The Greatest Problem of Cosmology is Solved

If you are familiar with the history of cosmology you may skip to 6:30.
In this video, I describe the flash of genius of Robert Dicke who provided a solution to the fundamental problem of cosmology already in 1957, based on Mach's pronciple.
Dicke's paper (Gravitation without a Principle of Equivalence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363, 1957):
www.alexander-unzicker.com/Dic....
See also: www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Lost...
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/

[@dankurth4232]

The precise connection between Dicke‘s variable speed cosmology and Sciama‘s Machian gravity is very much worth to be further explored

[@ticthak]

I question the conclusion most seem to be jumping to- I DON'T at all question the value in investigating Dicke and Sciama further., there certainly seem to be testable propositions and hypotheses here, MUCH more testable than things like string and superstring theory.

[@rayoflight62]

The way we describe Space, the entire concept of virtual particles, and the idea of quantum fluctuations, definitely deserve a revisitation...

[@Nope-w3c]

We should've listened to Leibniz instead of Newtons views on space..

[@Spiegelradtransformation]

Good Speech, but how to do.

[@AndrewStruthers]

@@Nope-w3c Monadism!

[@TheNewPhysics]

Another problem with changing the speed of light is that that would change the size of atoms. Bohr radius depends upon epsilon squared. Nothing is consistent. epsilon should increase in early times (higher density). In fact, I take it back. These models want the universe to stand still. They replace expansion with a variable c, this means that the non-idiosyncratic part of the index of refraction remains the same. The idiosyncratic part for SN1a also remains the same due to the White Dwarf always detonating at the Chandrasekhar Mass Limit. So, according to this model, there wouldn't be any redshift. It is so inconsistent that it gives you a whiplash

[@blijebij]

C is integrated in all the planck constant formula's, together with the gravitational constant. A changing C would be a big problem.

[@davidanderson9074]

new physics, you state, "Another problem with changing the speed of light is that that would change the size of atoms." Was that not a part of video just watched? Yet it was not the speed of light affected, it was the converse relationship between frequency and wave length, where the change was forced on w/l only.

[@williamrthompsonjr556]

There would still be red shift, but it would be intrinsic to celestial bodies, not evidence of movement.

[@TheNewPhysics]

@@blijebij We don't know any cosmic quantum field. Quantum Fields are referred to in cosmology in the same way we talk about "angels." They are not defined and mean nothing.

[@TheNewPhysics]

@@davidanderson9074 Well. You shouldn't blame me if, eventually, I stopped watching the video. Mach's Principle requires instantaneous interaction. That is a non-starter. If you want to understand what a coherent view of reality is, ask me questions where I can reply. This comment section is not conducive to writing equations or showing plots,

[@thewetcoast]

Cosmologists will continued to be "surprised" by new observations until there is a paradigm shift.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

The paradigm shift is already here, but they doesn't like it! It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@ticthak]

Any scientist who isn't surprised by new observations is not a scientist.

[@OneCrazyDanish]

depends on what their favorite model predicted beforehand. if observations keep surprising (think JWST or ALMA), perhaps it's time to look at other options. like plasma cosmology or what have you @@ticthak

[@ticthak]

@@OneCrazyDanish Every major increase in accuracy and precision SHOULD prove to any scientist they don't actually know everything already- ANY real scientist. It's a reasonable assumption, however, based on decades of development in the field, that anomalous observations IF PROVED RELIABLE suggest tweaking, rather than completely scrapping, the current best-fit model. IF the current model isn't largely correct, I fail to see how ANY calculations of range and velocity based on c can possibly work at all over more than a few hundred miles. I notice no one has answered my question below.

[@OneCrazyDanish]

@@ticthak yes, real scientists. they seem to not do well with prevailing group think thank God. But they face a lot of, frankly, shit.

[@alexanderhugestrand]

Cosmology has a special place in my heart. What I love most about it is that it serves as good bed time stories. As long as the cosmologists are happy, I'm happy.

[@simonruszczak5563]

Yep, fairy tales for children to go to sleep to.

[@american_tune]

Alternative ideas are important, but I’m not left feeling like I learned much. I would like to see more high level focus on how this idea resolves the current problems and avoids introducing new ones.

[@rentlastname2824]

I came across a book called ‘refuting relativity’ that brings together Dr Unzicker’s work with that of Hubble, Arp, Lerner, Robitaille, Ekeberg and other physicists who have questioned the evidence for an expanding universe.

[@TheMachian]

Mind that this is not the same thing than questioning (special) relativity.

[@rentlastname2824]

@@TheMachian Agreed. However in a flat-space universe, where light speed is variable and gravity originates in the distribution of all other masses (instead of curved spacetime), could you argue that relativistic effects such as time dilation & mass increase are now redundant?

[@williamrthompsonjr556]

I recommend reading Halton Arp's book "Seeing Red" and his other books presenting the evidence he has gathered that Red Shift is intrinsic, and not evidence of speed and movement and that the Universe is NOT expanding.

[@thewetcoast]

Arp got cancelled for publishing that book. I'm pretty sure he will be vindicated.

[@oldtimer7979]

Yep, i favour a steady state universe. Far too much reliance on pure mathematical modeling that is not tied to empirical observations and data., dark matter and dark energy being the best recent examples.

[@bakters]

" *the Universe is NOT expanding* " So it's gotta be collapsing, then? Or gravity is a mathematical illusion too?

[@bakters]

@@oldtimer7979 " *i favour a steady state universe* " How it's not collapsing? " *dark matter and dark energy* " How a steady state Universe deals with rotational speeds of galaxies? How it explains, that redshift grows nonlinearly with distance? (BTW - I'm not a fan of those dark thingies, but there are reasons why people hypothesize them.)

[@williamrthompsonjr556]

@bakters There is evidence that the Universe is cyclic. That it begins and ends in endless cycles. Gravity is a property of electricity at the subatomic level where dipoles align and attraction accumulates.

[@christophershelton8155]

The intro for the videos on this channel always makes me feel good

[@craigkaufman5209]

The problem i could never reconcile in an expanding universe is that if space itself is expanding,the space between atoms and all fermions is also increasing. This implies the strong and weak nuclear forces would have to operate differently over different distances, or bonding energies would change. Therefore, chemistry would obey different rules at extreme distances. This would affect much more than just red shift.

[@plSzq1]

It's what the Great Rip concept is about. The new space is appearing in way too small amounts to affect anything at molecular scale.. it's too small to affect anything even at galactic scale. Then comes the supposed fact(?) that space expands only when the energy density is low enough, so we get giant ever expanding voids in the space that well, we have out there, and can observe while the matter keeps it self naturally in a web like structure that gets thinner with time, the cosmic web.

[@stevedriscoll2539]

Picky, picky, picky😂

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

@@stevedriscoll2539 YEAH!! Physics is about about. Physicsts dismiss small things.

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

The most apparent problem in an expanding universe is that the universe isn't a vacuum. The longer and further the photons travel, the more stuff they encounter, like the sunlight in the morning and evening, enter our eyes; they all appear redder, not because our sun is running away from us, but because the red photons are long-distance runners.

[@paulkornreich9806]

Probably this could be answered with an analogy to entropy, i.e. that entropy can decrease on small scales. Similar on the level of atoms, etc. space does not increase. Further, the electro-magnetic, weak and strong forces are much stronger than gravity. Over long enough times it could affect galactic and possibly stellar system sizes. In the short term, the differences would be small at those scales, and would be dominated by the local gravity.

[@thehooleydooleypub]

In Australia 'red-shift' is getting to the pub late because you had to go around the big red rock in the middle

[@williamlavallee8916]

Thanks for bringing this forward again. Like your channel very much.

[@keithnorris6348]

Yet another absolutely brilliant presentation of the things we ought to know. I think I am very fortunate to have been given this information and I am looking forward to the next brain growing informational nutrition. Thank you Dr Unzicker for all the work you have done and shared with us.

[@chaorrottai]

I think the real problem here is the assumption that intergalactic space is empty. The reality is that intergalactic space is pupolated by sparse plasma, which provides a mechanism for redshifting light over cosmic distances. Furthermore we don't fully understand nor have the capacity to test ultra-long distance light transmission and whether or not the mere propogation of the electromagnetic field of the photons is a mechanism in and of itself for redshifting light. For all we know, the photons in the radiating field may subdivide to lower energy states over long distance in order to maintain an even radiative distribution of energy.

[@nikolaipavlov544]

Thank you for interesting and considering current mental climate, very brave discussion.

[@maxst6647]

Dicke's original article is behind a paywall built by the American Physical Society, which is a non-profit and publishes research funded by public grants. Therefore, as with all such "professional" societies, the results should be made public. Could you please provide a pdf of Dicke's paper so that those of us no longer associated with an academic institution may read his results, which, I repeat, were funded by we the public? Thank you in advance, Prof Unzicker.

[@TheMachian]

I put in on my website, see description.

[@amar-2]

@@TheMachian the URL leads to 404 error!

[@TheMachian]

Try www.alexander-unzicker.com/Dicke57.pdf

[@user-hj8uo1zl6k]

I watched this video with great interest. I have never been quite comfortable with the conventional interpretation of cosmological redshifts. In 1075, I published the paper "An Attempt to Resolve the Astrophysical Puzzles by Postulating Scale Degree of Freedom" (Foundations of Physics, 14 (1975) 299-311) in which I proposed the idea that, instead of assuming the expansion of the entire universe, one could assume that our galaxy, along with all its constituent atoms, is contracting. I further developed this idea In subsequent publications, where I formulated a theory based on an extension of conformal symmetry and its interpretation as a symmetry of active scale transformations.

[@curtishorn1267]

So we solved the group think? Amazing...

[@averybrooks2099]

AI can only solve this so far right now. Hopefully in the future we have a trusted AI that helps people identify when they are doing it. But since it's infected literally everything its' going to take some time.

[@egay86292]

that in itself is groupthink. in fact, English is groupthink.

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

The most apparent problem in an expanding universe is that the universe isn't a vacuum. The longer and further the photons travel, the more stuff they encounter, like the sunlight in the morning and evening, enter our eyes; they all appear redder, not because our sun is running away from us, but because the red photons are long-distance runners.

[@David.C.Velasquez]

@@user-vp1vl6yp9t You're conflating two distinctly different phenomena... and bot pasting it into multiple threads.

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

@@David.C.Velasquez Never mind my rant.

[@PearlmanYeC]

Great presentation. Shared. In Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological model, we have an alt. solution to the same problems within current consensus modern cosmology.

[@PearlmanYeC]

The SPI of SPIRAL = Stars Preceded Inflation - Hyper-dense proto galactic formation PRIOR to hyper cosmic inflation expansion. The entire universe approximates the visible universe. A radius of 1B LY rounded up. That attained mature size, density and gravitational bound equilibrium early (4/365.25(SPIRAL LY radius i a fraction) into history. Start study at Pearlman YeC at researchgate,

[@ChrisLehtoF16]

Amazing video thanks

[@dc2778]

Chris Leito channel brought me here….he seems to think he’s figured out some things to say the least.

[@ticthak]

Chris has yet to show any working math, just restating Mach and Dicke. I'm a fan of his other work, but so far his tangent on this is entirely proposition, not even hypothesis.

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

A gravity map is the same as a spacetime density map, is the same as a speed of light map, is the same as a time dilation map. It is the elasticity and variance in density of spacetime that is described here.

[@philipmetts8831]

Exactly!!!!!!

[@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394]

Y'knw what's even better than word salad? Word stew. So thick you could eat it with a fork.

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

This is the equivalent of 'who hurt you ?'@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394

[@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394]

@@AmbivalentInfluence That is the equivalent to an ad hom fallacy. Welcome to the wonderful world of critical thinking.

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

OK@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394

[@dexter8705]

Great presentation as usual.

[@egay86292]

gets better every time he re-heats it.

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

The most apparent problem in an expanding universe is that the universe isn't a vacuum. The longer and further the photons travel, the more stuff they encounter, like the sunlight in the morning and evening, enter our eyes; they all appear redder, not because our sun is running away from us, but because the red photons are long-distance runners.

[@keep_walking_on_grass]

​@@user-vp1vl6yp9teven I understand that analogy instantly.

[@prependedprepended6606]

@@user-vp1vl6yp9t A simple analysis like you're proposing is why there were such large Z values found in early JWST images. If you look at the absorption lines, then you can tell if the light was shifted or just filtered. The real problem with a steady state universe is that it doesn't make any sense. All of the matter in the universe cannot be infinitely old, or it would be dark and cold. And so when the universe started, if it did not start from a concentrated point (and that is all that the Big Bang theory stipulates), then it had to be created rather evenly at all points. That is incomprehensible to me.

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

@@prependedprepended6606 What a poor puppy, this is too much for your brain, and you are confused. It is not only the simplest analysis but also daydreaming that assumes the universe is a vacuum. Boy, is the vacuum universe simpler or a non-vacuum universe, such as having cosmic dust? Is the vacuum universe more complicated, or a non-vacuum universe with cosmic dust? Of course, it is only natural that is incomprehensible to a confused puppy mind. FYI, AIR, there is air everywhere hundreds of miles above the earth, and there is also cosmic dust everywhere in the universe. In fact, trillions of lightyears' cosmic dust add up to a universe all on its own. All analysis dismissing the air and trillions of lightyears' cosmic dust is not only too simple minded but also too naive and retardation. So, only a retardation would consider a vacuum universe more complicated than a universe with cosmic dust. FYI, a vacuum is a steady state universe, while a universe with cosmic dust is constantly changing and not steady. Maybe you are still salvageable because you were trying to say that the real problem with the vacuum assumption is the steady state universe is that it doesn't make any sense.

[@nunomaroco583]

Very interesting, all the best.

[@greymonwar9906]

I had high expectation from the clickbait title and It doesn't disappoint.

[@oldtimer7979]

Red shift has nothing to do with speed of light. The late Hannas Alfven used empirical observations to show that red shift was not a function of recessional speed, but rather due to a state of plasma discharge in dark, glow or arc mode.

[@davestorm6718]

That is only one way that light red shifts. There are around 10 ways (demonstrable and hypothetical) to make light red-shift.

[@rodmack302]

A new incantation of the idea proposed by Einstein, Dicke, and now Dr Unziker is the idea that energy is the basis for gravity, not mass. This is described as the Z0 Code - a new way of understanding the universe in the 21st century. It offers a new equation for the idea of a gravitational rate based on energy in Lorentzian "proper time." Gs ​= -Δs / Δ√ε0​μ0 offers a mechanism that explains how all of these ideas come together to tweak relativity into reality. Collaborators sought.

[@mossig]

You are getting there! Atoms shrink and grow from radiating energy/light. I have an experiment! Do it in the freezing winter. Take two 220 L oil drums, cut the tops off so that you can fill them with wood. Install a chimney on the lids and cut a round hole in the bottom. Then you install a 5 meter long pipe to the bottom hole on each drum. One straight and one with a 90 degree angle. At the beginning of the pipes you install electric fans with plastic blades. This to create a furnish, or two in this case. Light the fires and start the fans. What will happen? Well the wood will burn of course! But what is fire? Fire is energy leaving atoms, it's not a chemical reaction, or is it, because chemistry and energy is the same thing. propagation and radiation. Energy will not only leave through the chimney, it will also radiate through the metal as heat from the walls of the drum. But more important it will radiate through the pipe towards the fan even though the fan blows ice cold air towards the fire. The furnace radiate so much energy that it will melt the fan blades on the straight pipe! (sorry for wasting your fan) But not on the fan installed in the pipe with a 90 degree angle! Why is that? Well, light/energy can't radiate in any other way then in a straight line. Therefor when the energy hits the outside bend of the pipe it will radiate some energy/heat to the outside of the pipe through atomic propagation/radiation.(check the difference on the pipes sides with a thermometer) and some will continue down the pipetowards the fan, but not enough to melt the blades. There is a fundamental problem with astronomy. As soon as we started to use telescopes that are not straight tubes, but have angles and mirrors they behave exactly the same as my experiment. Energy from viewed objects are lost through radiation from the instrument, creating flawed results. Think about it! Red shift by expanding universe LOL! One man has a great idea and lay the foundation stone. If he disappear and ignorant people start stacking stones, it will never become a pyramid, just a pile of stones, due to lack of knowledge. To remove the stones and start over, is not for lazy scientists!

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

The most apparent problem in an expanding universe is that the universe isn't a vacuum. The longer and further the photons travel, the more stuff they encounter, like the sunlight in the morning and evening, enter our eyes; they all appear redder, not because our sun is running away from us, but because the red photons are long-distance runners.

[@mossig]

@@user-vp1vl6yp9t You are right, vacuum can only be obtained in a chamber. Since the universe has no walls it can't be a vacuum just mostly empty from atoms. However you are wrong about photons, they don't exist. Radiation is instant energy transfers between atoms. Energy can't leave an atom without an receiver somewhere close or far away. Since the probability that there is an atom in 99.9999999% or something in any direction there is always transfers going on. Only when atoms are deep inside a grid and the incoming transfer are higher then the radiation, then the atom becomes an heavier element and expands. This is why the Earth is expanding due to the thick atmosphere and create plate tectonics.

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

@@mossig either way, billions of lightyears' stuff add up

[@padraiggluck2980]

For a rotating spiral galaxy seen edge-on light from the receding edge is red-shifted and light from the approaching edge is blue-shifted. All the light travels the same distance to us. The red-shifted light is not *more tired* than the blue-shifted light.

[@rogerscottcathey]

Light passing into mediums of different density bends or refracts. What do you think of Dowdye's solution? Also, regarding Eddington's observations during the solar eclipse, or similar observations, what comparisons were made of the luminosities of the stars or galaxies brought into view by the refraction versus in free space?

[@flexiblebirdchannel]

Interesting. 40 years after I asked me and my friends how we could differentiate between an (allegedly) expanding universe and the shrinking over time of the metric used, and nobody could answer that, I hear that 100 years ago someone had the same thought, and concludes a shrinking metric is the more appropriate way to describe what happens to the universe.

[@martinsoos]

In 1984 the thought in my school was photon drag. It was proven true in fiberoptics before the topic was blacklisted and now, with no proof, it is at best just conjecture.

[@januslast2003]

So is a "shrinking metric over time" similar to Penrose's idea for the origins of the Big Bang (for our Universe)?

[@flexiblebirdchannel]

@@januslast2003 Penrose philosophized what was before the big bang, I only consider the actual universe.

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

The most apparent problem in an expanding universe is that the universe isn't a vacuum. The longer and further the photons travel, the more stuff they encounter, like the sunlight in the morning and evening, enter our eyes; they all appear redder, not because our sun is running away from us, but because the red photons are long-distance runners.

[@dananorth895]

Your showing your ignorance.

[@romado59]

For you review: Was asking questions about "filtering and trigger" about CERN and biasing data.

[@user-hj8uo1zl6k]

In the paper "Introducing the dilatational degree of freedom: Special relativity in V(6)" J.Phys.A 13 (1980) 1367-1387, I cited Arp's 1970 paper in Nature. I was much impressed and influenced by his work. My theory of the dilatational/scale degree of freedom explains his observations of discrepant redshifts.

[@OneCrazyDanish]

@8.05 Hal Puthoff has expressed interest in that concept for a long time, although in the context of bending light as a phenomenon of the refraction index not warping of space. I like that Dicke incorporated Machian concept in his theory. I did not know that about his work.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Equivalence principle. Light waves are like sound waves, but at a much higher frequency. Sound waves are faster, the denser the medium gets. Is that what we observe with light through gravitational lenses?

[@whig01]

You should look into Halton Arp's observations and intrinsic red shift.

[@justinpridham7919]

Seeing Red. Margaret Burbidge sp.? has some great work as well.

[@shrunkensimon]

I get the impression he is not interested in that angle, despite the mountain of evidence.

[@TheMachian]

I met Arp in 2007. Very impresive gentleman. Yet, I might not agree with all his conclusions.

[@whig01]

@@TheMachian It's well to say you may not agree with all of his conclusions, but you ought to say which you do or don't and why.

[@steveclark2205]

I'm not moving - said Light in a Bose- Einstein condensate 😅

[@martinsoos]

You will move with time said statistics.

[@tomsmith6045]

@@martinsoos Brilliant. Simply Brilliant.

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

The most apparent problem in an expanding universe is that the universe isn't a vacuum. The longer and further the photons travel, the more stuff they encounter, like the sunlight in the morning and evening, enter our eyes; they all appear redder, not because our sun is running away from us, but because the red photons are long-distance runners.

[@steveclark2205]

Highly probable, then they collapse 🫠

[@rayfleming2053]

Charged and neutral objects have the same speed of light limit and thus the same type of interaction causing identical permittivity and permeability. As Dicke pointed out, in a polarizable medium permittivity and permeability are emergent properties of that medium. This can be interpreted as an EM self-inductive effect for charged bodies. But for the permittivity and permeability to be identical for neutral bodies they too must participate in a self-inductive interaction with the polarizable medium. Electrically neutral self induction is an explanation for inertia. So if we use the polarizable medium as the source of permittivity, permeability, the speed of light, and inertia snd Sciama's Maxwellian-like interaction with all matter as it relates to general relativity then we can combine those ideas into a consistent theory. We can continue this discussion by email if you like.

[@mraarone]

If this were the case it could be tested in this way. You identify a distant (e.g., r > 1) visible object with two apparent images with the same metallicity / spectral properties, and measure the redshift difference. Secondly, use a dark matter map from varying light paths in the field to estimate the matter distribution in the fields. Estimate the light pathways of the dual-image object matter distribution map. Estimate the pathways using the redshift. Compare the pathways. If they are extremely different (some bound), then your redshift concept passes. If they are similar pathways, then redshift and distance is more directly related, not matter density.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

To validate your hypothesis, initiate by selecting an extragalactic entity manifesting dual apparitions with homogeneous spectroscopic signatures, indicative of uniform metallicity. Subsequently, ascertain the disparity in cosmological redshifts. Employing a meticulously delineated dark matter cartography, deduced from the differential luminous trajectory analysis, approximate the mass distribution. The congruence or divergence of inferred photonic trajectories, juxtaposed through redshift estimations, could potentially corroborate or refute the postulated correlation between redshift phenomena and the spatial distribution of matter density.

[@davidbontems1579]

Thank you for casting some light to cosmology. The currently accepted model is too bizare and complicated to be the nature's way, on top of being full of issues. I hope this approach will be investigated deeply and by many scientist.

[@mikebermea9366]

I absolutely agree with you and Ludwig Wittgenstein's point not to take on partial problems. Instead we should "take the fight to the single great problem". I believe this is the an issue plaguing modern physics. During my time as a meteorologist in the USAF I thought the art of applying meteorological concepts to forecasting weather. The main issue I saw with struggling Airman stemmed from the tendency of forecasters to focus on the microscale without first fully understanding the mesoscale and synoptic scale situation. In meteorology refer to this as failing to follow the forecast funnel. Scientists today are much to focus on highly specialized areas neglecting the larger picture. We first must zoom out and build our understanding of the larger picture. Only then will we be able to see beyond the horizon of our current perspective. Great video! Liked and subscribed I look forward to viewing all of your content.

[@JungleJargon]

Redshift happens when light leaves the mass of a galaxy. Light is blue shifted back when the light enters the mass of another galaxy. Comparing the masses of each of the galaxies determines the redshift.

[@jcalene]

Bravo. Having studied wave mechanics in graduate school long ago at UC Berkeley as an engineer - I often wondered if a dispersion-like phenomena (i.e. wave velocity change) involving energy loss with extreme time/distance was responsible for the red cosmological redshift observation. Here it is. I never had a good feel for relativity - as it seems to contain inherent paradoxes - and the idea that space itself is expanding just seems unappealing. This would also mean the universe is probably much much much older than we thought - and much much much bigger.... Moreover - there are extremely large structures we are beginning to see (and have actually seen for some time) that cannot have had anywhere near sufficient time to evolve under the current big bang theory. The role of electromagnetism on a grand scale also seems to be underrepresented in current theory - just look at the cosmic web....

[@watchthe1369]

Thanks for the time stamp, I knew the other stuff. Gravitic lensing is causing the red shift due to lowering the energy level of photons.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

Photons are a misconception of Einstein. He was not able to distinguish concepts (Plancks "Quantum") and objects (Quanta, particles) There are no photons, or quanta;-)

[@ARBB1]

Brans-Dicke theory was a key player in the 60s, but it's now at most marginal. The introduction of extra scalar fields and the added contraints the post-Newtonian approximation evidently make it an ad hoc measure more than anything.

[@TheMachian]

This has nothing to do with Brans-Dicke. Watch closely.

[@AndrewWutke]

Brilliant!!!!

[@youcanfoolmeonce]

Not yet. "Spacetime" is still a mystery! Considering that space is not an object, three dimensional and infinite, it cannot bend, expand or shrink, has nothing to do with time and gravity, so there is a lot of work to do for theoretical physicists to earn their money.

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

So Mr Unziker: when you read Mach's formulas it immediately tells me there is no inertia particle. It is a consequence of space/time. His formulas perfectly show this it is part of gravity. Quantum mechanics people are always trying for photons and other emergent particles that spring forth from the microscopic. Inertia is macroscopic, thus the Higgs seems to be there as a mention of space/times microscopic nature and does not produce exactly a countervailing force to the acceleration of gravity. Thus a particle would not exactly match all variations of the gravitational field as Galileo showed with his two different weight objects. Which one would assume accelerate faster because it is heavier, but no it's inertia holds it back while the object is accelerating and disappears upon stopping to be exactly matched by it's weight. Thus obviously part of gravity itself as Mach showed.

[@darrelfletcher8397]

It's seems a simpler theory is that the increasing density of Planck Particle Pairs, slowed the electron down, until it jumps closer to the nucleus spinning faster (bluer) which is perceived as Quantized Red Shift. If a modified Rydberg model of the atom is presented = 2π2 (e2/ε)2 (m/h2) (1/hc) = invariant This makes far more sense, than an expanding universe.

[@alpineflauge909]

awesome sauce

[@NeroDefogger]

I would have NEVER guessed that the work I would do while watching popular physicist and popular physics is a psychological work, on trying to understand the human mind, and of course failing

[@JoshuaRolen]

I think that the Casimir effect is actually caused by the vacuum allowing for more efficient electrostatic discharge, the electrons are shared more easily between the plates, thus fusing them.

[@SpeakerWiggin49]

No, the Casimir effect is not the same as the phenomenon of cold welding.

[@JoshuaRolen]

@@SpeakerWiggin49 That makes more sense than "virtual particles" and universes blinking in and out of existence.

[@Nope-w3c]

@@JoshuaRolen That's not what happens. 'particles' don't actually exist, it's just fields.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

;-) Speed is also frequency: distance/tact: carrier frequency.

[@okzoomers]

How can this model (or any static universe model) account for the cosmic microwave background? Expanding universe models predict it well.

[@christophershelton8155]

Very good. Now, to take this a step further, apply VSL the same way that is shown in this video to other EM waves (x-rays, gamma rays, etc...)

[@gristlevonraben]

very cool

[@redsix5165]

3:29 the problem with this argument is that there is no compelling reason against the expansion of the universe…eg what is the compelling reason that the universe should “just exist”.

[@JohnCompton1]

Tahar Rahim has a striking resemblance to Mr. Jahns in the headshot ....lol...

[@rmjackman]

Haven't observations of high-redshift galaxies shown that they were much closer together in the early universe compared to their current distribution, thus supporting the theory of an expanding universe?

[@davidanderson9074]

I have not heard that. AFAIK, the flatness is consistant.

[@johncampbell9216]

This makes complete sense however it is my own position that some degree of underlying expansion nonetheless does exist. Consider: All stars are blasting material and energy out into space. We call our local phenomenon "Solar Wind". This 'wind' travels great distances and exerts a force on all it encounters. When you multiply this stellar emission by a factor of several hundreds of millions (the number of stars in a galaxy) then each and every galaxy is emitting an outward force of its own, courtesy of the whole energy emission of the stars they contain. Galaxies therefore push against one another, like simultaneously-inflating balloons, jostling and competing with one another for space. This drives galaxies apart... And causes the chaotic universe we have, with an underlying detectable apparent expansion. My point here is that it's not necessarily one thing ir another but a combination of phenomena that collectively give us the information that we try to interpret. Also,I should say that light *MUST* have a limitation on its travelling distance, since lightbhas a limitation on its speed, dictated by the medium through which it travels! If light did not suffer such resistance, it would have no speed limit, no constant, and therefore the universe we observe could not have a black canvas against which the stars and galaxies appear illuminated.

[@multi_misa72]

What do you think of Halton Arp's intrinsic red shift?

[@techstuf4637]

The following article posits the idea of producing "magnetic glass" (long considered impossible by physicists) 13 years before it was discovered. See - "Flying triangles and the black holes on my fridge" on the net Also mentions connections between gravity and magnetism. Consider that the Cavendish experiment proves attraction between relatively infinitesimal masses. Yet the warping of space time by large bodies is being taught as the sole cause of gravity. Just as sound and EM waves can express FM, AM, coherent and incoherent qualities.... Ask yourself how the traditional magnetic dipole model can be correct as shown, when a simple demonstration disproves it. Put 2 ring magnets into N to N opposition on a pencil. Notice that one floats above the other. Now try it with S to S 'poles' in opposition. They float at the exact same height. Push those two surfaces close to one another, almost touching. Now, ask yourself how you just disproved the old model with basic physics. Good Journeys All

[@disonaroaurelo]

A spring frays after many uses, a little imperceptibly each time When observing the experiment of light being recorded at a trillion frames per second, tunneling through the glass of the bottle, the body of light that was stretched, elongates vertically and shrinks horizontally, and then becomes elongated vertically again, in a position similar to the previous one but not identical. The same happens with light when passing through gravitational fields, it suffers Saphiro distortion, gravitational tunneling and loses some energy, so that when it leaves this object's gravitational field, the wave returns to a state very similar to the previous one. , but a little different. So for each gravitational field that light travels through until it reaches the earth. The light body loses some of its shape, the spring gradually frays, as it loses energy.

[@nunomaroco583]

Hi, if it's about vacuum decay via bubble nucleation, fase transition (Big -Bang), can you elaborate how that affect different theory?

[@DerWaldBistDu]

Its not what you know. Its what you don't know

[@rb8049]

Variable speed of light is easier to grasp and is likely a good place to start, but is likely not the formulation which is generally true. What needs to be done is to find a GR theory and interpretations consistent with the variable speed of light model.

[@ticthak]

Would this (variable c due to gravity) not be immediately supported or falsified by a variation of Eddington's experiment in two or more orientations in any strong gravitational field?

[@ticthak]

Anybody?

[@MrVibrating]

On my channel i've posted video of a Lazar-Schwarzchild black hole exhibiting red and blue wavelength-shifting either side of the event horizon, which i can only interpret in terms of spin-Doppler about a vertical axis - consistent with GR (frame-dragging) but seemingly inconsistent with the premise here; shouldn't the outline be red-only, were this solution valid?

[@steveschunk5702]

He’s not saying that Doppler shifts don’t occur - he’s saying that there could also be shifts not related to velocity, such as “atoms were bigger in the past.”

[@hooked4215]

If c(r, t) is determined by the distribution of masses, it is not a consequence that it decreases with cosmological time since as the light approaches the observer it should actualice its value to the local worth.

[@tokonjudo]

Dickes work wasn't entirely ignored.

[@BiswajitBhattacharjee-up8vv]

Very good subject and you all three gentleman is also missing one fundamental fact that one equation I am engaged in that a thermodynamic nature also there. Actually I too using weber equation in geometric modification involving quantum conditions we can have a thermodynamic equivalent equation, where t^2 term can have MOND type interpolation function apparent Another term is atomic as you three concluded. Thank you for your channel and philosophy.

[@umairali-ps5ly]

i already watched in future

[@lantonovbg]

In my Theory of Time, all these equations + quantum mechanics stem from the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian (Euler-Lagrange equations) which are derived from the principle of least action. A hint: the velocity of light is 0, and the angular velocity of time is c

[@robertbaird6432]

Impressions on the Parker Solar Probe recent data would be insightful.

[@stevesteve6545]

As a layman…. I’m sorry for the simplistic question. So, are we saying that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating? Or that the universe is not expanding? Did Professor Penrose never pick up on this? One would’ve thought that as a respected GR expert, and a close colleague of Dennis Sciama, he would have a view.

[@nigelwilliams7920]

Will the variable speed of light create issues with thermodynamic equations and e=mc which use C as a constant? I guess with the thermodynamic stuff, the relevant speed of light is at very small scales, so a wobble in C will not have any discernible effect. In E=MC this must cause variations in either/and E and M. Thoughts?

[@TalibanSymphonyOrchestra]

either/or?

[@dankurth4232]

I wonder how Dicke‘s vsl cosmology could be further corroborated by Halton Arp‘s astrophysical observations including his alternative model of galactic red shifts

[@TheMachian]

I respect very much Arp. Buit he invokes matter creation, with which I disagree.

[@richardsuttill54]

At University I studied geology and one of my key learnings was always to consider as many "key working hypotheses" as you could muster before assessing the evidence and daring to make a conclusion of one or two probable explanations. It is interesting from your research that in cosmology the scientists may have jumped to the expanding universe hypothesis at the expense of other explanations. Perhaps the popularization of cosmology and the romance of many of the concepts such as the expanding universe concept, dark energy and dark matter are steering good science in some quarters of the profession. I am not a cosmologist but would be interested to read others thoughts?

[@TheNewPhysics]

Let me now address the argument that the wavelength cannot change using the laser argument. Mr. Unzicker states that if a laser could move and that could change the wavelength of light, there would be a mismatch of the resonance conditions. That would be the case if only the wavelength were to change. If the period also changes, then that is not the case anymore. We know that the period also changes because we know about time dilation associated with motion. So, both wavelengths change with motion and the period changes accordingly. So, Mr. Unzicker doesn't know about time dilation when he postulates that the frequency remains constant. The experiment of having a traveling laser is the basis for accelerometers. Without acceleration (constant speed), both time and wavelength remain dilated by the same amount. Angular acceleration changes the situation for the beams traveling clockwise and counterclockwise. That is the principle of Sagnat Interferometers. By the way, one does not need the Theory of Relativity or Aether to explain the Sagnat Effect.

[@terminusest5902]

Expansion of the universe is not constant. The area of growth grows exponentially. Though the speed of Expansion may remain fairly constant the area it covers grows faster. As the sphere of the universe Expansion covers larger areas. This exponential growth may influence our understanding of cosmology. Try cutting a peirce of pizza outward from the center in equal widths. The outer part of the pizza is larger.

[@JungleJargon]

Light from very distant galaxies passes through or by more and more masses each of which causes a slight redshift.

[@VJA74]

Is the distance increasing or time shrinking is the problem. To debunk it, we need snapshot of closely placed two equidistant galaxy. After some time, If they are not at similar "distance" over time, as the time shrink density must remain same for both, I think it could be concluded that it's actually the distance that is changing and not the time shrinking.

[@williamrthompsonjr556]

Arp has documented many Quasars traveling in opposite directions at similar speeds, emitting energy at similar red shifts which he cites as evidence they were ejected from the same galaxy at the same time. As their energy decreases, their mass increases, and their luminosity decreases. He sees that as evidence that energy is being transformed into matter.

[@BalefulBunyip]

But the galaxies are moving in relation to each other. If they were stationary we would see no galactic collisions. This is not just a matter of red shifts.

[@texicanjmd]

maybe a dumb question, but my understanding is light slows down when it goes through a medium like glass, then when light emerges from the other side of the glass it seems to speed up again. Is that correct, and if so how is it possible for light to speed up after exiting the glass? (doesn't light lose energy or "momentum" when going through the glass?).

[@YaofuZhou]

Hi - On the microscopic scale, each interaction between the fundamental particles conserves energy. A photon exchanges energy with a sequence of electrons in its path, but it has decent chance to get almost all of the energy back when it exits the medium. On the macroscopic scale, however, (almost but) not all photons get their initial energy back. Some energy of the photons ended up with the electrons in the medium, and is observed as heat. So, when you shine a laser beam through a flat glass, the glass would heat up a bit (or a lot, depending on the laser’s wavelength in relation with the energy levels of the glass material), and the laser lose some of its coherence in the process (or gets absorbed by the glass material).

[@texicanjmd]

great explanation, thank you.

[@TalibanSymphonyOrchestra]

There are no dumb questions.

[@ulrikof.2486]

Photons are rest-massless and thus don't loose energy (frequency rests the same). They always move at a speed defined by the space they are moving in. The denser the matter the slower they move, and in pure space they are moving at the speed of c.

[@thedoctor9573]

3:48 could not agree more

[@uncleal]

The pendulum equation does not contain the bob. Absent the bob...what is conserved? Foucault's Pendulum - equator versus poles - then gets kinda sticky, yes?

[@mwddavis1]

Another excellent presentation Alexander. James Web is currently at the Lagrange Point. Theoretically, what should we get if we measure all these quantities at the Lagrange Point? Would it be a good idea to put a laboratory at the Lagrange Point so that we can make actual measurements?

[@gristlevonraben]

that would be awesome

[@LukeKendall-author]

I only half followed, so I wonder whether this helps explain the Hubble Tension, or whether the HT is a problem for this theory?

[@anthonyalfredyorke1621]

Thanks for the wonderful video, the only issue I have is I haven't the faintest idea what your talking about!! , still it was a very interesting video anyway, so thanks again. PEACE AND LOVE TO EVERYONE ❤❤.

[@coryanderson293]

Offering a thought inquiry about very basic principals cosmology upholds: The more red shifted light is more distant and thus was emitted earlier on, the light doesn’t change phase after its initial emission it just travels; therefore, it is reasonable to assume the increased red shift or “Doppler effect” was created at the time of emission not 13.8 billion years later. If the general assumption were true, then the light closest to us would be more red shifted than the older light emitted further away; so if space is accelerating expansion then right now there should be more red shift than there was say 13 billion years ago; simply put, this is not what we observe.

[@coryanderson293]

Then the question becomes well why is the universe expanding at a decelerating rate, well the answer for this seems fairly trivial: observe any explosion, the initial acceleration is high and then drag takes over and eventually a rest state is reached.. now apply to the Big Bang (large explosion.) What do you expect? What do you observe?

[@shrunkensimon]

Electric universe. The greatest error we made was assuming gravity is the primary agent of change.

[@simonsong1743]

So the big bang theory is out of date. There is no expansion of universe. Red shift is caused by long travel distance of light. That's very good.

[@Sonnell]

Does this mean there was no Big bang, so the observable universe and matter simply existed and will exist?

[@TheMachian]

There was a beginning, but better called "Big Flash".

[@gerblake9359]

So, God is a Big Flasher? 🙂

[@abelincoln.2064]

@@TheMachian C'mon man. God created the Universe over 4 days starting with Earth all alone in a dark empty Universe and a ... bright light that surrounding Earth. The Sun & the solar system were made on Day 4 after teh Stars fillied the heaven and Earth was then put into its orbit producing a day, year and the seasons. Time, & Laws of Nature espeically entropy & speed of light began After the Universe was created & after Adam & Eve sinned. But gravity existed .. before the Fall.

[@Sonnell]

@@TheMachian Thanks, I appreciate your answer. But it would be nice if you could elaborate. If there were no spacial expansion, how did it all begin, every matter just suddenly appeared where they are roughly now? Or space time begun and the matter was """already""" there? :) Perhaps you could make a video about this? :) Super interesting!

[@valentinmalinov8424]

@@Sonnell If you really want to find out how the Universe come to existence, there is a book which explaining this (But within the boundary of the Law of Physics) The book is - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@brianvernall8487]

How does the lack of gravitational time dilation between the far galaxies impact the frequencies and wavelengths?

[@lockiecresswell4629]

good question!

[@memegazer]

Have you tried a one way variable speed of light and a constant two way speed of light to unify Dicke and Sciema But in that view the spatial dimension might still be considered to be expanding, at least along some temporal plot.

[@memegazer]

I am assuming temporal shrinking measurement scales are the cause and ultimately time dependent. "Don't get involved in partial problems but always take flight to where there is a free view of the single great problem, even if that view is not clear" Or as I would put it Sometimes everything happens for a random. 🤓

[@bobf9749]

Very interesting. My only comment is that, if something like an ether permeates the universe, it could drain energy from light over great distances and times, accounting for red shift. But the bigger picture here is that the hold of the Big Bang on cosmology is being broken, opening the way for other hypotheses.

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

21:30 You have not forgotten about Friedmann?; who, based on Einstein's equations, spoke for the first time in a scientific way about the “creation of the world” (literally). There is also an important point in his article (1922): "Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, "On the curvature of space". [The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dt; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.] Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]: k(Friedmann)/k=8π; where k=r(pl)/m(pl). P.S. “This new type of universe in its other properties resembles Einstein's cylindrical world." (A. Friedmann, "On the curvature of space", 1922).} Developing Einstein's hypothesis of a cylindrical world, Einstein's theory of gravity "migrates" into phase space: due to this, it is quantized. Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space (according to general estimates, this acceleration is: a=πcH)*. Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the equivalence principle. Then the energy density of the relic radiation, that is, the evolving primary gravitational-inertial field (= space-time): J= g^2/8πG=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4~1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (about 500 quanta/cm^3). P.P.S. You can also use the Unruh formula, but with the addition of the coefficient q, which determines the number of phase transitions of the evolving system for the case of variable acceleration: q=√n'=λrelic /√8λpl , , where n'=L/8πr(pl) is the number of semi-orbits; L=c/H, is the length of the phase trajectory. Thus, T*(relic)=[q]ħa/2πkc (=0.4K), which is in order of magnitude consistent with the real: T(relic)/T*(relic)=2,7/0,4=6,7. {However, there is no need to have a factor of 1/2π in the Unruh formula in this case.} ------------------- *) - w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H, |a|=r(pl)w(relic)^2 =g=πcH, intra-metagalactic gravitational potential: |ф0|=(c^2)/2(√8n')=πGmpl/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum expression of Kepler's second law: the quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction. {Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (as vibration field); according to GR / QG, gravitational field, or more precisely the grav-inertial field is characterized by a spontaneous flow: J(Gi) = (v'/π )(1/4π) g^2/G, where v'/π- phase velocity of field evolution is determined from the relativistic expression of Kepler's second law: сr(G)= v'r = const. Can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment.} m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H; { w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. In the case of the Universe, I(G)=MH=c^3/8πG (~ the "dark energy" constant). n' =4,28*10^61; w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L. H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1). By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old! The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic). r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr. The phase velocity of the evolution of the Universe: v'=πcr/L=c/2, where c=√2(v): the "second cosmological velocity" in relation to the proto-universe. {In general, the masses of galaxies should be estimated as follows: M=(c/2G)rv', since the evolution of the system makes an additional contribution to the overall picture, and thereby clarify the problem of "dark matter".} Addition In an arbitrary non-inertial reference frame, the equation of the total mechanical energy of a particle system is: ∆E=A(internal)+A(external)+A*, where A (internal) is the work of internal dissipative forces, А(external) is the work of external non-conservative forces, А* is the work of inertia forces. In order to preserve the mechanical energy of the system in a non-inertial frame of reference, it is necessary that ∆E =0, however, in an arbitrary non-inertial frame of reference, it is impossible to create a condition for fulfilling this requirement; that is, ∆E does not =0 in any way (by the way, in system C, the condition for fulfilling the laws of conservation of momentum and angular momentum does not depend on whether this system is an inertial or non-inertial frame of reference).

[@TheMachian]

Rigght, but I could not mention everyone; I think the story has gone wrong before...

[@user-cj8fd3el5y]

❤ your enthusiasm. The universe expands yet: 1. the density of ‘dark energy’ remains constant 😮 2. e and u of the vacuum remain unchanged so the speed of light can remain constant as well🤔 The Pls correct me if I’m wrong.

[@nadahere]

1] No dark mumbo jumbo. 2] IMHO, if the defining parameters of the vacuum/Aether changed the Uni would change substantially, even cease to exist.

[@Dave3Dman]

Are you familiar with the theory of circling light in s non expanding universe as an explanation for ultra distant, ultra powerful objects? It relies on the tired light theory as well but it's still interesting. It is discussed in this paper: "The Karlsson Peaks in the Quasar's Redshift Distribution as an Indication for Circling Light in a non-expanding Universe." Would love to hear your opinion on it.