The Universe is Not Expanding - Channel Trailer

In this video, I try to go over the gist of my cosmological model in as short of time as possible. It was longer than expected but shorter than others.
Methodology:
Step 1: Assume the universe is not expanding.
Step 2: Assume the cosmological redshift is caused by gravitational redshift.
Step 3: Find the density distribution from Hubble's law.
Step 4: Develop a metric solution from the density distribution.
Step 5: Arrive at a special case of the Schwarzschild metric.
In this metric, the Schwarzschild radius and observable radius are equal, giving us an opportunity to derive the temperature of the CMBR. There is also a uniform (minimum) gravitational acceleration throughout the entire cosmos. This give us an opportunity to formulate a new method of determining the rotational curves of spiral galaxies (dark matter/MOND).

[@John-gz2km]

You can’t simplify the equation at 2:48, the r^2 on the bottom is a measurement of how far away you are from the object, the r^3 is a measurement of the size of the object so simplifying it means you’re assuming that the distance from the center of the ball is equal to the size of the ball so this is only useful if you want to find the surface gravity of an object. It’s useless if you want to find gravitational acceleration due to a distant object

[@johnsteeley]

Not following. r^3 / r^2 = r

[@jard]

​@@johnsteeley yes, however if the object experiencing gravitation isn't located at the surface of the ball then you can't do that cancellation, which was @John-gz2km's whole point let's say the radius of the earth is r; the distance some object is from the earth is represented by s. in general, r ≠ s therefore r^3 / s^2 can not be simplified; unless the object is on the earth's surface, in which case s = r and r^3 / s^2 = r^3 / r^2 = r. this is why the 9.8 m/s^2 figure is always defined as "near the surface of the earth"

[@johnsteeley]

@@jard 4/3*pi*r^3 is the volume of a sphere with radius r. r in the volume equation is the same r in the g equation. Maybe I'm missing something.

[@jard]

​@@johnsteeley g = GM/r^2 describes the gravitational acceleration that a sufficiently massive object's gravitational field exerts on another object. r in this context is the distance between the center of mass of the large object. M = rho*4/3*pi*r^3 is the mass of a regular sphere ('ball') given its radius and average density. r in this context is the radius of the ball, which the formula then calculates the volume of that ball, and multiplies by its density (mass/volume) to obtain the mass of that ball. they are not equal in both contexts. it is only valid to assert that the distance the object is from the earth's center of mass (r in the first equation) is equal to the radius of the earth (r in the second equation), when that object in question is resting on or very near earth's surface. obviously, the distance from earth's surface and its center of mass is its radius, so an object located near or resting on the earth's surface is also distanced away from the earth's center of mass by earth's radius.

[@user106peregrine8]

​ @jard you're correct, but also missing some context. at 2 minutes he says if you move away from the ball it would be r² plus the distance you move away from the ball, and no, that's not correct, it's the square of the distance between the two objects' centers of mass. but, if you're inside a uniformly distributed spherical mass, the effective gravitational acceleration at a distance r from the center is given by considering only the mass enclosed within that radius. M(r)=ρ(4/3πr^3 ), and the derived formula g=Gρ4/3πr is in fact correct inside a uniformly dense spherical mass. But this is a specific case where the gravitational force inside a uniform sphere varies linearly with distance from the center (similar to how gravitational potential inside such a sphere works). If you're outside the spherical mass, you have to consider the entire mass M as concentrated at the center, because you're correct, the r term is found by computing the distance squared between their centers of mass (which is most easily seen in vector solutions where r→ = (r2→ - r1→) and is the scalar distance and is the magnitude of r. outside of the sphere,such as between two masses some distance extended away from each other (as long as they're separate, meaning, one isn't inside of the other) the correct formula would remain: g=G(ρ4/3πr^3)/r^2 ​ If r is the distance an object is away from the center of the sphere of another, and that distance is larger than the sphere's radius, it simplifies back to: 𝑔=GM / r^2​ This doesn't just always simplify to a linear dependence on r. because the force vector F→ = G (m1m2 / r^3) * r→ in otherwords the force vector has a magnitude of G(m1m2/r^2) and points from m1 to m2. the vector r→ provides the direction of the force, scaled by the factor of 1/r^3 to account for the inverse-square law. but, Inside a uniformly dense sphere... Yes, g=Gρ4/3πr is correct, and contextually appropriate - the best kind of appropriate. Outside the sphere tho, and g = GM / r^2 which is the expression for a POINT mass, or, the mass distribution when viewed from the outside. and the Schwarzschild solution is A solution to einstein's field equations, not THE solution. it's the simplest, actually. there are more solutions than this one. In general relativity, the Schwarzschild solution is derived assuming a central mass M. The metric considers the mass M as the source of the gravitational field. What happens if we try to substitute density? Far-Field Approximation: At large distances, the gravitational effects are dominated by the total mass M, not how the mass is distributed (density). This is because the far-field gravitational field of a spherically symmetric mass distribution is identical to that of a point mass M. The Schwarzschild metric already assumes a total mass M at the origin or equivalently distributed spherically. Substituting mass M with density ρ multiplied by some volume term does not change the far-field behavior. The metric remains dependent on the total mass M. The Schwarzschild metric encapsulates the curvature of spacetime due to mass M. Time dilation and spatial curvature depend on M, not directly on ρ unless considering specific distributions inside a radius r. also, Birkhoff's Theorem states that any spherically symmetric solution of the vacuum field equations must be static and asymptotically flat, leading to the Schwarzschild solution. This implies that the external solution is uniquely determined by the total mass M. substituting mass with density (ρ and a volume term) in the context of the Schwarzschild metric is misleading. The Schwarzschild metric already incorporates the total mass M, and at large distances, the metric's form remains invariant regardless of how the mass is distributed within the spherical volume. So, when dealing with the Schwarzschild metric and general relativity, stick to using the total mass M for describing gravitational effects at large distances. Density ρ plays a role in specific contexts (like interior solutions), but not in altering the fundamental form of the Schwarzschild solution for external fields. very creative idea being expressed by mr.brown in the video, but the assumption being made is wrong. you can't just extend something internally consistent and expect it to be externally consistent as well. in fact, if a person sat in the earths center, they would float freely, it would feel an awful lot like accelerating away from the surface and into space, either way you go you'd end up feeling gravity diminish the further away from, or closer to the center you go. and an objects density is critically important there, as the Schwarzschild metric illuminates - there is a critical density at which point a new surface extends to encapsulate the reality of the point mass expression and specifically doesn't contain the terms for density M=ρV=ρ(4/3πr^3) because part of it being a solution to einsteins field equations is because of the fact that it correctly describes that extended surface called an event horizon, within which all that density is contained and compressed into the most point-mass like object even einstein hadn't considered. it was a stroke of brilliance and rigorously mathy in unintuitive ways. Also, the expansion of the universe isn't an assumption, it's a measurement. Like dark matter, it's not a theory, it's an observation, what causes the observation is an unknown and is just called dark matter. it could be something else causing the observable, but it's not an assumption that the measurements are making in the observations. ​ maybe everything far away is actually just shrinking? idk. probably not. stephen wolfram thinks dark matter and dark energy are purely thermodynamic in nature. i think the "big bang" happened at one single point, at one single time, exactly equidistance away from every point in space and time and everything is basically in the process of being exploded into existence at every moment, and swallowed up by non existence a mere second ago. luckily we exploded out just in time to be here right now. and get swallowed up. fortunately, explosions. and the timing is just perfectly in balance. like a trampoline. if it was stuck at the horizon between a blackhole and a whitehole and we can't tell the difference between free falling down, or on the upward parabola of a vomit comet. basically Carlo Rovelli's hinted at pet theory. i'm pretty sure all physicists have their pet theory they can't disprove or provide evidence for but think about a lot. like string theory. loop quantum gravity. ads/cft. superdeterminism. multiverses. I wonder if Chris Brown knows Julian Barbour's work. the Janus Point. i just don't see M(r)=ρ(4/3πr^3) a lot, it's fairly obscure outside of textbooks and physics papers talking about the math inside stars and junk.

[@generichuman_]

This makes absolutely no sense because we are surrounded by this density distribution, so the density in front of us that would red shift the light would be blue shifted by the density behind us and we would see no change... like how if you were at the center of the earth, you would experience no gravity because the mass of the earth is pulling you in all directions equally. This seems like a fairy obvious and fatal flaw to your theory.

[@matthewatwood207]

And that density is COMPLETELY homogenous. Sure, buddy.

[@TimSeff]

Error.... You are mixing up the variables (specifically "r") in the 'acceleration due to gravity from center' equation, with variable "r" in the 'geometrical density equation'.... these two variables "r" do not represent the same concepts. In summary, you cannot cancel-out the two "r^2" because they represent different things. You should pick a different symbol to clarify that 'r: radius from center' is not the same variable as 'r: distance within a sphere' edit: 'r: radius from center' is not the correct linguistics, so "r: radial distance from center" would be more accurate.

[@innertubez]

If the universe is not expanding, then what is it doing according to this video? Static, or collapsing?

[@russelltaylor535]

If the Universe isn’t expanding, how do you explain the cosmic microwave background radiation? That is Exhibit 1 that the Universe was much denser in the past than it is today (I’m not saying smaller because if the Universe is infinite now, it was infinite then). You can’t just throw out the CMBR because it’s inconvenient to you. In addition, the metallicity of the most distant stars is consistent with a Universe containing only hydrogen and helium and traces of lithium as predicted by the Big Bang model.

[@BestCosmologist]

Great question! I believe the CMBR is blue shifted Hawking radiation. The anisotropy in the bg is caused by subtle variations in the density distribution. I used a rather practical and logical method to find a physical upper limit to relativistic effects. This would be the factor of change due to the entire observable universe (Schwarzschild radius). This results in a giant number that we can use as an upper limit to the factor of change. Then I combine that to the Hawking radiation temperature equation and I get around 6 degrees Kelvin. My method of determining the max factor of change is a little suspect. There's a lot of fine-tuning that needs to be done as well. Hubble's law is almost certainly over-estimated. I plan on revisiting the subject soon and will likely make a video. Just remember, the current explanation of the CMBR requires inflation, at a rate of expansion much faster than today's rate, at a time when mass was compact and gravity was strong. It's literally absurd.

[@russelltaylor535]

@@BestCosmologist Hawking Radiation is only applicable to a very specific set of circumstances because of the assumptions made to combine General Relativity with Quantum field theory. That is near the event horizon of a Black Hole. I get the impression you’re just combining random equations together without once considering all the underlying assumptions under which those equations are valid. And the CMBR is at 2.7K as predicted by GR, it’s not 6K. And yes, that is a big difference.

[@johnsteeley]

The standard model explanation is hardly the only possible explanation for the CMBR. It's not proof of anything. Deep space is in equilibrium with respect to density/temperature and a bunch of EM waves are flying everywhere. Takes a big leap in faith to tie that to something that might have happened billions of years ago.

[@BestCosmologist]

ok

[@johnsteeley]

@@russelltaylor535 Please provide cite for 2.7K prediction. Let's not pretend that "science" had 2.7K penciled in. They did not.

[@ChrisLehtoF16]

Great explanation thanks. I’m curious to see if anyone can improve on it and write it in a paper format:)

[@sacriptex5870]

Space cant expand because space arent a Thing-in-itself theres no space by itself just distance, like time theres no time by itself just duration

[@matthewatwood207]

👆

[@edstauffer426]

Topographically speaking the Milky Way and andromeda are like towns in a mountain pass almost everything around us is located in a deeper gravity well. In the early universe the gravity wells were deeper due to containing almost all Liquid Dark Matter. Stars and AGN vaporize and lower the content of LDN which has been slowly decreasing since then. Lower LDN also means less compact galaxies, smaller stars and less AGN. We talk about gravity bending spacetime but no one talks about the effect of that bending on the equivalent overall topography of spacetime ie smaller black hole for the Milky Way and lower concentration of LDM.

[@emanemanrus5835]

Universe is a 3d surface of a 4d black hole, we (our universe) live onto the event horizon of a 4d-black hole which is expanding, because feeding from the surrounding matter in his 4d space + time. So we have the emerging impression of an expansion. Maybe.

[@CPHSDC]

It's all local. The rest is history, literally we are looking in a rear view mirror. What we see, was never there, and may be over somewhere else if we could figure out where to look. I'm not saying the universe is a single galaxy, Hubble me that. But maybe less than we think, over abd over and over again.

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

Also, if someone is telling that the Universe is expanding, that means that the Universe have limits and a V and an M and a form. Again, that means that something exist outside the Universe where the universe in it is expanding. In this case this is absolutely absurd because we have defined that universe means everything, so and the outside thing of these poor guys. This is only a logic acrobat who saying that the universe is expanding only and only to have a spot and a moment of creation. That is only the religion belief of Lemaitre and the attempts of many other guys paid by the Church.

[@stoppernz229]

The universe can expand and there is nothing outside of it. There is nothing contradictory about that

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

@@stoppernz229 Do you have any experimental proof about that as the physics ask? No? No. But about red shifting and my thesis about it that it is only an optical phenomenon of depletion of energy, I have experimental proof. It is very easy. Take e regular flashlight and leave it on till will deplete its batteries and see what will happen with its light. I have done this to our laboratory many times and with the use of a spectrometer and there you are, you have red shifting and not only, you have any color shifting till the moment of darkness. Even, before darkness the light is flashing as e star and all of this you have without space expansion. Do you have such an experiment with expansion? No? No. So, physics without experimental proof dear it is only doctrine, a dogma. And if you take the expansion of your Universe, flashback you will have the B.B. and then you have to find a creator and to going to church every day alleluia. But you see, alleluia isn't physics, it is religion and Middle Ages. And please define for us, what do you mean with the term space and after that we will see if your definition need some other space outside it, where can expand peacfully. For this obvious reason, Linde and Penroose are talking obout Multiverse just to save the religion in frond of sciense and physics.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

"if someone is telling that the Universe is expanding, that means that the Universe have limits and a V and an M" Err, no, that does not follow. Why do you think so? If the universe is infinitely large, it can expand nevertheless. Try looking about what "the universe expands" actually means in cosmology. "that means that something exist outside the Universe where the universe in it is expanding." Wrong again. Please educate yourself about cosmology instead of simply assuming all that false stuff. "That is only the religion belief of Lemaitre" So you conveniently ignore that the Big Bang theory is based on the work of many physicists, many of them working completely indepedent of Lemaitre. "the attempts of many other guys paid by the Church" Care to name a few of those?

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@user-dialectic-scietist1 "about red shifting and my thesis about it that it is only an optical phenomenon of depletion of energy" How does that explain the CMBR? How does that explain the cosmological time dilation observed e. g. in SN light curves? "ake e regular flashlight and leave it on till will deplete its batteries and see what will happen with its light." It does _not_ redshift! Apparently you don't know what "redshift" actually means! "you have any color shifting till the moment of darkness" What is "color shifting" supposed to mean? Redshift is about the shifting of _spectral lines_! Again: Apparently you don't know what "redshift" actually means! "I have done this to our laboratory many times and with the use of a spectrometer and there you are, you have red shifting " Spectral lines shift when a flashlight depletes its batteries? Seriously? :D :D :D :D :D If you really had made that experiment successfully, a Nobel prize would be ready for you, since that would refute at least 100 years of well-established physics! "So, physics without experimental proof dear it is only doctrine, a dogma." Thanks for showing that you have no clue how the scientific method works in astronomy. "you will have the B.B. and then you have to find a creator" Not at all! The Big Bang does in no way imply a creator! "And please define for us, what do you mean with the term space" The thing which is described by the metric tensor. (Actually, the metric tensor describes spacetime, but you conveniently ignore yourself that General Relativity and hence the BBT uses spacetime in its description, not only space.)

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 CMBR, the microwave radiation? This is easy. It means more depletion of energy in the image idols and that means more increasing of the wavelength. That means older light. So you did your conclusion that I don't know what is red shifting? Because you said it happens only in specific lines of spectra? So you mean that the Doppler phenomenon because it has to do with the light, it jumps from frequency to frequency, like a miracle, and it hasn't a smooth appearance? It is like god's miracle dear, let my to use your irony one time. Well except the zone of blue, with the increasing of distance from the observer, exists the zone of green after that the yellow, then the zone of red and at the end microwave zone. All that we're calling red shifting, and not only one part of it. Every next zone is bigger than the previous and that not because we have more galaxies but because we have more and more, depending on distance, image idols of the same amount of galaxies. One more recent image idol of a galaxy will be more warm from the older image idol of the same galaxy, and for that reason, the two image idols will have difference spectrum analyze. If you can understand that, why we have more image idols as more far away we look, then you will have understood what means the time increases, more, with the increased distance and for that time which has pass, if it is enough, a galaxy can succeed to create more image idols of it on its trajectory. You know, galaxies aren't static, they travel on trajectories in a cluster. It is the combination result of distance, trajectory, and time pass. I hope you are able to do, with your mind, complicated explanations? But this also happens everywhere in the Universe, because except distances we have and time pass and so the old image idols everywhere before disappeared, not because of distance but because of the time that passing, after time, they will be seen like microwave radiation. For that reason, the microwave radiation is in the background of the Universe. But then why you see zones and every zone to increase? That is because also of the distance one source of light successfully produces more idol images of the same source and that more, again, has to do with the increasing of the distance. More distance, more image idols. Also, the zones do not have a constant appearance in frequencies, but they are change depending on the distance in the same zone, but also it depends, and of the warm's activity of the sources. So. no, the shifting of the light isn't only a few lines on spectra, but if you put them one to the other in a graphic of distance you will see the whole band in the spectrum analysis. The red zone it isn't homogenous as we see from the telescopes. And about the Nobel Prize I can shit on that, because I am a peaceful man and I don't like the dynamite, and I don't give an excuse to Mr. Nobel.

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

You are wrong, they are wrong. Red shifting is an optical phenomenon and not a gravitational phenomenon. As an optical phenomenon, we have to investigate it like that. So, because we have an optical phenomenon, first we have to answer what we see with our devises in the whole spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Do we see real galaxies in real time, or we see very old images of such galaxies? I think you will agree that the correct answer is that we see very old images. Ok, then. Do we know where the real galaxies are on the moment? No, because galaxies are traveling on their trajectories and the moment now will be seen after billion of years. Isn't so? Yes, this is the truth for the travel of the light beams because the light do not travel instantly. Furthermore, because the image we see on a spot in the Universe this moment, has nothing to do with the real spot of the galaxy that has created it before billion of years, the truth about the present it is that the real galaxy is somewhere very far away from its image, if the galaxy is existing at all. So, we have images of galaxies with the galaxies which have created them to be somewhere far away from the image we see. Can you understand what that means? That means that the image hasn't any more energy supply and that has happened from many, many years before in the past, just the next minute the galaxy image has been created, and the galaxy has been moved to the next spot of its trajectory. Our Sun position is an image 9 minutes older than the real position of our Sun the moment we see it. Do you really see where is our Sun at the moment? No! You see where it was before 9 minutes. So, let me ask you what you will see if suddenly with a magic wand I make the Sun to disappear? I am sure that you are going to realize that after 9 minutes. But what is going to happen to the image of our Sun in the between these 9 minutes from my action to the moment of your realization about my guilt? The same which two laws of physics, the Law of Planck and the law of Wien, are telling us, and that happens for any image without a constant energy supply. λ=σ/Τ, λ=ch/E. That means that when the energy of the image supply goes to 0 then the wavelength of the image's light has to going to infinity. Red shifting is something between the infinity and the wave length of the gamma rays that the real object in such huge temperature can produce. For that reason, red shifting do not mean expansion of the universe but only depletion in the energy of the very old images. An optic phenomenon. Please tell me if you disagree!

[@charlesmiller8107]

The tired light theory has been disputed and ruled out. when the Earth is moving toward the sun the light is slightly blue shifted and when moving away from the sun is red shifted. If the tired light theory was right then that would not be the case. The accuracy of these measurements are very precise and agree with the currently excepted theory of red shift.

[@emanemanrus5835]

@@charlesmiller8107 "... it should be noted that there are scientists [8-12] who do not agree with a concept of Universe based on Big Bang, inflation and Doppler redshift. They explain its evolution without calling into play any “Deus ex machina” as cosmic inflation. On the contrary, they believe that light loses energy as a function of the traveled distance. We assert that this happens because of a nonzero viscosity of the SQS, in perfect agreement with the empirical Hubble’s law. This could be interpreted as a revised phenomenon of tired light, different from that proposed in 1929 by F. Zwicky. In effect, while Zwicky’s hypothesis based on light scattering [13] may be disproved, for example, by the absent blurring of distant cosmic objects, tired light due to SQS’s viscosity is a more robust concept, which seems not to conflict with the current observations. In addition, while a viscosity-related tired light would let us observe a Doppler-alike redshift, pressure phenomena of opposite sign, that is, repulsion caused by SQS's internal pressure and gravity as an inflow of dark energy into massive particles [14], could balance and permit a not expanding Universe. ..." www.intechopen.com/chapters/54849 did this has been completely ruled out? Are SQS (Superfluid Quantum Spacetime) theories still investigated ?

[@brammeijboom-mj9ld]

@@charlesmiller8107 "tired light theory " Ow, didn't know that nice read though and even Zwicky himself falsified that. Its funny thinking about it, being Hubble, getting all that weird data and then a frenzy of all possibilities to explain it, and in the end the only thing that works is an expanding universe. And here we are, 100 years later, rehashing some old idea that has been proven wrong.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

"Red shifting is an optical phenomenon and not a gravitational phenomenon." Red shift has been shown to occur due to gravitation _experimentally_ already many decades ago, using the Mößbauer effect. You simply are ignorant. "That means that the image hasn't any more energy supply" And what is that supposed to mean??ß "the Law of Planck and the law of Wien, are telling us, and that happens for any image without a constant energy supply. λ=σ/Τ, λ=ch/E" The first of these equations is the law of Wien for the wavelength with the _maximal_ intensity. The second equation is _not_ due to Planck. "That means that when the energy of the image supply goes to 0" And what is that supposed to mean?!? "then the wavelength of the image's light has to going to infinity" Err, the E in the equation above does not refer to the "energy supply of the image", whatever that is supposed to mean, but to the energy of a photon in an electromagnetic wave with that wavelength. "For that reason, red shifting do not mean expansion of the universe but only depletion in the energy of the very old images." How does that explain the observed cosmological time dilation, e. g. in SN light curves?

[@user-dialectic-scietist1]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 So, you have an experiment here on Earth where you increase the gravity, and then you see red shifting? Or do you mean one observation that was explained with gravity behavior? If you have been correct, that will mean that stars at the same distance from as if their light beams are passing more near the Sun, then these beams will have differences because of the Sun's gravity in red shifting. Please give to me some observations as examples. About time dilatation, first determinate what you mean with the term time and secondly look the Lorentz equations about time and space, and you will see that when time dilates then the same space will shrink and not going to expanse. Except if Lorentz you think was wrong, but De Sitter had the same problem when Einstein asked him to calculate space and time for the creation of the theory of Einstein De Sitter Universe and he on these calculations had broken Einstein fabric with the Einstein approval. Astronomers have the term Earth's time, Sun's time, stars' time , galaxy's time which are synchronized but different. So, tell me what it is your time?

[@Jay-xw9ll]

You think it because you think you know better. Stick to sport.