A New Model of the Expanding Universe

I would like to develop a new model which predicts that observational
astronomers will never find an image made by light that has crossed the
entire universe and passed it's original starting point. Those guys are
barking up the wrong tree, because general relativity predicts that
energy deforms space in a manner similar to matter. Observationalists
have apparently forgotten that, under general relativity, energy does
not exist independent of space, but that their presence distorts the
shape of space. Neither is a more fundamental quantity than the other,
but rather they are two quantities at an equal level in the hierarchy of
nature. They are different manifestations of the same thing.

Thus the "edge" of the universe retreats at the speed of light, because
the light racing toward it is creating new space along the way. Light
can never reach this horizon, because, as light pushes forward into
space that hadn't previously existed, it carries space along with it.
This causes the horizon to retreat further, and keeping it forever out
of reach of the photons heading toward it.

I use the word "edge" metaphorically, to appeal to the viewpoint of old-
style geometry. Because no point in the universe is the center, the
edge of the universe is the point from which a photon originated. Every
observer sees a different edge to the universe, the projection of the
observer’s location onto the sphere that is their horizon.

The people trying to find evidence for light crossing the horizon have
not properly interpreted how general relativity affects cosmology. They
are still trying to visualize it in terms of simple three-dimensional,
high school geometry, when that viewpoint is insufficient to visualize
this system.

The idea that light can circle the universe contains a built-in
assumption that the edge of the universe retreats at a speed less than
c. There is no reason to make this assumption, but a good reason to
make the contrary assumption. I'd love to find a partner to put
together a paper on this topic, even if it's just for Analog Magazine,
because I’m not a specialist in general relativity.

Starting with the central equation of general relativity and the
assumption that light carries space along with it, we would need an idea
how to begin the deriving an equation for the rate of expansion of the
universe.

This theory would be supported by a proof that the background radiation
can come to thermal equilibrium without ever looping past its original
point. Conceptually, that is straightforward, and I’ll explain how if
you'd like to get on-board. Eventually, this model should make a
prediction about the dark energy expanding of the universe. This could
then be compared to observations about measured rate of increase of
expansion, to see how well the central assumption holds up.

This argument does *not* say that the universe isn't connected in one of
the ways theorists predict, only that we can't observe that connection,
since that would involve seeing photons that have crossed the horizon,
which isn't allowed.

Also note that part of this model made the approximation that the
universe was perfectly spherical, with the corresponding effect that the
horizon will be a perfectly spherical surface. This is clearly not
true, but merely a good approximation for working the bugs out of the
idea.

The universe will have slight departures from the perfect symmetry
required to project the observer onto the sphere of the horizon. These
asymmetries should cause points near the observer to be projected onto
the horizon, rather than the observer themself. That’s the mark two
version of this model, and beyond the scope of the current work.

John Schutkeker wrote:

I would like to develop a new model which predicts that observational
astronomers will never find an image made by light that has crossed the
entire universe and passed it's original starting point. Those guys are
barking up the wrong tree, because general relativity predicts that
energy deforms space in a manner similar to matter. Observationalists
have apparently forgotten that, under general relativity, energy does
not exist independent of space, but that their presence distorts the
shape of space. Neither is a more fundamental quantity than the other,
but rather they are two quantities at an equal level in the hierarchy of
nature. They are different manifestations of the same thing.

Thus the "edge" of the universe retreats at the speed of light, because
the light racing toward it is creating new space along the way.

According to Wheeler-Feynman light won't propagate in a direction
devoid of electrons. Once light energy is emitted, its destination is
predetermined, and definite.

Light isn't a thing, it's a process.

Richard Perry


Light
can never reach this horizon, because, as light pushes forward into
space that hadn't previously existed, it carries space along with it.
This causes the horizon to retreat further, and keeping it forever out
of reach of the photons heading toward it.

I use the word "edge" metaphorically, to appeal to the viewpoint of old-
style geometry. Because no point in the universe is the center, the
edge of the universe is the point from which a photon originated. Every
observer sees a different edge to the universe, the projection of the
observer’s location onto the sphere that is their horizon.

The people trying to find evidence for light crossing the horizon have
not properly interpreted how general relativity affects cosmology. They
are still trying to visualize it in terms of simple three-dimensional,
high school geometry, when that viewpoint is insufficient to visualize
this system.

The idea that light can circle the universe contains a built-in
assumption that the edge of the universe retreats at a speed less than
c. There is no reason to make this assumption, but a good reason to
make the contrary assumption. I'd love to find a partner to put
together a paper on this topic, even if it's just for Analog Magazine,
because I’m not a specialist in general relativity.

Starting with the central equation of general relativity and the
assumption that light carries space along with it, we would need an idea
how to begin the deriving an equation for the rate of expansion of the
universe.

This theory would be supported by a proof that the background radiation
can come to thermal equilibrium without ever looping past its original
point. Conceptually, that is straightforward, and I’ll explain how if
you'd like to get on-board. Eventually, this model should make a
prediction about the dark energy expanding of the universe. This could
then be compared to observations about measured rate of increase of
expansion, to see how well the central assumption holds up.

This argument does *not* say that the universe isn't connected in one of
the ways theorists predict, only that we can't observe that connection,
since that would involve seeing photons that have crossed the horizon,
which isn't allowed.

Also note that part of this model made the approximation that the
universe was perfectly spherical, with the corresponding effect that the
horizon will be a perfectly spherical surface. This is clearly not
true, but merely a good approximation for working the bugs out of the
idea.

The universe will have slight departures from the perfect symmetry
required to project the observer onto the sphere of the horizon. These
asymmetries should cause points near the observer to be projected onto
the horizon, rather than the observer themself. That’s the mark two
version of this model, and beyond the scope of the current work.

John Schutkeker wrote:

SNIP

Thus the "edge" of the universe retreats at the speed of light,
because
the light racing toward it is creating new space along the way.
Light
can never reach this horizon, because, as light pushes forward into
space that hadn't previously existed, it carries space along with it.

This causes the horizon to retreat further, and keeping it forever
out
of reach of the photons heading toward it.

I applaud your ambitious goal, but your idea that light either creates
new space or carries space along with it must first be further
developed, since it seems impossible for light to do such a thing.


SNIP

The people trying to find evidence for light crossing the horizon
have
not properly interpreted how general relativity affects cosmology.
They
are still trying to visualize it in terms of simple
three-dimensional,
high school geometry, when that viewpoint is insufficient to
visualize
this system.


If you are critical of someone's thinking, you must give support for
your criticism of it and not just make wild claims about it. Talk is
relatively cheap, no?


The idea that light can circle the universe contains a built-in
assumption that the edge of the universe retreats at a speed less
than
c. There is no reason to make this assumption, but a good reason to
make the contrary assumption.


Certainly the fact that nothing can travel FTL is a perfectly good
reason?

TomGee

John Schutkeker wrote:
I would like to develop a new model which predicts that observational
astronomers will never find an image made by light that has crossed the
entire universe and passed it's original starting point. [...]

Thus the "edge" of the universe retreats at the speed of light, because
the light racing toward it is creating new space along the way.

If there is an edge of the universe, how could light ever come back?
If there is an edge of the universe, what lies beyond it?

Note no mainstream cosmological model has any edge.


Because no point in the universe is the center, the
edge of the universe is the point from which a photon originated.

When I turn on a flashlight you think that the edge of the universe is
inside my flashlight????


The people trying to find evidence for light crossing the horizon [...]

Who would do that? Light that crosses the edge of the universe would
seem to be gone.... But I though you were trying to discuss light coming
back to its origin.


The idea that light can circle the universe contains a built-in
assumption that the edge of the universe retreats at a speed less than
c.

Not at all. The idea that light can circle the universe contains a
built-in assumption that there is no edge of the universe. That is, that
space has the topology S^3 (a 3-d sphere) in which it is possible to
come back to its origin. If space did not have that topology it would
not be possible for light to return to its starting point (except via
obvious physical phenomena like mirrors and such [but is that the same
light?...]). While I suppose T^3 might also be possible, topologies like
SxR^2 and S^2xR are usually discarded as we expect space to be isotropic
and homogeneous (at least on cosmological scales). The only spatial
topologies of mainstream cosmological models are S^3 and R^3, neither of
which has any edge.


Starting with the central equation of general relativity and the
assumption that light carries space along with it, [...]

The latter is inconsistent with the former, at least in the way you use
it. Yes, the matter content of the manifold is inextricably related to
the geometry of the manifold, but the relationship is FAR more subtle
than you seem to think.

[...]


Tom Roberts

"RP" wrote in message
...

According to Wheeler-Feynman light won't propagate in a direction devoid
of electrons. Once light energy is emitted, its destination is
predetermined, and definite.

So, Wheeler and Feyman were promoting the blasphamous Aether all along.

Light isn't a thing, it's a process.

It sounds like light is a wave action in accordance to Christian Huygens
rather than a particle action as Isaac Newton described it.

I've wanted to tell you you're really nutty as a fruitcake RP.
So is John Wheeler and Dick Feynman.
But these authorities are your heroes .

Hero worship is inferiority.

"TomGee" wrote in news:1107494419.493498.98940
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

John Schutkeker wrote:

I applaud your ambitious goal, but your idea that light either creates
new space or carries space along with it must first be further
developed, since it seems impossible for light to do such a thing.

That's the idea. AFAIK, current theories don't say that it's impossible,
but that they make no statement al all. So we're free to fill in the gap,
if we can find some consistent equations.

If you are critical of someone's thinking, you must give support for
your criticism of it and not just make wild claims about it. Talk is
relatively cheap, no?

That's where I am now. I need to get some equations onto paper, to see if
it makes sense mathematically.

Certainly the fact that nothing can travel FTL is a perfectly good
reason?

Nothing travels FTL. The two theories are that the horizon retreats at c,
vs. retreating slower than c.

RP wrote in news:36gc93F509p49U1
@individual.net:

According to Wheeler-Feynman light won't propagate in a direction
devoid of electrons.

I don't think so. You're going to have to cite a specific reference to get
people on-board with this claim.

Tom Roberts wrote in news:E%DMd.533$hU7.163
@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

When I turn on a flashlight you think that the edge of the universe is
inside my flashlight????

I think that the center of the universe is inside your flashlight ;-) .

Not at all. The idea that light can circle the universe contains a
built-in assumption that there is no edge of the universe.

You missed the part where I said that "edge" is a metaphor for the horizon
that every observer carries along with them.

Starting with the central equation of general relativity and the
assumption that light carries space along with it, [...]

The latter is inconsistent with the former, at least in the way you use
it. Yes, the matter content of the manifold is inextricably related to
the geometry of the manifold, but the relationship is FAR more subtle
than you seem to think.

Can you write an equation showing that the two are inconsistent?

John Schutkeker wrote:

I would like to develop a new model which predicts that observational
astronomers will never find an image made by light that has crossed the
entire universe and passed it's original starting point.
[snip]

One sentence and already Dead on Arrival.

Thus the "edge" of the universe retreats at the speed of light,
[snip]

Hey stooopid,

1) No edge. All 4(pi)steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
2) The Big Bang is an explosion OF space not IN space. Your spew
has no meaning.

Starting with the central equation of general relativity and the
assumption that light carries space along with it,
[snip rest]

1) GR is ten equations. Which of them is the "central" equation?
2) "Light carries space along with it". So sad.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf