Variable Mass Theory: Intrinsic Red-Shift

[@robideu5008]

Between singularity, the breakdown of physics concepts, instant inflation and dark matter and energy, all of which are unconvincing theories, it is refreshing to hear about viable alternatives to the prevalent Big Bang model/dogma.

[@SeethePattern]

I hope you enjoyed this video. Please consider leaving a like and sharing. Links to all the relevant papers are in the descriptions. If you would like to support the channel you can via Patreon & Paypal (links above in the description) and there is also KZbin Thanks. Also, don't forget to check out the mech store!

[@alexandrekassiantchouk1632]

Check "BOB LAZAR: JOULES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION" which explained E = mc²D² - empirical evidence in Bob Lazar's report.

[@ThinkTank255]

It is nice to hear a person with a British accent not lying. Extremely rare, but nice.

[@DeathValleyDazed]

As usual Gareth is right on it. I appreciate his humble skepticism about some traditional scientific theories.

[@Herb.]

Amazing! Love exploring new and alternate theories! This channel is so good, great work!

[@4n2earth22]

Bravo! Brain food, of an exquisite quality. Thank you, Garth. Ya done good, sir, ya done good.

[@MrHichammohsen1]

Nice! I didn't know part 2 was gonna drop so fast! Thank you Gareth.

[@xenomyr]

Great channel btw ! I grew up in the 90's reading science magazines in which they were floudering about Dark Matter and ACDM and i25 years later nothing much - if at all - has changed in fundamental physics and cosmology. Great graphic animations and overall narration / presentation.

[@orrerystar]

Loving this series, keep up the great work.

[@critical-thought]

I think variable mass is interesting and worth continued investigation. I also suspect that some of the answers to the theory’s holes would be found if plasma EM interactions were considered.

[@KittyBoom360]

I'd never heard of this, so thanks for introducing me to it!

[@dinf8940]

very good, two things firstly, matter is not created only in the center of the galaxies, tho it might appear so relatively, as the curve of matter creation events is dependent on local mass and exponential secondly, only thing to solve regarding galaxy mechanics is naive use of keplerian simplification model where it cannot be applied combined with lack of proper time perspective on the issue. galaxies/galaxy arms are metastable (stable under their own 'weight' when analyzed as time sliced aggregates), but, as new matter is created whilst old is migrated, they continuously receive new stars and eventually destabilize - thus galaxies go through evolutionary cycles, ie. elliptic > barred > spiral > split/ejection > arm collapse > elliptic

[@danielvarga_p]

Actually I did not see Viable Mass before only Variable Speed of Light. Interesting to think about. Thank you! Great video/videos as well.

[@revcrussell]

My theory is that the transition lines are just shifted closer to the nucleus. We have a piece of evidence that the fine structure constant has changed over the course of time (Oklo nuclear reactor). This would mean that either the speed of light, the charge of the electron, or both have changed in a very short time period.

[@FunkyDexter]

Exactly. Einstein's very first idea to explain gravity was a variable speed of light in a flat space time. Light bending from gravity was made analogous to diffraction in a denser medium. The mainstream picture of curved spacetime and constant speed of light was proven to be mathematically equivalent, but the equations are more complicated (as evidenced by this video) and introduces way more issues in our understanding.

[@jillw892]

Always a aesthetic awesome conversation. 💯

[@JamesHolben]

Balanced presentation, as always...

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Love hearing different ideas! Thank you! ^.^

[@grahamhurlstone-jones5664]

The graphics will upsell anytime and the music is great but please make the sub titles bigger, thx. I was scrambling for my glasses when i realised you were narrating.. I think what we will find is the universe is moving at a gentle pace generally everywhere with ebbs and flows, we are about to go through one now. Thx again.....world class.

[@grahamhurlstone-jones5664]

I had you on mute and the music from the football results was playing....oops. I am now listening to you loud and clear.......! that was silly but it worked with your vid !

[@runs_through_the_forest]

as always thank you for the effort of explaining this!! cheers

[@douglascalhoun6471]

Intriguing ideas. I feel that there is something that is almost visible that would lend an explanation for the things that variable mass does not explain. Just a hunch, curved space time always felt lacking for some unknown reason. Looking forward to further discussion on this subject.

[@PBGetson]

What he said. This is entirely more plausible than the Big Bang Theory.

[@Dziaji]

Magic fairies that fart out universes is more plausible than the Big Bang Theory.

[@FunkyDexter]

Einstein's very first idea to explain gravity was a variable speed of light in a flat space time. Light bending from gravity was made analogous to diffraction in a denser medium. The mainstream picture of curved spacetime and constant speed of light was proven to be mathematically equivalent, but the equations are more complicated (as evidenced by this video) and introduces way more issues in our understanding. A variable speed of light would explain the Lyman forest, and if electrons and fundamental particles are really just configurations of photons trapped in curved loops (first proposed by Schrodinger in his Quantization as a problem of proper values part II, and ignored until a '97 paper by Williamson and van der Mark) then the varying speed of light and the varying mass are really just a single mechanism in action. Dark matter, which explains galaxy rotation curves, would be nothing less than the increased "space density" (which results in a lower speed of light) resulting from the accumulation of mass over time, as evidenced by the fact that galaxy further away from us (thus younger from our point of view) seem to completely lack dark matter.

[@peterdebaets4590]

Well, the Earth is expanding. The Neal Adams videos on this subject will blow your mind.

[@robertsteele474]

RIP Neal Adams

[@humanitech]

Always interesting....and I only hope that one day we humans get the chance, opportunity and time to fully confirm what fundamental reality really is (before our biological epoch ends) But the strange irony is .... even if some finally resolve and confirm what cosmic reality is.....there will always be others who will blindly reject and claim other nonsensical and even supernatural things. As humans are often as ignorant, conflicting and unstable as the energies and matter they are made from!

[@arthurrobey7177]

I'm a recovering Big Banger. Einstein's bent Nothingness has got hairs on it. It looks as though Albert conflated mathematical dimensions with physical ones. This hubris that we know everything about everything has led us into a very depressing cul-de-sac. But take heart; we've been here before. Not so Lord Thompson?

[@johnlord8337]

The fact that red shift is seen all around us - with a very small minority of blue-shifts toward us - says that there is no actual red-shift of the cosmos. Our region of space, and its actual lenticular density, is what creates this appearance of red shift. If you go to the middle of the galactic arm - you would see a balance and steady state. If you go to the deep and dense inner galactic core, you would see blue-shifting. The whole paradigm is locational - and not a valid astrophysics theory or law (!).

[@johnlord8337]

If you accept the STD model of physics of quarks (I dont) - they have 6 quarks of various energies (attractive and repulsive) of various electron voltages. The outer edges of the galactic arm have greater proprotion of up and down quarks (or such less-dense cosmic fabrics). The middle galactic arm has the majority of charms and stranges - medium dense cosmic fabrics. The inner galactic area have the majority of tops and bottoms - highest density of cosmic fabrics. It is these that cause their respective lenticular abberrations - like looking at an object in air and through the water looking bent. The cosmic fabrics and density of space is different in difrrent locations.

[@johnlord8337]

As successive second and further generations of galactic and stellar formations happen from the original Big Manifestation and first generation of stellar objects - having their demise with their own (super) nova stellar core fragments blasting across the cosmos, this starts new cycles of stellar (stellar core fragment) and planetary (stellar shard fragment) formations. All of this comes from a repeating cycle of destructions - then formations. Stellar core framgnets and shards are the actual source of valid gravity and accretionary theory - not any (proven wrong) Newtonian mass and volume = gravitational forces between objects at the molecular or atomic level.

[@DegreesOfThree]

Interesting 👍

[@catmandrew100]

I like the way you think. That is a great hypothesis now if only there was a way to prove it. Either way, the middle of the galactic arm or the center of the galaxy is a long way off. However, if you have some sources that you could share to back this hypothesis up I would love to see or hear them. I have been following the EU idea for about 6 years and find it interesting to say the least.

[@johnlord8337]

@@catmandrew100 The galaxy (and the rest of the cosmos) has various densities (fabrics) in the sub-particle world. I.e. quarks - IF - you accept the Standard Model. At the outer and thinness of the dark universe of energies and forces (no dark MATTER), there is the majority of ups and down, with minimal charm and strange, and rarest of tops and bottoms. Any such baryonic, mesonic, or hadrons material has this finest of fabric. In the middle are the larger and mass-dense charms and strange fabrics, with moderate ups and downs, and a greater portion of tops and bottoms. At the matter-dense inner galactic arm near to the galactic core the majority is tops and bottoms, with less charms and strange, and rarest of the finer fabric of ups and downs. All of this, refutes other models that space is virtually a vacuum (admitted 0.x PSI) and only 4-5 hydrogen atoms/sq meter. That is an atomic statement, not particulate matter, let alone quark matter in the dark universe. I just finished after 40 years of research into what is underneath electrons, positrons, and natural neutrons (far below the atomic grouping of proton positrons and the atomic neutron. The findings are shocking, and correct a massive bunch of BS in science and physics, with smaller electrinos, positrinos, and such natural neutrinos ... leading into photon gamma rays. All of QM into QED, and working all matter down to light (particle) physics is now having the simplist of diagrams showing how these electrinos, positrinos, and neutrinos form, and have such gravity cores keeping them intact. In fact there is now proof that an electrino can change its format into that of a neutrino and then convert again into a positrino and reverse. Any such Standard Model words as gluons and gravitons are solved by these diagrams. The photon now shows its polarities and its mass ! That leads to these electrinos and positrinos and natural neutrinos being measured and their polarities. It is these electrinos and positrinos that are groupings of gamma + and - rays. And the bottom of all sub-particles are the individual gammas rays. Herein lies the Grand Unified Field Theory finally solved - as well as explaining weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, static accretionary theory, electro-statics, electro-gravitics, electro-gravitic accretionary theory (that fills in the rest of the bottom half of the Herzsprung-Russel (-Lord) chart, and explains who, what, and how gravity "IS."

[@theelectricorigins846]

Very NICE AND THOROUGH explanation of the Hoyle-Narlikar theory. Keep on this track... Just it lack the EM involved in the variable mass to explain the galactic rotation curves... By the way, it is LINGUISTICALLY NONSENSICAL to talk about the maninstream concept of "EXPANDING SPACE". Accodring to dictionary, objects may expand IN SPACE, but space itself (Length,Width,Height) are simple CONSTRUCTS (ideas) which, by definition, are not OBJECTS AND CANNOT EXPAND. {Would be illogical to use an elastic !chewing-gum metric tape! to measure something }.

[@philoso377]

Nice video and presentation. If we agree that no one seems to fully understand what light is other than categorizing what we observed. So how may we legislate and impose some law of light to explain redshift out of a heavier primordial mass? Are we using “excuse” to replace “explanation”? As we did on mass change from a heavier primordial electrons to old electrons, dark matter and dark energy. ?

[@PBGetson]

The galaxy core won't collapse on itself. The slightly positive charge of everything pushes everything else away from itself.

[@DarwinianUniversal]

I applaud your work I have something to add, but what can I say that you might appreciate at a glance! Energy and Mass are correlated, right. That is to say, Atomic energy and atomic mass are related. Assume for a moment that atomic energy is variable, because atomic activity/time is variable "that's what time dilation is an account of". Variable atomic energy/time is variable atomic mass. Energy = Mass So when an atom is lifted higher within a gravitational field and time dilation accelerates, atomic mass increases respectively. because atomic energy/time = atomic mass. So here's the solution to galaxy rotation curves. 1. Within terms of gravity, Time dilation is dependent upon the "proximity of masses". 2. The density of stars becomes more defused towards galaxy's edge. And so atomic energy/time increases respectively, and atomic mass increases following suit. Its this increase in atomic mass as the proximity of stars in galaxies declines towards galaxy edge that solves anomalous galaxy rotation curves. What can I add People get the impression from the hardness of matter that its very prominent and unchanging. But matter is largely made of force carrier's, like electromagnetism and strong nuclear force. EM is light, and nuclear binding energy "Gluons" can be thought of as being a type of light. So it can be said that rocks are made of light. This stuff is more like a dynamic fluid than anything else. So what I'm asking you to consider is that this stuff that issues force, "infact it issues variable force". Time dilation is an account of its variable force, by virtue of its variable rates of activity. So as star density's decline as you move away from galaxy centers, atomic mass increases because atomic activity/time/energy increases "time dilation". Variable atomic energy/time is variable atomic mass

[@DarwinianUniversal]

I should just say Variable atomic force is the cause of variable atomic activity, that is time dilation. Variable atomic force is a variable atomic mass theory

[@bonnienandino6942]

Thanks

[@fisheatinweasel]

Hello Gareth. I would be interested your interpretation of these theories under the lens of Structured Atom Theory.

[@rogerscottcathey]

Conclusions from CMB maps ought to be suspended until considering Herouni's data collected with his radio-optical telescope.

[@uileam161]

Keep it up. (The Al Gore rhythm digs comments.)

[@barrydysert2974]

Indeed the AlGoreRythm does !:-)

[@charlespax]

Gravitational mass, inertial mass, or both?

[@Velereonics]

The gravity current thingy does galaxy spin perfectly it's so obvious

[@MrWolynski]

Stellar metamorphosis

[@baraskparas9559]

If anything the mass of elementary particles, including bosons and mesons should be imperceptibly reducing with time at a steady rate proportional to 4pi r ^2( r of the universe ) due to loss of the superluminal fundamental particles that constitute all matter from the universe in all directions. Red shift is caused by a combination of the Doppler effect , the imperceptibly small loss of photon energy with each exiting of a denser medium and the fact that a photon that left a distant galaxy that arrives on Earth, Hubble or James Webb is less massive ( ie redshifted ) than when it left not more massive.

[@terrellian1]

Thanks. IFLU.

[@vascovalle740]

Thank you for the vídeo

[@kennethmikaelsson7990]

Its realy fun to see lerned men bow to the alter of Big Bang totaly blind to every thing exsept funky matematic...

[@classic_sci_fi]

There’s more than one way to solve an equation! 😎

[@classic_sci_fi]

Red-Shift could also result from the light traveling through intervening plasma. As plasma is the most abundant form of matter, traveling through so much plasma in interstellar space could falsely indicate greater velocities. 😎

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

In this model: E(0)=E + 2E*, where E(0)=own energy, E is the total energy:

[@daviddrew7852]

Variable mass certainly trumps the crass ad hoc approach prevalent right now.

[@pfsmith01]

"Matter is created at the center of Galaxies"... and Stars? (micronovae?) Sounds something like the "Diehold" to me...

[@User53123]

I believe mass might be increasing also, but if mass is increasing the universe must be expanding. It only makes sense that each particle is a quantized bit of the universe and they increase very slightly as the universe expands. Also the major problem with Dirac's large numbers hypothesis was that gravity was predicted to decrease, and that isn't observed. If mass increases then gravity would have to decrease slightly for everything to stay the same.

[@ronaldkemp3952]

The redshift isn't produced by the increase in mass of the body over time but because of the a or acceleration of matter as it ages. Age is indeed tied to the slow acceleration of matter but not because of it's accumulated mass over time. The only bodies which are affected are the old massive bodies like stars and galaxies. The young stars and young diffuse galaxies are less likely to be affected. We already know that the redshift and blueshift in the light is tied to motion. The oldest bodies like satellite galaxies orbiting around the Milky Way have accelerated at a rate of 1 mi/h (1.61 km/h) increase every 10,000 years. The same thing occurs to the stars. Our own solar system has accelerated at the same 1 mi/h (1.61 km/h) increase every 10,000 years. The same slow acceleration happens to the Milky Way galaxy. It is 13.7 billion years old and is traveling at 1.37 million mi/h (2,203,200 km/h). A 1 mi/h (1.61 km/h) increase every 10,000 years. The same thing appears to be true for many distant galaxies in the Leo constellation, they are massive, old and produce a high redshift. But the galaxies in the Aquarius constellation extremely far away don't produce the high redshift, indicating they are younger, smaller than the galaxies in the Leo constellation. This points towards a single big bang event not taking place.

[@flodareltih9407]

brilliant thank you

[@rnicole846]

I think it is likely that light deteriorates over immense distances and it is that deterioration that we are observing as the “red shift”. Also, I think the assumption that the universe is continuously accelerating is the opposite of what we observe in explosions. Normally in explosions the fastest speeds are observed immediately after the explosion and there is de-acceleration over time. Why would newtonian physics be any different in far away galaxies? If the universe continues to expand as a result of the big bang, and there is zero friction loss, then you could assume a constant velocity. But not a continuous acceleration.

[@classic_sci_fi]

Light is also red-shifted as it moves through plasma. Plasma between ourselves and a distant galaxy would be significantly red-shifted but not as a result of increasing velocity.

[@MimsicalRenegade]

❤

[@cobbler3376]

very enlightening. how then is matter destroyed? isn't that also needed for a steady state universe?

[@revcrussell]

Not if the universe is expanding.

[@DegreesOfThree]

Didn't Tesla reject the idea that matter could be created or destroyed?

[@eclipse369.]

Matter is easily destroyed, decayed, w/e. Energy merely transitions from one phase to another. Matter is created and destroyed all the time.

[@XplodingZDoomDevice]

@@DegreesOfThree He supported it I believe

[@lukemurray-smith5454]

Could a black hole observer see a larger cosmic horizon or a different one then an earth observer due to curveture allowing for frequencies of light (greater then infinity) to return into space, essentially for the observers if in communication skipping the middle distance?

[@benmcreynolds8581]

Yeah, isn't it a known thing that certain type of light can interact with certain things and it causes the electron to shift levels(thus altering the light?) *I've always wondered, if we are seeing super old light. Then what would the galaxies look like this very day, if we could see it?

[@DegreesOfThree]

You don't want to get stuck in the Lyman Alpha Forest after dark 🦉

[@SeethePattern]

No certainly not ;)

[@eclipse369.]

How can something that does not exist, expand. Space. Not a thing, not bendable. Unless you actually referring to the aether. Space, Basically a human made word to judge,measure relative distances of objects from each other.

[@JanicePhillips]

There are no islands in space. Galaxies rotate due to Birkeland Currents. Everything rotates due to Birkeland Currents. The Universe is electric!

[@carlosgaspar8447]

with relativity, increasing speed does not increase the mass of an object, only the momentum factor of the equation (pc^2)^2

[@piotrprs572]

I think or maybe .. I almost sure, that this 'mass growing' isn't complete explanation. Lets think a little what happens in supper condensed galactic centre? If we have some mega space current flowing and some entity like plasmoid. Then matter will be super condensed. Meaning, that all 'free space' in atoms will be much...much smaller. When we add to this 'eather', which is exist for sure as wave propagation medium. Then in this super condensed matter we will get less 'eather inside' atoms. (we need to remember, that atoms is almost 'empty' space) Then when this condensed mass is ejected. She will be expanding and 'gain eather' inside atoms. So it will looks like this ejected mass 'gain mass'. This will also slow it down and move red shift spectrum to blue. Also this 'expanded mass' will not collapse, because 'eather' inside atoms will keep it expanded.

[@xenomyr]

Is variable mass a machian-based idea or do I need to get back to study hehe ?

[@SheWhoRemembers]

@ThunderboltsProject makes more sense!

[@dexter8705]

Oh how my head hurts thinking about cosmology, and what makes it hurt is how much relativity is wrong, and how there is no speed of causality that coincides with relativity. And all light would be blue shifted if there was a maximum speed light could travel relative object to object, it only works if it's relative object to space, but also matter makes space move. There's too many components that need to be smushed together and fit intricately together. But wait there's more

[@davidwilkie9551]

Any idea one receives has been thought of somewhere-when, "it's always NOW in superposition identification memory associations and the wave-particle packaging system of reciprocation-recirculation Singularity-point positioning e-Pi-i flash-fractal In-form-ation substantiation shows how distance is interchangeable with elapsed time.., so if you can see a destination in the apparent past,it will be in your future until you get there, then the departure positioning is the same distance you began with rotated 180⁰ instantaneously. If the number of units in time travel timing-phase ratio-rates is frequency inverted, then there's the self-defining explanation of Virtual Work objectives and the oscillation modulation cause-effect mechanism, i-reflection Superspin Superposition-point Singularity Perspective Principle Operator Logic in-at-of e-Pi-i sync-duration. From this video I understand why Sir Fred Hoyle was contemptuous of BBT but to explain the Singularity in Logarithmic Time Duration Timing modulation is not possible, unless the Students "teach themselves", and lead-out the self within Self in mono-dualistic complexity. (It aint easy) We have an innate sense-in-common of cause-effect e-Pi-i sync-duration resonance bonding proportioning probabilities and degree of rigorous understanding personal integrity and embodiment of biological integration.., particularly when you study biochem and virology etc. This is the conscious awareness Singularity reasoning for self esteem and Self-defining elements of a social relationship for mutual respect. (Sir Fred should have curbed his dissatisfaction with BBT promoters, everyone fools themselves to some extent, Sciencing is advanced by making clear and concise Observation available for assessment and discussion) The Red-Blue shifting relative-timing ratio-rates have their uses in AM-FM Hetrodyne Radio emitter-receiver technologies, and is apparent in the holistic adiabatic behaviour of water vapour phase-shifting in storm cell convective, fundamental math-music resonance reciprocation-recirculation of elemental e-Pi-i sync-duration phase state(s), real-time relative-timing sum-of-all-histories prime-cofactor in/of natural projection-drawing. (Testable Observation, not Theory) The operation of WiFi in signal processing and recombination tuning demonstrates QM-TIME Completeness cause-effect in/of Eternity-now e-Pi-i sync-duration resonance connectivity functional Perspective Interval.

[@charlesastle2077]

there is no separation between space an time. space/time. if space is expanding then time is also expanding. would this not be in reference a red shift as in the ratio of one space/time compared to another space/time location.

[@Baka_Komuso]

EUREKA!! Thank you. Thank you. The laugh is finally on them. Imagine believing in a theory that your “opponent” named in derogation of it.

[@daemonnice]

Hey Gareth, its been a while since I have commented on one of your videos, hope you are well. I may embarrass myself here but I have a problem with this concept that says "every particle in the universe derives its inertia from every other particle in the universe." If I am correct this is Mach's Principle. And then much later in the video you mentioned the problem of "renormalization". I consider the need for renormalization an argument against Mach's Principle. Inertia I will contest is the product of density, viscosity and pressure of the region through which matter is moving through. It seems to me, but the closer an observer is to an event the greater the effect experienced. i equated as infinite distance equals infinitesimal effect, infinitesimal distance equals infinite effect. By infinite and infinitesimal, I refer to values that are indeterminate because theya re either too big or too small to measure accurately. As indeterminate values, the infinitesimal and the infinite are pure concepts. And doesn't the inverse square nature of electromagnetism have something to say with this? Both the quantum physics and cosmology are theoretical sciences that are not only disconnected unto themselves, but also disconnected from Classic empirical science. I consider the quantum the infinitesimal and cosmology concerning deep space objects as the infinite. Epicenter of the infinitesimal and the infinite is the human experience, the physical measurable empirical realm. It is this which I consider as the center of all things as an observer. As far as I am concerned, referencing G in an equation is referencing an effect whose mechanism is still not understood. Newton's question of why two objects with similar surface areas and dissimilar masses fall at approximately the same velocity within the biosphere of Gaia. Then there is also the question os how energy becomes matter and it has to do with a lot more than just cooling down. At all levels it is electromagnetic forces at work defining everything that is. And what are these invisible immaterial forces that Faraday/Maxwell described mathematically as fields? And my final question is, what is life? Great job as usual. Cheers

[@spartacus936]

It's a very interesting theory, and it would actually explain a lot. However, I don’t think I understand how is it possible that matter Is formed from nothing. How does matter can get injected into the Universe from nothing? There's no evidence that there are white holes in the center of AGNs and Quasars, so I don’t understand how it can be possible for matter to be ejected and created from nothing.

[@XplodingZDoomDevice]

Creating matter from nothing is indeed possible, a theory first proposed by Julian Schwinger, one of the founders of quantum field theory.

[@monkerud2108]

i don't know about the details of this specific model you are discussing, but if you move the expansion from geometry to the characteristic scale on which mass operates then galaxies do fall in on themselves. in the sense that the average distance / average diameter of a galaxy is an increasing number. if you choose a picture of reality where the average distance between galaxies do not increase then the galaxies shrink instead, this is an easy thing to imagine, come on. you cannot simply say things like we don't observe galaxies falling in on themselves without specifying what you mean. lets just take an easier example for you, you are driving to your grandma, it take 1 hour, its 50 kilometers, but the earth is shrinking and you are shrinking, your speed also declines proportionally with the shrinking, will you observe the distance to your granny getting smaller in any way? the answer is nope.

[@rgaleny]

THE STANDARD MODEL DOESN'T TREAT GALAXIES LIKE TOROID MAGNETS

[@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591]

I think it's better to have variable aether.

[@richardtofield5210]

i would have thought that ALL matter across the universe started off more massive and is running down on internal kinetic energy and inertia like a gyroscope

[@guff9567]

I prefer variable time

[@nobigbang825]

Fascinating, it's not always as simple as one could wish for, however, I'm sure the EU theory can help to solve much of the insurmountable problems.

[@robheusd]

If this were true,, we would measure different masses for the same particles (eg electron), which we don't. That would mean all electrons had to be formed at the exact same time. But the theory does not claim all particles are formed at the same time.

[@arcmode]

I don’t have enough physics background but my theory is that mass (and gravity by extension) is determined by the level of order in the surrounding aether. I think aether is brought into chaotic states at galactic cores and the ejected matter is surrounded in “reformatted aether” which slowly falls into order with time, producing an environment that goes from lower mass to higher mass. This idea would fit with Thornhill’s gravity model in my opinion, the new thing would be that the aether drives the ordered polarization that induces gravitational behavior upon matter, rather than matter doing it on it’s own.

[@peterdebaets4590]

Sounds like Tessien's "Aether Tectonics".

[@bumbleWeaver]

fucking awesome

[@randyralls9658]

All stars produce mass.

[@terrytichey6269]

LOVE YOUR WORK BUT WE NEED A UPDATE VIDEO PLEASE ======= WE NEED MORE CONTENT !!!! SINCE SAFIRE GOT BILLIONAIRE MONEY THEY FEEL OFF THE EARTH WOW TALK ABOUT SELLING OUT WTF HOW ABOUT SOME UPDATES MONEY TALKS , AND THE PEOPLE OF EARTH GET SCREWED AGAIN

[@rogerfroud300]

It sounds like there are too many fatal flaws for this to be plausible. It's competing with a theory that explains many of the things that this doesn't.

[@JohnVKaravitis]

Mass increases? ALL mass? Relative to what? Same idea as the universe instantaneously expanding to 100 times its size. How could you tell, being INSIDE the universe? Relative to what???

[@daniellassander]

Well i see a small problem, E=MC^2. So i would need one hell of a good reason why it its wrong before i accept this.

[@Dziaji]

Nothing in this video implies that E = MC^2 is wrong. It implies that particles absorb tiny amounts of ambient energy over time.

[@empatikokumalar8202]

Instead of variable mass, it is more logical that the observed light remains under the influence of different masses on its journey until it reaches the observer. Which actually isn't. The redshift is an event that can only be observed between galaxies. The behavior of light in its own galaxy is not the same as when it comes or goes outside. It appears blue under the influence of the galaxy's total gravitational pull within its own galaxy. But when he escapes from his own galaxy influence and is under the influence of the other galaxy, the opposite will happen. So there will be a red shift.

[@waelfadlallah8939]

I am gonna stick with the big bang theory, it's easier on my mind.

[@Dziaji]

No it isn't. If you believe that you understand the big bang theory, you are just highly indoctrinated, because it objectively makes no sense whatsoever.

[@waelfadlallah8939]

@@Dziaji i am not a physicist but according to my humble reviews it seems that there is a consensus about the big bang theory more than any other one.

[@Dziaji]

@@waelfadlallah8939 yes, it is the most believed hypothesis, but it has been debunked in many different ways and is inconsistent. There is a problem with academia where scientists get excommunicated if they disagree with certain hypotheses, and the big bang theory is one of those. There are many scientists who don't actually believe it, but they refrain from voicing that opinion for fear of being ostracized or even losing funding or their job. It's a sad state of affairs.

[@atmanbrahman1872]

It makes no sense. The assumptions are insane. You can't say that an object has 0 mass at creation moment when it's shout out at light of speed limit but gains mass only later when it slows down.

[@hayorge27]

As insane as everything beginning as an infinitely small point? You shouldn't call people insane for thinking for themselves, it's rude, childish, and there's no place for it here amongst professionals who care. Go troll somewhere people care what you think

[@atmanbrahman1872]

@@hayorge27 you seem to care. 🤣

[@davestorm6718]

Perhaps it's a function of BOTH gaining and losing mass. I don't subscribe to either an Aether nor to Space-Time. To me it appears that the proverbial aether is actually an entirely different spectrum - that is NOT electromagnetic (not EM energy nor EM mass, but the complement of both). When EM mass increases, EM energy decreases, and simultaneously, non-EM mass decreases and non-EM energy increases. The only coupling between the two is gravity and anti-gravity. In other words, we're only seeing 1 side of the coin. This might explain "impossibilities" of either a singularity of infinite mass and zero mass --> mass as well as expansion (if any), or contractions via accretion discs (which cannot occur without an initial amount of higher mass to overcome extremely high molecular velocities to "glue" material together. No computer simulation to date has ever worked using gravity alone models w/o first starting with higher mass densities many orders of magnitude greater than individual atomic ions/molecules and their respective inertia). This might also explain the phenomenon, in the quantum world, of particles spawning into existence, then disappearing (the current explanation of such included time reversal - which is ludicrous as Time - as an entity - simply does not exist outside of the mathematical realm and merely a displacement function, that is, a measure of the rate of change).

[@Dziaji]

@@atmanbrahman1872 you seem to be intellectually and emotionally stunted.

[@atmanbrahman1872]

@@Dziaji yo momma

[@Nah_Bohdi]

Eh, really doesnt fit my model but I enjoy the math trick if he can pull something like this off. Sure sticks it to those stuffy ivory tower citizens in academia if the math works out. For a good laugh if nothing else.

[@kkgt6591]

Makes way too many assumptions. This theory has many holes.

[@TheRealFreznoBob]

Wasn't there something about Arecibo or another depressed dish telescope proving the cmb was actually coming from the earth and when the receiver was dropped below the rim of the dish the cmb disappeared?