now below even the molecular bond size and are energizing an electron shell of the atoms, causing electrons to shift up an energy level. Coming back down from that energized level ejects a photon of a specific frequency depending on the energy of the light wave. One wavelength creates one frequency of photon emission creates one color, all the rest are discarded (reflected), or absorbed as heat (infrared). Our eyes receive the collection of otherwise white light minus the missing color(s). Our brain sorts through the wavelength pile and says, ah, red and blue are missing, that thing is purple.
Ultraviolet light becomes even more reflection-specific (ie, more absorptive) and is why sunlight will first burn your skin and then your cells and then your DNA. By the time we reach x-ray and gamma radiation the scattering is dependent on atomic-sized interactions, which is why most of this energy passes straight through matter. Gamma rays need something really, really small to scatter them, like an atomic nucleus. This is the realm of nuclear radiation.
Scattering is caused when a wave crosses from one medium to another. This is why sound travels super fast in solids (metal) but will reflect off that metal (submarine) if it is traveling in water. In the same fashion, sound waves traveling in air will reflect off solids and liquids because they are more dense than the air the wave is propagating through. How far the sound wave penetrates into the substance it hits is a factor of amplitude (energy) and vibration tolerance, which is why a certain pitch can shatter glass if it reaches a specific resonant frequency, and why soldiers must break step when crossing bridges.
Electromagnetic waves, though, scatter as soon as they hit something made of matter, and then absorb or reflect at various resonant frequencies determined by particle size. RF are the lowest frequency (longest wavelength) transverse waves. They also scatter in a variety of ways depending on their frequency compared to the size of the object. If the wavelength is much shorter than the target’s size (like a building or a mountain) the wave will reflect easily. But if the wavelength is much longer than the target’s size (like a drone or a small plane) it may not be visible at all, because of poor reflection. Like sound, low-frequency radar is dependent on resonances for detection, but not identification, of objects.
Comparatively, the shifting of the radio frequency in radar is just like the shifting of the sound frequency in sonar: the absorption/reflection/scattering of the wave causes a change in its “power” (energy), which in turn changes the frequency. The wavelength change is a function of momentum (radial velocity), which is directly proportional to the velocity of the target and the scattering coefficient of the material. The ability of radio waves to “bounce” off of large objects more than “absorb” makes them useful in this technology, even though the effect is not technically a true Doppler Effect. Like Doppler, it is an exchange of energy. Unlike Doppler, it comes from the collision with the object itself and not movement of the medium. So it is a pseudo-Doppler, more like a baseball being struck by a bat than an ambulance rushing down the highway.
Radar’s usability depends upon whether the configuration is active (ranging) or passive (non-ranging). Active radar transmits a signal that is reflected back to the receiver. It is echo-location, just like sonar. This is visualized by the rotating radar antenna: each sweep gives a measurement of how fast an object is going, but it does not tell us distance. To solve that variable, each sweep is periodic, providing a measured pulse. That pulse, just like the sonar ping, gives time-of-flight data between when it was sent and when it was received. The time-of-flight multiplied by the speed of radio waves calculates space-distance. This pulse data can also be generated by modulating the frequency itself.
Passive (continuous wave) radar, on the other hand, depends upon the object itself sending a signal to the receiver. There is no transmitter to send out a wave to bounce back, the object is the transmitter. Passive radar relies not only on receiving signals coming directly from the object, but the signal also bouncing off other known third-party objects. The relation of the target object’s straight signal compared with the bounced signals calculates velocity. In passive radar the waves are not scattered off the moving object, but off something the object is passing near. Unmodulated passive radar, by definition, cannot determine distance. Without a pulsed time-reference to calculate time-of-flight, distance cannot be determined.
Enter modulated passive radar. In this case it is the object’s frequency itself that is periodically changing, like a police siren. This pulsing, once again, provides the time-of-flight data to determine distance - it just comes from the object and not the observer. In this sense, it is actually once again ‘active’ radar. A pulsed siren cycles through pitches from high to low. When far away the wah-wah is slow, but as it approaches the tempo increases. As the object advances it takes less time for the frequency cycle to reach us, quickening its pace. Modulated passive radar combines both the "Doppler" shifting of the frequencies with a known periodic cycle, allowing us to determine both the speed and location of the object. It’s all the same equation, just different means of acquiring the variables.
D. The Not-a-Doppler Effect
Radar still produces a frequency-velocity relationship just like a Doppler Effect, but being electromagnetic it can be used in the vacuum of Space (not-Doppler). Hence, it did not take long for astrophysics to start using radar on our local stellar bodies. But, while radio waves can indeed be used to measure velocities in direct relation to the change in frequency, this is not a true Doppler Effect. It just “works out” the same, and still requires echo-bouncing the signal off an object (active radar). The lesson remains obvious, without a pulsed time-of-flight measurement to determine length-distance there is a missing variable and therefore no way to calculate time-distance.
This missing variable was not a problem at first since we have other means to calculate the distances of local stellar bodies. Frequency shifts in star light matched up with what was expected from the Doppler equation and so ‘light red shift’ became an entrenched paradigm. In effect, astrophysicists calibrated cosmic radar measurements to these local distances, and removed the two-way echoing in favor of a one-way red shift measurement. Passive radar begins to be treated as active radar. We have now evolved from a Doppler Effect through a pseudo-Doppler Effect to a not-a-Doppler Effect at all.
Radio wave radar “works the same” as Doppler sonar even though it is a different waveform. This is because they are both affected by the same energy source: collision. Both waves, asymmetrical or symmetrical, are changed because of interaction with the target, not contactless along their paths. This allows the symmetrical radio wave to ACT like an asymmetrical sound wave. Sonar and radar are both an asymmetrical transfer of energy upon echoing off the target, regardless of the differing waveforms. Radar is not a Doppler effect, but the theme had become established. Radio wave radar just adopted a pseudonym from its sound sonar father and suddenly ‘Doppler Radar’ shows up on all the weather channels. But hey, “close enough”, especially for weather forecasting. Quit splitting hairs.
This would be fine if “Doppler Radar” had stayed on Earth where it was constructed. But it did not, having that magical vacuum-propagating property that sonar lacks, and so was aimed into Space. Using radar to calculate distances between our planet neighbors was useful, “true Doppler” or not. Unfortunately, radio waves as low-energy electromagnetic middlemen only get us around the Solar System. They certainly cannot measure anything on a galactic scale. This is where light Doppler and Radio Astronomy were born. The non-Doppler properties of electromagnetic radio waves were transferred onto electromagnetic light waves. We’ve now travelled even further up the frequency scale and are able to misuse the term on photons as well. Also, no longer able to echo-bounce a signal off a distant target at all, astrophysics just gave up determining time-of-flight altogether and decided that data could come straight from passive red shift.
There are even two “Doppler Effect” equations, one for active radar and one for passive radar. These equations are different by a factor of two, which is super obvious considering the ‘2x’ in the active radar equation is because of the ‘two-way’ echo. A one-way passive radar does not have that. Fittingly enough passive radar is used mostly in Radio Astronomy. Astrophysics ignores the fact that it is the active collision of the radio wave with the target that creates the frequency shift in radar. It is an energy transfer. Lacking collision energy requires the frequency shift to be medium-generated, like in sonar. Yet again, there is no medium in Space.
So where is the energy transfer in red shift? Light from a star has not “hit” anything, so why is it shedding energy the farther it travels? And where is that energy going, since there is no medium in Space to absorb it? Modern cosmology has ignored the Law of Conservation of Energy and simply brushed it away into the accelerating expansion paradigm. Is it any wonder at all that the Standard Cosmological Model avoids the topic of photon decay like a universal plague. There is no mechanism for any energy transfer to cause red shifting of the photon frequency, and therefore the entire hypothesis relies solely on “expanding the vacuum of Space” to resolve the dilemma.
Both properties of “Doppler Radar” (energy transfer and echolocation) have been completely removed in Radio Astronomy. How is it then that either a velocity or a length-distance are measured, let alone a time-distance? There are now none of the three necessary variables: but astrophysics still assumes that it is getting a velocity from light frequency shift. Why? Because it worked! Using photon wavelength shift to calculate star velocity (in near stars), and luminosity data to calculate length-distance, produced two of the three variables. This allowed the calculation of the time-distance (age) of a star. Assuming a constant speed of light, this ‘age of the light’ multiplied by the velocity of light (c) gave the ‘distance the light travelled’: which matched up “close enough” to the luminosity distance, echo location data, and other measurement techniques. Viola! There was now a scale that correlated ‘light frequency shift’ directly to 'distance the light travelled’: luminosity “et al.” had become irrelevant.
E. Slippage
The Not-a-Doppler Effect was further extended to include measurements of ever more distant stars, beyond the reaches of our own galaxy, even to the Great Microwave Boundary. Astrophysics now had a distance-red shift equation that justified itself with three assumptions and a small subset of “nearly linear” short-distance luminosity and modulated passive radio data to back it up. But a strange thing was found when they used this equation on ever more distant stars: the star distances increased faster the farther out a star was. They were speeding up. Hmm, that should have seemed really super weird. No, instead of questioning the process by which the distances were calculated astrophysics stood by the holy assumptions and questioned the cosmic expansion rate instead. This resulted in the creation of the Standard Cosmological Model and the accelerating vacuum-expansion it mathematically contrives.
The distance-red shift non-linearity is a result of first the misapplication of a Doppler Effect, second the exclusion of echolocating, and third a total disregard for energy conservation. The Earth-sized “worked good enough” paradigm devolved into a Cosmic-sized “wait, this isn’t working anymore” dilemma. The distance differences were slipping as Space and Time uncoupled, but no one was going to go back and revisit that entrenched Not-a-Doppler Effect assumption. That scientific paradigm still has yet to be broken. [Crack #1].
F. A Difference in Functions
Two different waves, two different effects. Sound waves do not act like light waves in our reality, how do we possibly allow light waves to act like sound waves in our astrophysics? How is red shift, being a one-way time-of-flight measurement, even used to measure a distance? It is because light traveling at a constant speed assumes time and distance are interchangeable, even though they are not. Distance is additive linearly, but time compounds computationally. In ‘recent light’ the distance-red shift function gives us a “nearly-linear” calibration scale. But as time goes on and the light travels farther, distance and time uncouple creating the accelerating expansion expressed in the maths. Red shift is a function of time but has been incorrectly used as a function of distance. This is due to two other faulty assumptions: photons do not decay and light travels at (c) through all dimensions (Space and Time). These two assumptions, along with the Doppler Effect assumption, create the holy trinity of the SCM paradigm.
Yet the discrepancy still has to play out somewhere. Once assumed to be a measure of distance, red shift was used to correlate with distance-luminosity. At “short” distances these two completely different effects show similar observations. The beginning of the red shift curve starts out “nearly linear” because the compounding effect is extremely small. This is nothing unusual, many known functions start this way. Distance-red shift data statistically matched to luminosity data and so it became a useful scale to calculate stellar distances. Until it didn’t. Short distances were ok, but at larger distances this convenient relationship becomes increasingly inconvenient and requires seeking an inconvenient truth. The underlying exponential curve eventually takes over and reveals the true non-linearity of the red shift function.
In the early years of radio astronomy the “near-linear” portion of the red shift curve was as far into the depths of the cosmos we could see… it was still Earth-distant. It was assumed to be a linear relationship. As our view expanded so did the “not-so-linear-anymore” aspect of the compounding curve. But the assumption that light red shift was not only a Doppler Effect but a reliable measure of distance was already entrenched and written into the textbooks. Changing it will require a paradigm shift in the fundamental thinking of astrophysics, another change that has yet to happen. Stretching a vacuum is easier than changing a scientific paradigm, it seems, and so the former was opted over the latter. This is where the SCM uses cosmic acceleration to provide mathematical causation to the dissociation of the two pieces of photon data: distance and time.
II. Photon’s Don’t Decay.
We are still brought back to the question: Where does photon energy go during red shift? Energy Conservation demands we account for it somewhere, and since we cannot account for it in the three Euclidean dimensions the energy must be passed along the Time dimension. So the answer to “Where does the photon energy go?” is “to the compounding computational record of digital information experienced by the photon, written onto the time vector for each quantum moment of its existence.” It is documenting history. This digital information storage is a system of increasing complexity and violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. To do this requires an energy input to record the data, and a medium to record it on. As the photon spends energy through frequency decay it translates that energy into a digital record of quantum vector movements expressed as gravitational waves recorded onto graviton matter.
Things don’t just “exist” where they are, they evolved to that position through a sequence of events. Whether it is a black hole devouring stars, a radio transmission zooming off into the void, or a human being crawling from cradle to grave, everything exists as a collection of data from the moment of its creation plus every step it took along its path. A photo at a funeral says nothing about the life that the deceased led. A snapshot of today’s current events is devoid of information without the context of how the situation evolved, since every moment directly affects the moments following it. A photo of an “ancient galaxy” from the JWST has no crisis-inducing consequences without the context of the Hubble Constant to cause them. Indeed, without an incorrect age of the universe to make them “ancient” they would just be other old galaxies that we can now see more clearly. Time is deterministic.
For each quantum moment that a photon exists it travels a quantum leap of distance in 3D Space and records that movement in a quanta of 4D Time, requiring a quanta of energy to pay for it: like a block chain. This audit trail includes the origin point of the photon, its directions and velocities, and every event that happens to it along the way. It documents if the photon bends around a star’s gravity, is refracted through a prism, or reflects off a mirror. It stores the colors and images, dots and dashes, and ones and zeros carried by that light until it is finally consumed at observation: end transmission.
This data storage requires energy, and that energy is expressed in a reduction of velocity by the photon on the time-axis. This slowing below (c) allows an otherwise timeless photon to “experience time”. The photon is allowed to “age” and record its experience as memory data along the way. Upon observation in 3D this light is traveling at (c) again. Balancing the equation with the now lower photon energy results in a lower photon frequency expressed on the Space axes. The red shifting effect increases symmetrically the longer the photon exists, not how far it exists. Therefore, red shifted light represents a property of time not distance, and can only be used to calculate how old a photon is, not the distance it has travelled. Red shift is a function of photon decay. That scientific paradigm also has yet to be broken. [Crack #2].
III. Light is Moving at (c) in All Dimensions.
Current ‘Variable Speed of Light’ (VSL) hypotheses fail because they attempt to alter photon speeds within the same dimension. This violates Special Relativity. More specifically, they do not differentiate between a speed of light traveling in Space and one traveling through Time. They merely attempt to force a varying velocity as their solution to the incorrect cosmic geometry. Indeed, light speed is constant and invariable in 3D Space. Indeed, light speed is constant and invariable along the Time axis. Indeed, these two speeds need not be the same, and there is plenty of hard evidence to suggest they are not.
Unfortunately, VSL’s all sit within the same paradigm as the SCM: light speed is constant in all dimensions because Time is just another axis of Euclidean Space. But, if Time is actually not just another Euclidean dimension, then light traveling at different speeds in the two different mediums is not only allowed but most likely expected. This is exactly how a prism works. This possibility has been hinted at in certain VSL models but no solid definition is found in them to correctly define the geometry.
Light traveling at a velocity (c) through Space experiences absolute time dilation, ie: time stops and distances shrink to a point. That means every photon emitted from a source that travels the same time-distance experiences an instantaneous transition and should exhibit the exact same effects across all vectors. But that is not what is observed. Frequency shift in light is non-linear with distance even though distance is supposedly not experienced by the photon. One source explained light as “having zero time” or “not moving in the time vector”. This can’t be true, as all things in Space-Time are moving through Space AND Time. Light has to be affected by time just like everything else; it has to age like everything else. In that regards, hypotheses around “tired light” should be viewed more-so as “old light”.
Just as air is a different medium than water, light moves faster through one than the other. So it can be implied that light just moves at a different speed along the Time axis than it does on the Space axes. As with the circle analogy above, light coming from an emitter has travelled a 3D arc-distance (y) across Space to the observer, but a shorter 4D chord-distance (d) across Time to the observer. The light in 4D had to travel slower than the light in 3D to stay “connected” in Space-Time and arrive at the same observation point. Plus, it had to be able to do so at any quantum moment that it may be observed, being unable to predict the future.
Each inch the light travels in Space is a longer inch than it travels in Time. If the speed of light in 3D is (c), then in 4D it is (<c) by an amount directly proportional to the ratio in distances travelled: (d/y)(c) = ((y-a)/y)(c) = (1-(a/y))(c). For objects moving a maximum 180 degrees apart, a = 1.141(r) and y = pi(r). Therefore: (d/y)(c) = (1-(1.141(r)/(pi(r))))(c) = (1-(1.141/pi))(c) = 0.637(c). Note that the radius of the circle is entirely irrelevant. Light on the time axis moves at ~63.7% of (c) and therefore experiences a measurable time dilation. Per Special Relativity, moving at ‘0.64c’ equates to 77.1% time dilation. [Crack #3].
The Time-axis is a separate dimension than the three Euclidean’s and therefore will not have the same properties, including the speed that light travels through it. On the Time axis the photon does not experience distance, it experiences time. Time, being a deterministic quantity, is a store of information: the data collected by the photon as it travels. Storing information (increasing complexity) requires an input of energy; or, negentropy. That energy comes from the photon itself as a function of decay. That decay process is the conversion of simple light into complex matter: reverse entropy. Otherwise known as intelligence.
So I call ‘shenanigans’ on light Doppler Effect. Its assumptive presence has caused decades of search for the elusive Dark Energy and presumed an accelerating expansion of the universe in order to close the equation gaps that it created itself. Cosmic expansion can also be explained by a Hyperspherical Cosmological Model where the observable universe is the unbounded hypersphere surface of a 4D hyperball: a surface that is curved and stretches isotropically at all points in proportion to the expanding time-volume contained within it.
One Shifts Red, One Shifts Blue. The First is Old, The Second New
But what about blue shift? If red shift is light aging, then the existence of blue shift negates the premise. It implies a photon that reverses time. Not necessarily, light blue shift is simply caused by a different process. This also creates two kinds of red shift: one from the aging of light of over time (decay) and one that is created at the source along with a blue shift counterpart. Blue shift is only observed in local stars, not distant ones. This implies it is new light, not old light, and perhaps an asymmetric effect at the source, not symmetrical along its path.
According to General Relativity bodies of huge mass and gravity (stars) warp Space-Time creating a gravitational potential. Graphics show this as a depression that the star sits in, a bowl, such that objects moving close to them whip around the gravitational bowl and come out the other side. This is called gravitational microlensing. Note that a photon whipping around this bowl creates a difference in distances, where the observed path appears shorter, spatially, from origin to detection than the actual curved path. Light emitted from around the star has travelled an arc-distance that is farther than its chord-distance appears and so is older in time than the observed distance it traveled. That means it would exhibit more red shift than its actual location would imply.
Astrophysics has already taken gravitational microlensing into account when observing light that has travelled PASSED a star, but this effect is independent of the star’s velocity. Micolensing is not caused by the movement of the gravitational field but by the movement of the external photon through the gravitational field. Regardless, it is proof that light is affected by gravity, so the same effect also applies to the emitted photons that are escaping FROM the star. In this case though, it is the shifting of the gravity bowl that affects the light: ie, there would be no red or blue shift if the gravitational potential was stationary. A moving star sloshes this gravity bowl around with it, pushing it in font and simultaneously dragging it behind, compressing/expanding the gravitational field in proportion to its velocity… see where this is going? Red/blue shift is occurring in this regard because of a local asymmetric energy exchange caused by a moving gravity medium: a Relativistic Doppler Effect.
Just like the shifting air medium affects a sound wave in a Doppler Effect, it is the shifting gravity medium that affects a light wave in a Relativistic Doppler Effect. Imagine the bowl with a star floating in it is moving away from the observer. The light coming out its back not only has to scoop up out of the bowl and escape the star’s gravity, but now the side of the bowl itself is rushing into it, forcing the photons back, giving them drag, increasing the slope they must travel up, slowing them with gravitational momentum. To escape the increased gravity each photon must expend more energy to maintain a velocity of (c) and stay connected to 4D Time-of-flight. The engine has to rev, so to speak, expelling energy as a function of relativistic momentum and boosting the photon over the gravity hump. As the photon moves out of the range of gravitational potential it now has an energy deficit and must express this as an increase in wavelength. In short, the photon consumes its own frequency to climb out of the increased gravity potential caused by the moving star.
During this red shifting, a blue shift would also be occurring on the other side of the star emitter. In this case the bowl is moving towards the observer so the emitted light now has an easier path ahead of it: less gradient to climb. The gravity potential pushes the photons forward allowing them to let off the gas, like going downhill. The photon needs less energy to maintain (c) and remain coupled to the time movement happening in 4D. This energy surplus increases the photon frequency and shifts the wavelength towards blue. This also balances out the energy expended from the red shifted light ejected 180 degrees to the other side. All energy and momentum have been conserved, as they should be.
This effect, like Doppler, is asymmetrical and short-lived. Once the photon crosses out of the gravity bowl and travels away from the emitter the frequency shifting stops. Just like a sound wave Doppler Effect, a gravity wave Doppler Effect caused by the moving star is close-acting and stops as soon as the wave leaves its effective range. In leu of a physical frequency-shifting medium to travel through, which does not exist in a void, the light wave is effected by the “medium” of gravity, which indeed does exist in a void.
Once again, like sound Doppler, this can only calculate speed, not distance. A Relativistic Doppler does not continue affecting the photon across billions of light years of Space. It is asymmetric, otherwise we would feel the gravity effect of every star in our galaxy, if not the universe, carried by light. We would be “Doppler Effect-ed” all over the place. It would be universal chaos; no structures could form. Luckily, star blue shift, as a true Doppler Effect, stops as soon as the photon leaves the effective range of the gravity. Furthermore, since this is new light the time-distance curve is still near-linear and so time “pretty much” equals distance. This is why Relativistic Doppler can be used to correlate with distance-luminosity… in near stars. It takes the length-distance measurement of luminosity divided by the velocity output of the Relativistic Doppler effect to get the red shifted time-distance of the photons, their age. Multiply that by the speed of light and you’re right back to the red shifted length-distance of the star. It correlated with luminosity data because it was calibrated with luminosity data, and a linear curve was extrapolated past the known luminosity data points.
Red or blue, this young light shifting happens at the emitting source (asymmetric). Then the light red shifts (ages) evermore as it travels on into Space becoming old light (symmetric). The red shift we observe is the sum of both the velocity of the star and the age of the photon. In near stars it is mostly velocity, but since the age of the photon continues to grow, while the star velocity does not, we observe a perceived acceleration in distant light when there is none. The blue shift we observe is the difference between the star’s velocity and the age of the photon. Because of this, blue shifted light will gradually disappear the farther away from us the star is, even if it is headed towards us. This is why we do not see blue shift in distant light: after a certain distance observing blue shifted light is impossible. It simply grows up.
To Accelerate, or Not to Accelerate? That is the Question
I. A Hollow Sphere?
If the Big Bang happened according to the Standard Cosmological Model we exist in an empty, flat, 4D Euclidean universe stretching out from an origin point to infinity. The Bang was a singularity that ejected all the “stuff” of the cosmos outward from the origin into that empty universe in one moment. After that fraction of a second, the Bang ended and there wasn’t anything more ejected. This cosmic stuff drifted on, eventually evolving into protons, hydrogen, stars, and planets. If that was so wouldn’t the observable universe be a hollow sphere? With all of existing matter riding on the expanding edge and nothing in the center?
When we talk about the universe being ‘uniform in density and temperature’ does that include the spot where the Big Bang happened? Because you would imagine that spot should be empty, having exploded everything outward already. In order for stuff to still exist at the point of singularity it has to be motionless from the beginning, which is contrary to an explosion that ejected materials at the speed of light, or faster. This implies an explosion of varying but uniformly distributed velocities of energy, including zero. This is not plausible. In the movie, when the Death Star exploded it ejected matter out in all different directions and at all different speeds because of the differing masses and momentums of the chunks. That ‘singularity’ explosion created an expanding cloud of debris, but nothing was left resting in the middle. It created a hollow sphere, just a varyingly thick one because of the variety of velocities, non-uniformly distributed.
Anyone who has seen a smoke ring knows that the smoke doesn’t come out uniformly from the center to the edge forming a 2-dimensional disc. It comes out all at once and collects on the edge forming an expanding ring… hence smoke ring and not smoke disc. The observed universe blown out of the mouth of the Big Bang should be a hollow smoke sphere, yet it is not, it is a 3-dimensional disc. Not only that, the Big Bang exploded at the speed of light. So while the “fastest” particles came out traveling at (c) the “slowest” ones also came out at (c). That cloud of debris still spreads outward in all different directions and at all different speeds, but those “different” speeds are all (c). There should be no dispersion of matter anywhere from center-to-edge, it should be all edge. The Big Bang should create a hollow sphere of infinite thinness. Again, not what we observe.
II. Or a Hyper Sphere?
Instead, imagine a huge hyperball general universe with a hyperspherical surface. The Big Bang is a singularity at one point on its void and empty surface (an unbounded 3D plane), let’s say at the “north pole”. The resulting shockwave of the event would travel outward from the pole in all directions creating an expanding 3D spherical “ring” that ripples toward the equator. This “ring” is the material universe expanding along the surface of the general universe. Everything ejected from the Big Bang is in this ring. Everything ejected is traveling at the same cosmic speed of (c) so there is nothing left behind the ring and nothing speeding ahead of it. 3D Space is uniformly dense in all directions because growth is consistent in all three Euclidian dimensions. The “hollow center” would then be on the 4th time axis that isn’t moving (the radius is static) making the ring infinitesimally thin in that dimension. History would not exist, nor the future.
The analogy of a singularity spreading across the surface of a hyperball does not hold with observations. It would produce a deceleration of 3D growth: expanding rapidly during the early angles away from the north pole then slowing in those axes as it reached the equator. The speed of time would start at zero and increase exponentially as energy is transferred from 3D growth to 4D. At maximum circumference, 3D growth would slow to a stop while time speed is at its maximum. The universe then would begin shrinking in an accelerating function back to a singularity at the south pole, as time slows to a stop. This is not what we see.
Also, if an “explosion” on the hyperspherical surface creates an expanding 3D shockwave ring of infinite 4D thinness we wouldn’t be able to see “behind us” in time. “Where the universe was” would no longer be part of “where the universe is” and so we wouldn’t be able to observe it. It would have moved. There would also be no future to project into. “Where the universe is” will not be a part of “Where the universe will be” which makes any attempt at prediction futile. For history to happen, the cosmos must expand with 4D, not move across it.
What we do observe is a universe shaped as a 3D spherical disc equal on all axes with a growing time vector. We have a record of the past and can project into the future. We can do this because “where the universe was” is exactly still “where the universe is”. It hasn’t moved, it just got thicker. The past is all around us, recorded in everything from light, to rock, to cosmic radiation. We can see back almost as far as there is to see, and that’s a whole lot of data. “More space” is not what is filling up the gaps as the universe spreads. “Time” is filling up the gaps in Space, accumulating more and more Past in the form of recorded memory. It is all interconnected. That’s why it is called Space-Time: three dimensions of Space and one of Time, all expanding at the same proportional rate but with different mathematical functions. Time is not a “4th Euclidean Dimension”, it is a separate individual vector, a line with direction and magnitude. That means it expands at a different rate than the three Euclideans.
III. The Small Bang
So let’s restart the entire hyperball, but shrink it down until it is also at a singularity point, and then let it expand the cosmos instead of eject it. At creation, the volume of both the hyperball and its hypersphere surface are zero, they exist simultaneously at the same point in Space-Time. Upon expansion, the volume of the hyperball increases with time-growth causing a proportional increase in the volume of its hypersphere surface. This surface is the physical Euclidean universe, the observed universe of matter and light, being the unbounded plane of the hyperball’s ballooning surface, stretching from the hyperball expansion. On this crust, the ‘stretching’ of the energy contained in the original singularity point dilutes and cools into physical matter. The volume of the hyperball is filling with computationally growing deterministic information at a rate determined by the time algorithm.
This creates an inflating bubble, on which the singularity point consumes its entire expanding surface. Cosmic expansion is caused by the growth of the underlying 4th dimensional radius, by a time vector (t). As the hyperball volume increases, filling its internal hard drive with experience (knowledge), it translates that into an equivalent volume expansion in the hypersphere of Euclidean Space (structure). There is movement in all four dimensions allowing for equal dispersion and uniformity across the entire system. The universe becomes a spherical smoke disk, as we observe it to be. A disc that encompasses the entire surface of a hyperball ballon filling up with computational time data.
IV. Steady, As She Goes
Back to our analogy of two travelers moving east and west along the surface of their infinite globe. This time, instead of sailing around a planet they are in rocket ships zooming off into parts unknown. Their “globe” is now the 4D hypercosmos. But the analogy holds; for each step their spaceships move “east” and “west” into the open waters of Space they shift evermore “south” along the unseen 4th axis. In a 2D universe that unseen axis is the 3rd Euclidean dimension. In a 3D universe that unseen axis is the Time dimension. In the astronauts’ observational frame they are each moving straight through a cosmic cube into nothingness, but actually follow a curving path across a uniformly populated cosmic sphere. Time is the gravity keeping them connected to the “surface” of the cosmic globe, as they curve through a “flat” 3D.
For each quanta of accumulating Time (t) there is an equal quanta of accumulating Space (x,y,z). The hyperball is growing at a constant vector rate and increasing its volume by: V(h) = pi2r(h)4/2, where ‘r(h)’ is the radius of the hyperball. delta V(h) = 2pi2(delta r(h))3, showing that time-volume data accumulation is a power of 3. The surface area of the hyperball equals 2pi2r(h)3. This equals the 3D Euclidean sphere volume of 4pi(r(u))3/3, where r(u) is the radius of the hypersphere. Therefore, 4pi(r(u))3/3 = 2pi2r(h)3; r(u) = (3pi(r(h))3/2)1/3 = (4.7124)1/3((r(h))3)1/3 = 1.6765 r(h). If delta r(u) = 1.6765 delta r(h), then for each 1 unit increase (t) in the time radius of the hyperball the radius of the hypersphere universe expands by 1.6765.
This is linear growth, not acceleration, which makes sense. Since the expansion of the universe is an expression of the expansion of the hyperball it is not possible that the increasing radius of the observed universe is accelerating unless time is also accelerating. Yes, hyperball time-volume is increasing exponentially, but that mathematically creates a hypersphere with linear growth. The surface area of the hyperball grows by a square of its radius, suggesting cosmic expansion is accelerating with time. Indeed, 3D cosmic volume is expanding exponentially, by a power of 2 [delta V(u) = 4pi(delta r(u))2]. But cosmic area (radius) is one exponent less [delta SA(u) = 8pi(delta r(u))], growing at a power of 1: or linearly. Super convenient: cosmic expansion is steady, not accelerating.
The perceived expansion acceleration is due to the combination of both linear photon decay and linear hypersphere expansion. Such that a 22.9% red shift per unit time multiplied by 67.7% cosmic expansion per unit time equals ~15.5% “acceleration” per unit of time squared. But this is a misapplication of the maths, by using red shift as proof of vacuum expansion instead of proof of photon decay. The SCM-generated estimate of the light age of the universe, from the Cosmic Microwave Background, is ~13.8BY old. Starting at 1BY and compounding 15.5% per 1BY for 13.8 iterations calculates an observed cosmic radius of ~41.0BLY. The current SCM estimate of the observed cosmic radius is ~46.5BLY, a difference of 13.4%.
A Candy-Coated Cosmos
If the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is currently the limit of our view into the vast knowledge of the universe, then breaking this boundary and understanding what lies beyond it is the galactic test our astrophysics has to surpass. The cosmic microwave boundary offers the final conundrum of the Standard Model of Cosmology. Indeed, the red shift-luminosity distance discrepancy and the CMB are THE TWO MAIN OBSERVATIONS that support its continued use. It is amazing then that not just the first of these assumptions, but both, can be called into question. These are not very stout pillars by which to build the Foundation of the Universe.
The current description of the CMB brings us back to the hollow sphere analogy mentioned above. We are told that microwave background is seen in every direction we look in the cosmos at around 13.8BLY away - sort of like a candy shell surrounding the gooey bits of the physical universe. This makes sense if it exploded outward from a singularity: looking out into space represents a backwards timeline, where each light year takes us further back in history. The CMB then presumably shows us the ‘Age of the Cosmos’, all the way to the beginnings of the universe and the creation of matter itself. With us conveniently right in the center of it.
There is one huge problem with this view, as any student of Copernicus would see - How are we the center of it? We are to believe the CMB extends in a globe in every direction around US? Even a current map of the known universe has the Milky Way in the middle, with other observed galaxies extending outward from us in a sphere. That is a very logical view, considering what we can observe. But it is not at all logical to assume that what we can see is all that there is. It is the peak of hubris to once again, given the example of history, make a map of the universe with ourselves at the center. And then literally bend the maths of physics to “make it so”. It is as if astrophysics is, yet again, stuck in a self-centered model of the heavens.
The SCM’s CMB assumption falls to two Occam slices, the first being the assumption that we are at the center of it all: this likelihood being so small as to be laughable in today’s modern Cosmology. If indeed the CMB is a shell representing the "limit of the universe” and contains the sum of all matter inside it, it would be more believable for us to be offset from the center, maybe part-way across, even near the edge. Given that the Milky Way itself isn’t even the oldest galaxy in the universe, how can it be the center? It can’t, because it isn’t. Since it is highly improbable that we are at the center of the universe, and if the CMB is actually the ‘exploded edge’, we should see one side of that shell as closer than the opposite side. But that is not what we see.
The second failure of the CMB is the analogy of the hollow sphere itself. If the CMB represents the “edge” of the observable universe, almost to the beginning of time itself, then we should be able to find a true “center” other than ourselves. There should be a huge, spherical, and observably empty chunk of space at the singularity. This spot is nowhere to be found - the universe is uniform from edge to edge of the CMB shell. There may be density differences, but certainly no huge “middle” where everything exploded out from.
That is because the cosmos didn’t explode out of the Big Bang singularity. It has grown on the surface of the singularity, as it expands with time. The center of the universe is still exactly where it was from the beginning: everywhere. Everything in the universe was once at the center, and still is, the center just grew. The physical matter that became the Milky Way is still in the same respective space in relation to all other matter, and it always has been, as has every other galaxy. We are spreading apart, not moving apart, and is why the Metaphysicists claim “we are all connected”, having “all” came from “one point”. The reason everything in the universe is quantum entangled is because everything in the universe is, and has been, connected from inception. The only thing spreading us apart is Time.
The entire SCM interpretation of the CMB, from its placement as a “globe” around us, to its use to calculate the age of the universe, if shown to not hold, must be discarded. If the CMB is truly the background radiation left over from the Big Bang, we would see it everywhere at every point in the universe, near and far, not just the observable “edge.” It would fill the space between every galaxy. The fact that we see it as a globe all around us, placing us at the center, actually makes it appear contrived, and unnatural. It certainly shows that it is an observational effect coming from US, not the greater cosmos.
The ancient galaxies being found by the JWST collapse both pillars of the Standard Model: red shift acceleration and the CMB age. There is no argument that ‘distant light’ is ‘older light’, but the red shift assumption limits the age of these anomalous galaxies to ‘how far away they are’, regardless of if that is actually their true age. This is because distance is measured along the surface of our 4D hypersphere universe but age is measured along its radius. Crack: one pillar gone. Which is really all that is required, because truthfully there is only one pillar anyway: the Hubble Constant.
From Wikipedia, “With few exceptions, distances based on direct measurements are available only out to about a thousand parsecs, which is a modest portion of our own galaxy. For distances beyond that, measures depend upon physical assumptions …” Which means every distance we calculate beyond our own Milky Way is a “best guess” from a variety of overlapping sources. By the time we get to the outer limits of the CMB, the math relies entirely upon … you guessed it … red shift. The only reason we calculate the Age of the Cosmos as 13.8BLY away is because of the Hubble Constant, calculated from red shift data. If red shift is just an illusion, then the Hubble Constant is the magician’s wand. From it are calculated the extreme cosmic distances, and from those come the cosmic age via the CMB edge. If red shift assumptions are wrong then so is Hubble, so is the CMB, and so is the contrived age of the universe. They are all the same pillar supported by red shift, and a mis-applied Doppler Effect.
As of right now the JWST has kicked the age of the universe out from under Hubble’s feet. Because it works in reverse as well: if the age is wrong, so is the CMB distance. That makes the Hubble Constant wrong and blows a hole in the red shift lifeboat of the Standard Model. We need to just let that boat sink. Without the “shell” of the CMB defining the age boundary of the universe, we wouldn’t see these ancient galaxies as “older than the edge”. Would we even see an edge at all? The analogies given so far suggest not, that with powerful enough technology we could actually see far enough to wrap around the entire hypersphere globe and view ourselves from the back side: just like we use satellites to see around the Earth globe.
The CMB is not the “age limit” of the universe, it is an observational effect viewed by us here in the Milky Way and is not an attribute of the universe itself. Assuming the distance from "us to it” marks the age of the universe is analogous to using the distance to our visual horizon as the age of the Earth = pretty young Earth. Using a length as a unit of time? Silly, huh. The proof of this is simply and literally that the CMB shell is uniformly distant from us in all directions. It is actually geo-centric. So unless we are indeed the ‘center of the universe’ the CMB can have nothing to do with the ‘center of the universe’. Or the ‘edge of the universe’ either, since, also like the Earth, the universe is unbounded. That means it curves.
Here on our Earth globe, looking out to our 2D horizon has a physical limit even though the ground itself continues to curve onward beyond that limit. Better telescopes can refine what we see within that physical border, expanding what is clear to us, but line-of-site is still line-of-site, until we learn how to bend light. The best telescopes in the world cannot see around the globe, that requires satellites. The CMB is our own visual Time horizon stretching out from us in all three Euclidian directions. So aiming our telescopes into the void and expecting not to hit a visual horizon sounds a bit… short-sighted. Light refracts as it moves through our atmosphere, distorting our linear ground view until there is no more view at all. The same is with the CMB, the farther we look the more bent and distorted it gets, until eventually the picture is so warped that it’s just a bunch of noise. Why should we expect to see past the cosmic event horizon with current technology?
Crossing any barrier, natural or manufactured, requires a measurable and quantifiable amount of activation energy to solve and overcome. We solved the horizon paradox here on Earth, not by trying to create a better telescope, but by launching satellites around the globe and breaking the single line-of-site into multiple parts. We turned a curve into a sequence of lines. A quantifiable amount of technology was required to materialize that solution, and the oil energy to power it. It was a technological filter we had to cross to advance our understanding of our own planet. The CMB then becomes another technology filter: a test that requires the advancement of an intelligence to solve. Cracking the CMB shell is our cosmic horizon we are trying to see around, doing so will allow us a full view of the entire universe.
A Difference in Ages
Per the Bell graphic of universe expansion, the ‘Inflation Period’ provided 84.6BLY of the current 93BLY in observed universe diameter in just a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. That is about 91%. After that moment, over the next 13.8BY, the background expansion of the universe progressed slowly with a “near linearity”. Then over the most recent 4.7BY it accelerated 8.4BLY = a 10% increase. It seems that cosmic expansion is anything but predictable, and no real cause has been floated for the eradicate behavior.
Even as a layman, regardless of any belief in expansion acceleration, a cursory look at this graphic suggests that it would reduce backwards evenly in time along a definable function if allowed to do so. But that regression stops once we hit the CMB, a contrived boundary that has been used to back-calculate an “age of the universe”. Why the dance? Just make the universe older, as the curve clearly suggests, and figure out why the CMB doesn’t fit that model, not the reverse.
What we have in the Bell graphic is a compressed infancy of the universe constructed to fit the model, instead of a refined model that accurately defines the age of the universe. To reconcile this we have an initial universe inflation happening at velocities of multiple times faster than the speed of light, breaking the SCM’s own rules of physics. It seems light travels at (c) until it no longer works in the maths. My suggestion that light speed can change in different dimensions doesn’t appear so strange when compared.
The JWST is breaking this back-calculation. Galaxies that have no business being as developed as they are suggest a universe much older than we have assumed. Again, this makes sense if you extrapolate that Bell curve backwards past the current age assumption. If this age calculation is directly related to the CMB, then any fault in the assumptions about the CMB changes the age of the universe. Pretty crucial then that this is correct. The CMB boundary is the very reason the infancy of the universe is compressed into such a small timeframe, compared to the rest of known cosmic time. A compression that makes zero sense unless you constrain it via the CMB.
What if the CMB does not represent how far back in time we can see, but how far across the universe we can see, given that it curves like a horizon. If you look out to the horizon on our 3D globe and spin around viewing it in 360 degrees you form a circle. In this analogy, viewing out into our 4D cosmos and spinning around to see the horizon in 360 degrees you form a sphere. If the CMB is a 4D ‘horizon’ it would look like an equidistant sphere all around us, at the edge of the observable universe, like a crust or a shell. Which is exactly what we see.
A ship sailing off into the ocean horizon not only shrinks with distance but also gradually slips downwards out of view. A picture of power lines should show a line straight off to a point, but instead it shows a downward curve into nothingness as they wrap around the globe (thanks, Neil). If the Earth was actually straight, this wouldn’t happen. So it is a perfect analogy that viewing off into the horizon of the cosmos, and observing stellar ships traveling towards it, we would see them not only shrink in size, but drift out of our view entirely. It is unfortunate we don't have a string of galactic power lines to reenforce this point.
This CMB shell is not an age boundary. It is a distance measurement boundary and again makes the assumption that we are viewing out from a cosmic center to the “edge of the universe”. It is only the edge of what we can detect with our technology. Which means ancient galaxies can be much closer to us in distance yet still be older than that distance implies. Assuming a flat 4D Euclidean universe means the distance the CMB is away from us (y) equals its age (r(h)), when it does not. It assumes a length (km) is the same as a time (year). But a 4D hypersphere universe uncouples 3D distance vectors from the 4D time vector, meaning ‘how far away a galaxy is from us’ has only partly to do with ‘how old it is’. It limits its youth, not its maturity.
The JWST is not discovering galaxies that are 'older than the universe’. Indeed they are no older than any other point of Space-Time, including where the Milky Way sits; everything in the universe is the exact same age. These “ancient galaxies” are just more developed. ‘All of the universe’ has experienced the same amount of ‘all of time’ and therefore there is no “older”, just “more mature” and “more spread out”. Certainly the JWST is finding light that has travelled farther than we have detected before. It is simply a refinement of our measurements, now being able to see more clearly to the blurry horizon. The JWST is, quite literally, just a “better telescope”.
The light coming from these galaxies is the oldest we’ve detected, but that doesn’t mean the galaxy is that young. Indeed, light from a galaxy that is 13.5BLY DISTANT implies a galaxy AT LEAST that old, and therefore a universe AT LEAST that old. What the JWST is actually discovering is that our use of the CMB to calculate the age of the universe is incorrect. Just like viewing to the horizon on Earth, there is a whole lot left to see beyond that horizon than is visible to the eyes (light). If the view of the world was constrained to that circular horizon (line-of-sight) it would be vastly smaller than the entire real globe. Refining our telescopes and aiming them horizontally doesn’t improve how far around the planet we can see. It simply means we eventually look straight through the crust of atmosphere and then into Space.
No telescope invented will be able to view Beijing from Boston. Similarly, our observed view of the cosmos is restricted by this hyperspherical line-of-sight horizon, limiting us from seeing the extended universe beyond, however big or finite it may be. Light measurements are constrained to travel along the circumference of the hypersphere, yet age is defined by radius from the center. Two different measurements: two different results. Since we are unable to physically view any part of the universe past this horizon, we are left with the only thing there is to see: the CMB.
The question that remains is: how far around the cosmos does this view reach? On Earth our physical view is very much limited compared to globe size. In Space we seem to have a farther gaze, thanks to, but also limited by, the properties of light. If the 3D cosmic radius is 67.65% of the time vector, then the measurement of the age of the CMB is 32.35% too young. The age of the universe is actually closer to 20.4BY. Or more, because this measurement has also assumed an ability to measure the entire sphere of universe (y=r(u)). If we are constrained to a 90 degree measurement limit (instead of 180 degrees), for example, we are only seeing 50% of the universe. Now we have a cosmos that is 40.8BY old.
Consider that we can only see light as far away as the age of the universe. But from expansion, the physical universe extends farther than that light detection limit. Basically, the universe is bigger than it is old, and we have to find a way other than light to measure distant galaxies. From the ‘Big Bang’ singularity, matter has spread apart along any arc-line on the hypersphere surface at a rate of 1.6765 times the growth of the radius. Traversing one LightYear of that perimeter is 59.65% of the total 1.6765LY, therefore we can currently view 40.35% around the hypersphere before any light heading our way is too young to reach us. That creates a cosmic age of 50.6BY.
But that’s original light, light from the Big Bang itself. As new light is created in an expanding general universe, our observable portion of that light is also shrinking. Since each LY of existence creates another 1.68LY of cosmic diameter, an additional 1.36LY of observable space is lost (40.35%). Such that at 1LY old the cosmos is 3.36LY across, and we see 1.36LY of it. This is a radius of 1.68LY, the farthest away any two points can be at 1LY old. Light emitted from the singularity would take 1.68LY to reach the observer, but after traveling 1LY the radius of the cosmos is now 3.36LY. The light only made it 29.8% of the way: still 2.36LY to go.
Another light year closer leaves 3.03LY to go, geesh, made it 39.8% of the way and there’s still further to go than we it started. Makes it feel like one of those extending hallway scenes in a horror movie: the faster you run the farther away the escape door gets. Another light year leaves yet another 4.4LY to go: made it 44.7% of the way, etc. Until the reduction of that asymptotic function means that the new light, no matter how far it travels, will never reach the observer. It will eventually settle into a position 59.65% along the hypersphere, never passing the 40.35% horizon.
The same boundary is found with light created at year 2, 3, 1000, 1000000 and beyond. The function is asymptotic, always settling at 59.65%. Therefore, all light created beyond this boundary eventually settles at it before reaching us. That means the CMB is the accumulation of all light from the remaining unseeable 59.65% of the universe beyond it. It is literally white noise… or more accurately, red noise. That distant light, regardless of its inability to move ‘closer’ to us, keeps aging. It keeps red shifting. It is still traveling towards us, we are just moving away from it at the exact same pace.
Since light settles to rest on a defined boundary, inside that boundary represents an entirely different set of conditions than outside it. Inside the boundary we can detect individual light sources, outside the boundary they all overlap into a growing pile of old-light needles that have smashed against the CMB pincushion. This is why the CMB is an infinitesimally thin shell of microwave (red shifted) light. It is all the light from the unobservable universe stacking up on the edge, never getting closer but always getting older.
Therefore, at any time, 59.65% of the universe is unobservable to us using light as our tool of measurement. It physically can’t reach us. As the universe spreads, old light becomes ever more blurry and new light becomes ever more unreachable. This means that only light from galaxies existing within the CMB boundary has ever or will ever reach us, regardless of how old the universe is or how far it extends beyond the CMB. In fact, any new light generated from within the CMB, yet beyond 40.35% of its distance from us (>5.6BLY away) will never reach us either. The universe will expand before it ever gets here. Eventually it just ends up as more elderly microwave light stacked on the edge.
We could potentially “unstack” the CMB data: technically, all the rest of cosmic information is in there. But that would require the computational power of AI to accomplish. The lowest realms of the CMB frequency range (0.3 Ghz) uncovers the “oldest light possible” right down to the very bottom of microwave frequencies. “Old light” may not actually ever “die”, it seems, but just sits forever asymptotically aging in the Elysian Fields of the CMB retirement home. Otherwise, in order to see beyond this barrier requires a tool other than light. And as time moves on, that dome of visibility will continue to shrink, as all matter moves outside its lens. If the Milky Way exists long enough, it will eventually be all alone in the vast nothingness of CMB blindness, like a milky cosmic cataract.
The Cosmic Microwave Background, as a limit of distance measurement, has been incorrectly used as a limit of age for the universe. This incorrect age then trickles through every concept of the Standard Cosmological Model and creates a crisis when objects are found to be older than that age boundary. A cosmos 50.6BY old can very well accommodate ancient galaxies, super-massive black holes, and would provide a much needed facelift to the puckered beginnings of the Bell expansion. Instead of viewing the CMB as an age limit we should view it as a limit of light detection, and pursue other technologies to ‘satellite’ our way around this barrier.
Conclusion
In summation, there are no straight lines or flat planes in the universe. That has become self-evident. Therefore, straight lines and flat planes should be removed from our models of the universe. The cosmos is built of spirals, from the Golden to the Lituus, and it is pretty silly that we still think anything in the universe is straight. We thought sailing to the horizon was a straight line, it is not. We still seem to think that light coming from distance stars travels to us in a straight line: it does not. And we will still think that Time itself is straight, when it is not.
The “proof” of this is the 13.4% variance of this Hyperspherical Model’s estimate of the observed radius of the universe compared to the Standard Model’s observed radius. This is not an error, it represents the curvature of the Time vector as it has expanded the hyberball over the last 50.6Billion Years. Abandoning 4D Euclidean geometry and exploring this curvature of Time may allow us insight into the future of the cosmos, whether it will end, create a steady-state, or quantum leap into a recycled singularity.
Correcting the cosmic geometry will also allow further insights into creating technologies that will cross the CMB barrier. On Earth we use satellites to break the line-of-site conundrum which prevents us from using a telescope to peer around the globe. In that same regard, we should stop attempting to invent a "better telescope" to peer around the entire circumference of the universe. Unfortunately, building "satellites" to solve the CMB barrier involves stepping outside of the hyperball universe, into the extending horosphere that it floats in. This is a route best left to the spiritual. Instead, we must develop technologies to 'drill' into the hyberball itself. As on Earth, if we had a telescope that could peer through rock we would not need satellites to encircle the planet, we would simply go through the core. In that same regard, we will be better served finding technologies that peer straight into and through the hyperball's time-volume, instead of around its curved surface. This is the realm of wormholes.
I will rely on others to check my maths, and to delve into the equations solving the 5D curvature of Time. Regardless, this model is merely an attempt to address the current failed geometry of the SCM universe, instead of perpetuating the enduring hunt for Dark Avoidance. If indeed there is a need to "reconcile the measured geometry of Space with the total amount of matter in the universe” then addressing the former is as important as dwelling on the later.
Sean Myers
Oct 28, 2023
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram