Blogging Fusion Blog Directory the #1 blog directory and oldest directory online.
The purpose of this blog is to show how changing ones perspective on the physical structure of the universe will allow one to unite the abstract concepts of Quantum Mechanics with the observable realities of both Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity.
This what your Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories Blog Ad will look like to visitors! Of course you will want to use keywords and ad targeting to get the most out of your ad campaign! So purchase an ad space today before there all gone!
https://www.bloggingfusion.com
.
notice: Total Ad Spaces Available: (2) ad spaces remaining of (2)
But not simpler. For example, one of the simplest ways to define mass and its inertia can be found in Einstein General and Special Theories of Relativity and in the formula E=mc^2 that defines its relationship to energy. However, some researchers have chosen to ignore its simplicity by proposing that something called the Higgs mechanism […] The post Everything should be made a simple as possible appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic...
But not simpler.
For example, one of the simplest ways to define mass and its inertia can be found in Einstein General and Special Theories of Relativity and in the formula E=mc^2 that defines its relationship to energy.
However, some researchers have chosen to ignore its simplicity by proposing that something called the Higgs mechanism is responsible mass and its inertia or its resistance to a change in velocity.
Briefly they have tried to show that the conditions for electroweak symmetry would be "broken" if an unusual type of field existed throughout the universe, and indeed, some fundamental particles would acquire mass. The field required for this to happen (which was purely hypothetical at the time) became known as the Higgs field (after Peter Higgs, one of the researchers) and the mechanism by which it led to symmetry breaking, known as the Higgs mechanism. A key feature of the necessary field is that it would take less energy for the field to have a nonzero value than a zero value, unlike all other known fields, therefore, the Higgs field has a nonzero value (or vacuum expectation) everywhere. This nonzero value could in theory break electroweak symmetry. It was the first proposal capable of showing how the weak force gauge bosons could have mass despite their governing symmetry, within a gauge invariant theory.
However, as was mentioned earlier the General Theory of Relativity provides a much simpler explanation as to what mass and inertia is.
This is because that theory defines gravitational energy in terms of a curved displacement in spacetime which concentrates its energy in the apex of that curvature. However. in doing so he also he essentially tells us that rest mass is a concentrated form of energy because that is the only thing that exists at the apex of that curvature. Additionally, the experimentally confirmed of the equation E=mc^2 supports that assumption by defining relative concentrations of mass of all objects and particles to energy in a spacetime environment in terms of the velocity of light squared.
However, in defining how mass is accelerated in terms of a curved displacement in the "surface" of spacetime he also defines constant motion in terms of a linear displacement of the two dimensional spacetime plane it was moving through because if it was curved or nonlinear it would be accelerated. This also defines the reason constant motion is relative because each observer will view the linear displacement in spacetime associated with its motion from perspective of his own linear baseline in spacetime.
On the other hand, accelerated motion is not relative because it is caused by a nonlinear curvature in spacetime therefore each observer will have a different baseline for determining its energy depending on where he is in relation to the focal point of that curvature. For example, the force of gravity increases as an observer approaches a mass because he is observing it form a different energy point on the curvature in spacetime responsible for energy force.
This also provides another way of understanding the causality of inertia because the linear displacement in the two dimensional plane of spacetime associated with its velocity consist of two components. The first is the energy associated with apex of the curvature in spacetime that defines rest mass mentioned earlier and the second is the energy required to shift the linear displacement associated with its relative velocity. However, this means the inertia or energy required to make changes in relative velocity or, as was shown earlier the linear displacement in spacetime that is responsible for it would be proportional to the energy associated with its mass. In other words, it provides the reason why the inertia of all objects and particles is directly proportion to their mass and energy.
To put it another way, because Einstein defined mass in terms of the concentration of energy in spacetime one must add the energy of the linear displacement he associated with relative velocity to derive the mass of all objects and particles.
This tells us the reason the mass and inertia of particles in particle accelerators increase as their velocity does is because one must add the energy associated with the linear displacement in space time caused by their velocity to their rest mass.
This definition of mass and inertia gives us a much simpler explanation than the one mentioned above which uses the Higgs boson for why one particle or object has a different mass from another and why it resists changes in its motion. However it is not too simple because as was shown above it can explain all aspects of mass and inertia while having the Additionally, the advantage of being supported by a definable mechanism in terms of Einstein theories whereas I do not believe that as of today there is a fundamental explanation for the precise manner in which each of the known particle species interacts with the Higgs boson.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
The Road to

The Road to

The Road to

The post Everything should be made a simple as possible appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
What makes gravitational force different from those of electromagnetism is that gravity acts along the perpendicular axis of spacetime while electromagnetic forces acts in the twodimensional plane that is perpendicular to gravity. This is the reason why gravity only acts in one direction attractive while that of electromagnetic can act in two directions, attractive and […] The post The spatial orientation of gravity and electromagnetism appeared first on Unifying Quantum and...
What makes gravitational force different from those of electromagnetism is that gravity acts along the perpendicular axis of spacetime while electromagnetic forces acts in the twodimensional plane that is perpendicular to gravity. This is the reason why gravity only acts in one direction attractive while that of electromagnetic can act in two directions, attractive and repulsive because it has the freedom to move along that two dimensional plane.
Einstein had difficulty in understanding how derive to the forces of electromagnetic as they moved through space in terms of his spacetime model as was documented by the American Institute of Physics.
From before 1920 until his death in 1955, Einstein struggled to find laws of physics far more general than any known before. In his theory of relativity, the force of gravity had become an expression of the geometry of space and time. The other forces in nature, above all the force of electromagnetism, had not been described in such terms. But it seemed likely to Einstein that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explaneed as aspects of some broader mathematical structure. The quest for such an explanation â€” for a unified field theory that would unite electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together â€” occupied more of Einstein’s years than any other activity.
However, the reason is NOT that his theories could not support electromagnetism but more likely because time moves only one direction forward similar to how gravity only moves in one direction attractive. However, electromagnetism "moves" in two direction attractive and repulsive therefore it is difficult to understand how one directional properties of time could be responsible for it.
Yet Einstein gave us an easier way to see how and why his space time model can be linked to the positive and negative forces associated with electromagnetism when he used the constant velocity of light to define geometric properties of forces in a spacetime environment This is because that would allow one to convert a unit of time in his fourdimensional spacetime universe to a unit of space in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to define a one to one correspondence between his spacetime universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words, by mathematically defining the geometric properties of time in his spacetime universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of define the timebased components in terms of its equivalent in only four spatial dimensions.
The fact that one can use Einstein’s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the displacement associated energy in a spacetime environment in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming, as was done in the article Defining energy? Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including gravitational and electromagnetism can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in any "surface" or plane of threedimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
This allows one to form a physical image of how electromagnetic forces can be both attractive and repulsive in terms of the differential force caused by the "peaks" and "toughs" of an energy wave moving in the threedimensional plane with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that is perpendicular to gravity’s.
For example, Classical wave mechanics tells us a wave on the twodimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present. A force is developed by that differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become "attracted" to each other and the surface of the water.
Similarly, it tells us an energy wave on the threedimensional plane with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that is perpendicular to gravity would cause a point on that plane to become displaced or "elevated and depressed" with respect to the equilibrium point that existed before that wave was present.
However, it also tells us a force will be developed by those differential displacements in the plane that was perpendicular to gravity that will result in its "elevated and depressed" portions moving towards or become "attracted" to each other as the wave moves through space.
This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic field in terms of the force developed by the differential displacements of a point on the threedimensional plane that is perpendicular to gravity.
However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding repelling forces of electromagnetism because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitude of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.
Similarly, the magnitude of a displacement on a threedimensional plane with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.
One can also derive the magnetic component of an electromagnetic wave in terms of the horizontal force developed by the horizontal displacement caused by its peaks and troughs. This would be analogous to how the perpendicular displacement of a mountain generates a horizontal force on the surface of the earth, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.
Additionally, one can derive the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic energy in terms of the energy associated with its "peaks" and "troughs" that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement because classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it. This force is called magnetism.
This shows that one can use Einstein’s General theory of Relativity to derive the physical properties of both electromagnetism and gravity. Additionally it defines the reason why the force of gravity only acts only by attracting objects is because it is confined to the perpendicular axis of spacetime or its equivalent in four *spatial* dimensions while electromagnetism can both, attract and repulse objects because it has the freedom to move objects or particles two directions in the two dimensional plane that is perpendicular to gravity’s .
It should be remembered that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to define an electromagnetic wave either a spacetime environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined its geometry in terms of the constant velocity of light.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
The Road to 
The Road to 
The Road to

The post The spatial orientation of gravity and electromagnetism appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
As was mentioned in the Scientific American article "Is Gravity Quantum?" "All the fundamental forces of the universe are known to follow the laws of quantum mechanics, save one: gravity. However, finding a way to fit gravity into quantum mechanics would bring scientists a giant leap closer to a “theory of everything” that could entirely […] The post The particle wave dichotomy of Quantum Gravity appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic...
As was mentioned in the Scientific American article "Is Gravity Quantum?"
"All the fundamental forces of the universe are known to follow the laws of quantum mechanics, save one: gravity. However, finding a way to fit gravity into quantum mechanics would bring scientists a giant leap closer to a “theory of everything” that could entirely explain the workings of the cosmos from first principles. A crucial first step in this quest to know whether gravity is quantum is to detect the longpostulated elementary particle of gravity, the gravitron. In search of the graviton, physicists are now turning to experiments involving microscopic superconductors, freefalling crystals and the afterglow of the big bang."
When Einstein was asked about the consequences of not being able to observe the graviton he replied "It seems as though we must sometimes use one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do"
However, there is a way of fitting gravity into quantum mechanics that does on involve observing the gravitron.
Quantum mechanics assumes all forces are defined by a particle wave dichotomy while Einstein General Theory of Relativity tells us that gravity causes ripples or waves in the fabric of spacetime. However, if one can use the concepts developed by Einstein to show that those gravity waves also exists as a particle wave dichotomy similar to the particle wave dichotomy of quantum mechanics one may be able define a physical connection between his theories and quantum mechanics.
But before we begin, we must first define the relationship between how that particle wave dichotomy manifests itself in the quantum world.
The physicist John Wheeler said the best answer was given by Aatish Bhatia “Don’t look: waves. Look: particles.” That’s quantum mechanics in a nutshell."
In other words, quantum mechanics tells us when a force is observed to interact with an object such as a proton or electron the particle component of its dichotomy becomes predominate while its wave properties only present themselves as it moves unhindered through space.
As was mentioned earlier one may be able to bridge the gap between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity if one can define how and why the wave in spacetime Einstein associated with gravity exist as a particle wave dichotomy similar to the other forces that quantum mechanics defines in those terms.
One of the problems we face in doing this is that his theory defines the force of gravity with respect to time while Quantum theory defines all forces in terms of the spatial properties of position when interacting with objects.
However, Einstein gave us a way to transform his time based definition of gravity into a spatial one which is more consistent with Quantum Mechanics spatially oriented definition of a particle when he defined gravities geometric properties in terms of the constant velocity of light. This is because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his fourdimensional spacetime universe to a unit of a space in one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions which would be more consistent with quantum mechanics position orient definition of a particle. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his spacetime universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words, he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his spacetime universe in terms of an equivalent one in only four *spatial* dimensions.
However, redefining the time based geometry of gravity in terms of its equivalent in four *spatial* dimensions also allows one to not only understand why all forces, including gravity exist as a particle wave dichotomy but also, as mentioned earlier the interaction or noninteraction of a force with anything determines which of those "realities" becomes predominate.
For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can derive particle properties of the wave component of gravities dichotomy by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a threedimensional environment to a matter wave on a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four *spatial* dimensions.
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give its wave component the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.
These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the collision of two black holes. This would force the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.
The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established space.
Therefore, these oscillations in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or "structure" in fourdimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment.
Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.
Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with the particle component of its particle wave dichotomy.
Yet, it also allowed one to derive the physical boundaries of the particle component of its dichotomy in terms of the geometric properties of four *spatial* dimensions.
For example, in classical physics, a point on the twodimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to threedimensional space.
Similarly, an object occupying a volume of threedimensional space would be confined to it. However, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a threedimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension by the interaction of forces with "things" in threedimensional space is what defines the spatial boundaries of the resonant system of the particle component of it particle wave dichotomy defined in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007.
In other words, Einstein theories tell us the particle component of the particle wave dichotomy of gravity would appear or become reality when it confined to threedimensional space by its interaction with "something" in threedimensional space.
This is similar to the particle wave dichotomy quantum mechanics associates with all forces in that they manifest themselves as waves until the interact with another quantum system.
Not only that but it allows one to form a direct connection between the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanic’s assumption that reality is defined in terms of a particle wave dichotomy because the same logic used above can be applied to all forces to explain why, if a force is allowed to move uninhibited through space the wave reality of its dichotomy will be predominate and why if it interacts with anything its particle ones will be predominate.
In other words, we do not have to observe the Gravitron to bring quantum mechanics and its particle wave dichotomy into the Theoretical environment of General Relativity because the physical reasons for that dichotomy are inherent in its theoretical structure.
Additionally, it gives consistent explanation of why one can sum up quantum mechanics in these words "Don’t look: waves. Look: particles" by extrapolating the "single" physical picture provided by the General Theory of Relativity to all quantum systems.
It should be remembered that Einstein’s genius and the symmetry of his mathematics allows us to choose whether to define the reality of a quantum system in either a spacetime environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
The Road to 
The Road to 
The Road to

The post The particle wave dichotomy of Quantum Gravity appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
Physics is an observational science and therefore we must be careful to base our theoretical models directly on observations and not allow the members of our community to ignore them when submitting their theories. For example, many feel the most reliable way to determine the age of the universe is by measuring its expansion rate […] The post The true age of the universe appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic...
Physics is an observational science and therefore we must be careful to base our theoretical models directly on observations and not allow the members of our community to ignore them when submitting their theories.
For example, many feel the most reliable way to determine the age of the universe is by measuring its expansion rate base on the radial velocities of galaxies determined by the redshift in their light. Using that value, they imagine Schrodinger’s the universe to the point where everything was contained in a singularity, and calculate how much time must have passed between that moment (the Big Bang) and the present. Doing so tells us the universe is approximately 13.77 billion years.
But there is a problem because there are other things which would affect the redshift which were not taken into consideration when calculating its age.
For example, an observer watching an event like a star orbiting a black hole would notice that light coming from it is redshifted by its intense gravitational field.
In other words, since we can observe how gravity influences redshift, we also know that not taking its effects into account would make radial velocity of galaxies appear to be higher than it was thereby making the universe appear younger than it is.
This discrepancy is amplified by the fact most if not all evolutionary models of our expanding universe assume its gravitationally density increases as one goes back in time because its decreasing size causes its matter component to become more concentrated.
As was mentioned earlier, it has been observed light emanating from just above the event horizon of black hole is redshifted by its intense gravitational field. This means we know from direct observations the magnitude of the redshift coming from galaxies will increase as we go back in time due to the differential gravitational potential between the universe’s past and the present. However, this also means if we don’t take that into account we will overestimate the speed of the the universe expansion and therefore underestimated its age.
In other words, because the gravitational differential between the past and the present was not taken into consideration the universe MUST be older than 13.77 billion years when determined by the redshift.
There can be no other conclusion if one accepts the observations which verify a redshift can be caused by gravity and the fact that the gravitational density must have been greater in the past than it is now due to its expansion.
Some might say that because the density of the gravitational field expands along with the universe it would not affect redshift of light. However, Einstein’s theory of Relativity tells us all change, including that associated with the universe expansion is not a result of anything moving in time but through time. This concept is sometime represented by what is called a block universe where each event would be represented by a ridge block of spacetime which never changes.
In other words, the changes that occur in the universe as it expands are a result of movement though each ridge block of spacetime and not by changes in that block . Therefore, if one accepts Einstein theory the gravitational density of the early universe is still there exerting its influence on light from when it was emitted from the galaxy used to determine it age.
Note: we are not only taking about the gravity of a galaxy that existed when the light was emitted but the total gravitational potential of the universe that light is required to overcome as it travels from the past to the present.
One could make a better estimate of the universe’s age than the one we have now have if one could determine the total gravitational potential the universe had in the beginning. This would help us to determine how much of the redshift is a result of the radial velocity of galaxies and how much was a result of gravity.
The Cosmic background radiation may give us a way to do this because most assume the slight temperature variations across it tells how matter was distributed at the time it was emitted. One can use the magnitude those density differentials to determine how each part interacted with its neighbors to produce that distribution. This may permit us to estimate how much matter is represented by one of these temperature variations and by using Einstein’s field equations get an approximate value for the total mass and gravitational potential of the universe had at that time.
This would allow one to subtract the redshift caused by the differential gravitational potential at its origin of the visible universe with respect to what it is now to determine actual the radial velocity of galaxies and thereby a more accurate measure of its age.
However, the fact the universe MUST be older than 13.77 billion years based on observation of how gravity effects the redshift presents problems for some of the proponents of the inflationary big bang model because they have said that observation of the Cosmic background radiation have confirmed that is exactly how old it is.
To put it in the words of the European Space Agency.
Planck’s superbly precise new picture of the CMB (below) shows remarkable agreement with theoretical work, confirming that observations fit a simple cosmological model defined by just six numbers. (Take that in for a moment: the whole physical universe is described by six numbers.) (and) “When combined with other types of measurements, the that data homes in on an age for the universe of 13.798 billion years, give or take a mere 0.037.”
Additionally, they tell us “Our inflationary model makes specific predictions about what this complex graph should look like. As you can see, Planck’s observations (red dots) trace nigh perfectly the theory (green line). My colleague Alan freaked out when he saw the tight fit at the graph’s far right” you don’t appreciate the wonders of scientific progress until you have a 6foot3 man jumping up and down in your office.
However, as was shown above the universe must be older than 13.77 billion years because the effects gravity has on the redshift were not taken into account when considering its age.
In other words, very fact that those (red dots) trace perfectly Alan’s theoretical prediction that the universe is 13.77 billion years old invalidates it because as was just mentioned it MUST be older than that.
As was motioned earlier, Physics is an observational science and therefore we, in the physics community must not allow our members to ignore ones that we know will eventually will invalidate their theories. This is because their inevitable downfall not only reduces our creditability but also slows the progress to a better understanding of how the universe really functions. This is in part because governments and the public will be less willing to fund the research of those who have a chance to succeed after spend large sums of money on those that are doomed to failure because their authors chose to ignore the observations that WILL eventually invalidate their theories.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020.
The Road to 
The Road to 
The Road to

The post The true age of the universe appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
One of the biggest problems is cosmology is accurately determining how far distance objects are away from us. In 1998 researchers discovered the repulsive side of gravity when they discovered a discrepancy in apparent brightness of light from type 1A supernovae, which exploded billions of years ago suggested that it had traveled a greater distance […] The post Our nonaccelerating universe. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic...
One of the biggest problems is cosmology is accurately determining how far distance objects are away from us.
In 1998 researchers discovered the repulsive side of gravity when they discovered a discrepancy in apparent brightness of light from type 1A supernovae, which exploded billions of years ago suggested that it had traveled a greater distance than theorists predicted it should.Â From that they concluded that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up, not slowing down. This was such a radical finding that some cosmologists suggested that the falloff in supernova brightness was the result of other affects, such as intergalactic dust dimming the light. In the past few years, though, astronomers have solidified the case for cosmic acceleration by studying ever more remote supernovae.
But there is something else other than dust which would affect the measurement of theirÂ distance.
For example, Einstein tells us and observations of black holes confirm that light losses energy and becomes dimmer as it exits or "climbs" out of a gravitational field.
In other words, the assumption that one can accurately determine the distance of an object based solely using its luminosity and its apparent brightness is simply wrong.
Most of if not all theoretical models of the universe assume that it evolved from a gravitationally denser environment than it is it now.
Therefore, we would expect light that was emitted from an exploding star billions of years to grow fainter due the differential gravitation potential as it leaves the past and enters the instruments used by today’s researchers to measure its apparent brightness.
Note: we are not taking about the gravity of the star that exploded billions of years in the past but the total gravitational potential of the universe that light is required to overcome as it travels from the past to the present.
Some might say that the because the density of the gravitational field expands along with the universe it would not affect apparent brightness of light from the type 1A supernovaes use in the above study.Â However, Einstein tells us all change, including that associated with the universe expansion is not a result of anything moving through time but in time.Â This concept is sometime represent by what is called a block universe where each event would be represented by a ridge block of spacetime which never changes and the changes that occur in the universe as it expands are a result of movement though each ridge block and not by changes in in that block of spacetime. Therefore, if one accepts Einstein theory the environment were1A supernovae exploded billions of years is still there exerting its gravitational influence from billions of light years away when observed in1998.
This means the discrepancy in the light found in 1998 may not only be due to the distance it traveled but to the energy lose it experiences is due to the differential gravitational potential that exits between its point of origin and where is was observed.
The simple fact is that the conclusion the universe expansion is accelerating must be reconsidered if they did not take into account the effect of the differential gravitational density between then and now had on light as it moved through space.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
The Road to 
The Road to 
The Road to

The post Our nonaccelerating universe. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
Physics is an observational science and therefore we must be careful to base our theoretical models on those observations and make sure the theoretical predictions we make using them conform to them. For example, the "Big Bang" the most widely accepted theoretical model of the universe’s beginning assumes it was an extremely hot dense environment […] The post In the beginning. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic...
Physics is an observational science and therefore we must be careful to base our theoretical models on those observations and make sure the theoretical predictions we make using them conform to them.
For example, the "Big Bang" the most widely accepted theoretical model of the universe’s beginning assumes it was an extremely hot dense environment which cooled as it expanded making conditions just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter, the quarks and electrons of which we are all made and later quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. Present observations suggest that the first stars formed from clouds of gas around 150 to 200 million years after the Big Bang.
But there is a problem because that estimate is based on the assumption that the passage time is constant throughout the universe’s evolution while Einstein and observations tell us that moves slower wherever gravity is stronger.
For example, an external observer watching an event like an object falling into a black hole would notice that its motion toward it slows as it approached its event horizon due to the density of its gravitation field.
As was just mentioned, the big bang model assumes based on observations that the first stars formed from clouds of gas around 150 to 200 million years after the Big Bang.
However, that assumes time was moving at the same speed for both the evolution of those passed events and for those who are observing it from the present.
Yet, Einstein and the observation of events happening near a black hole, regarding the affect gravity has on time tell us something different. They tell us the timing of events must have moved faster when the universe young than it does from the perspective of presentday observers because, due to its expansion the matter and gravitational density was greater back then than it is now.
In other words, defining the time between events at the beginning of our universe must be based not only on the observations made today but on relative strength of gravity between present day observers and what it was at the time they are observed.
This tells us an event that appears to a 150 to 200 million years to occur from the perspective of an observer in the present would not have taken that long if viewed by someone who was present when it occurred.
It is important to remember this slowing of the timing of events is not related to the velocity of the expansion of the universe but directly to relative strength of gravity between the observed and what he is observing at the time the event occurred.
Some might try to claim that this would not be the case because gravity was also expanding at the same rate the universe and therefore it would not effect how long it would take for events to occur. However, if we are truly looking back in time to when the event occurred, we must assume that the conditions we observed are not change by its expansion because that would mean the future can change the past.
As was mentioned earlier the big bang model tells the first stars formed from clouds of gas around 150 to 200 million years after the Big Bang.
However, as was shown above they could not have taken long if they were observed in the environment where they were forming because of the effect’s gravity has on time. This means, for the big bang model to remain a viable explanation of the universe evolution it must not only revamp the time line for their formation but the time lines for the future events that were based on the theoretical model suggesting they formed 150 to 200 million years after the Big Bang.
Some proponents of the Big Bang model may try to deny that there any difference between the timing of events from the perspective of an observer looking them from present and past even while telling us that the gravitational density was stronger in the past.
That would be hard for them justify that conclusion because we have observed, as was mentioned earlier a denser gravitational field cause time and therefore the timing of events to move slower from the perspective of an outside observer. Additionally, it is one of primary predictions of the General Theory of Relativity which they used to define the formation and evolution of stars and the largescale structures we observe in today’s universe.
This means they would have to not only deny that gravity has been observed to effect time but the validity the General Theory of Relativity because it unequivocally states that it must. However, as was just mentioned they used it to define the theoretical structure of the Big Bang model.
In other words, the only way they can justify the validity of Big Bang model of the universe’s evolution would be to show that it can explain the observable structures of the present universe in terms of the formation of the first stars occurring in something other than 150 to 200 million years after the Big Bang.
Unfortunately, there are no other choices.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
The Road to 
The Road to 
The Road to

The post In the beginning. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.
Or if you prefer use one of our linkware images? Click here
Wordpress VS Blogger? Submit Your Blog!