The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer

I was being relegated to here in order to discuss something I am currently..well, it could be said obsessed about. That is both new and business as usual for me. It's, on the one hand, quite an ordinary thing for me to get passionate at some irregular intervals about something or other, though being that selfish bastard that I am, any one else's ideas had never really been the object of my passion. Well, at least not in this way.
I mean, of course, I've loved dozen of remarkable names with their wonderful mental achievements but never in the way as to want to share their lights with others. Shakespeare, Nicholas of Cusa or Schopenhauer are supreme but if any one is not remotely interested in anything they had to say what do I care?Then again those are all established luminaries so their luminosity may have all the propping from countless other people with or without me. Anything casting a doubt on their greatness could be trumped with plenty of sources and authorities right on the spot. For example, my compatriot Leo Tolstoy wrote a pamphlet "proving" that Shakespeare was just a pretentious punster. Tolstoy's reasoning was rather sound within the limits of his own logic yet I may disagree and Orwell with countless others would back up my point.
So that might be an explanation to the difference in my attitude here. In Shakespeare's case, giving support is taking the safest bet, I am taking no risks so the whole thing is way too bland for me to be interested.
Whereas with Mayer the situation is entirely different; he is the guy whose mind strikes me to be of a very fine calibre, the fellow is full of ambition and he dreams of being a new..well, he goes to Jagielonian university in Cracow with his presentations so it must be Copernicus. He proposes a new model of the universe which if proven to be correct may validate such a dream though right now he is taken for a crank and as things go might even die a crackpot. He is not too old but change might be slow so you never know.

But why should you be so unhappy with that? That forum does not seem to be particularly active. Since I've been gone no new activity could be detected so even if I derailed the train of forum's thought off any topics, it was the derailment of a slow train indeed. It rather looked like no topics were much discussed at all. I hope no passenger bones have been broken.As to the question of Alexander Franklin Mayer..well, let's say I am investigating the phenomenon and its aspects. What strikes me is the glaring gap between my own assessment of the man's achievements and the level of interest they currently generate.That is, I want to find out whether I am a moron to hold something almost completely ignored in such a high esteem.So, in a way, the issue for me to settle is who is foolish here. Myself or the venerated opinion of the many.I propose that the thread should be copied into Is it science? forum for the opinion I have heard repeatedly is that the man is a worthless amateur in astrophysics having next to no peer-reviewed papers published and so on.You ask me to give an outline of the theory. I must say that I am not sure I am the best person to do that as my translation of his ideas would necessarily be a very free one giving a somewhat wrong impression of his style. Which though not dry and jargon-laden by any means is quite matter-of-fact and investigative.The best way is to hear it from the horse's mouth and judge for oneself.The model is called MdR and that it because it is derived from the ideas of Minkowski, de Sitter and Riemann and in a nutshell is proposing that time should be considered in strictly geometrical terms. Space and time are strictly equivalent and mutually convertible measures with light expressing the constant ratio of the conversion. That is the reason why its velocity is not a variable and why no deviation in its measure is physically possible. That precludes any acceleration, inflation or expansion of the standard model. Geometrically time is strictly orthogonal to space. Thus if time and space are assumed to be an infinite circle, in such analogy the spatial part of the mixture could be taken to be the area of the circle and the temporal its circumference. If a radius is drawn from any of the points on the infinite circumference that should represent one of the infinity of the possible directions of time. Time is understood to be local necessarily.The phenomenon of time dilation is taken to have a much wider significance than it is currently understood and in practical terms its manifestations are taken not to be limited to acceleration and deceleration of bodies involving local and relatively short distances.For if any change in velocity is a reciprocal contacting and dilating of a distance and a time, then a sufficiently long distance on a cosmic scale is itself bound to produce exactly the same effect on the respective scale without any acceleration or deceleration involved.Which may imply that on the universal scale the rates of processes, otherwise known as ageing are inversely proportionate to the distance to the observer. There could be no universal rate to the passing of time possible and the idea that a common clock may show a time the whole universe should agree on as it is proposed in the Big Bang model is incorrect. There may be the two rates of ageing to any object in cosmos- intrinsic and apparent at a distance. Any two observers at a close distance from each other would find that their intrinsic and apparent rates of ageing should roughly coincide in each other's estimation, yet any spatial distance between them may create a divergence in the respective reading of the two rates. At close distances that difference of rates may be ever so slight and practically negligible, yet the discrepancy between the two readings may grow as a function of distance and on the scale of billions of light years may become ever so great necessarily.If instead of a circle the space and time relation is modelled as a sphere, then there is a parallelism between time and gravity. Time-lines may be then understood to be similar to gravity vectors in respect to the surface of the earth. Just like there is no gravity at the very centre of the earth's mass where all the vectors coincide, the sum of all times in the universe is agelessness necessarily. Mayer puts it beautifully and concisely saying in one of his papers that the universe is the physical manifestation of eternity. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : Grammar and styleEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Lots more blank lines.

Well, yes, that is one of the main tenets of the theory. Now without understanding the basis this conclusion is built upon first the actual maths may not tell you anything.
In the book he is introducing some new concepts the equations are reflecting so it may be necessary to grasp those novelties first before examining the maths.
He is talking, for example, about the cosmological latitudes and cosmological redshift horizon and the formula for the differing rates of processes in cosmos describes the relation between the observer and the observed as a function of distance.
The map of cosmos he has drawn assumes Milky Way to be positioned right on the pole of the hypersphere. Any latitude below 90 degree is beyond the visible horizon which is similar to region south of the terrestrial equator with the difference that the pole, the equator and the antipodes are perfectly relative and arbitrary since the map is the space-time globe where any two observers may exchange any information inside one hemisphere only . Any place in the universe would have those relative to itself but the cosmic radius and the distance from the visibility horizon may be the same anywhere.
His idea is that the Minkowski geometry implying an infinity of spatial planes with each plane having its unique proper time that is strictly orthogonal to the plane necessitates different readings of clock rates as a function of distance and that beyond the horizon time may flow in reverse, yet experientially it would feel exactly the same similar to the mundane experience of gravity by the folks down under.
In his own words:"Measurement of photon frequency is fundamentally associated with time measurement. Let the photon have the natural frequency f0 as measured by an ideal clock 1 in its emission rest frame. If, from the perspective of a remote observer's local ideal clock 2, a relativistic phenomenon causes clock 2 to record time faster in comparison to clock 1, then according to clock the same number of cycles in a periodic process is counted in a greater amount of time. Accordingly, the apparent emission frequency f of the photon in reference to clock 2 is lower than its natural frequency f0 as measured by clock 1 in proportion to the clock differential. Consequently, when the photon of natural emitted frequency actually arrives at the remote location of the clock 2, it is physically measured by clock 2 to have the lower frequency."What he means is that time dilation is a ubiquitous phenomenon unrelated to relative velocities and is an inevitable natural consequence of the space-time geometry itself.If you want to check all the maths for that in detail, that is plain to see on page 28 of the dissertation that is free to download at jaypritzker.orgThough as I said it is better to be absorbed step by step from the very beginning and from the horse's mouth.

Well, first as far as rotation is concerned, as I understand it there is a difference in his treatment of excess radius. Otherwise, the theory assumes that space-time itself rotates, so to speak, or rather the co-ordinates do, with the space being gradually transformed into time in the direction away from the observer resulting in the proportionate dimming of the distant objects.

If I misinterpreted anything like you are alleging, the whole context is freely available for you to re-interpret it back correctly with the help of your superior grasp of the subject.
Though as I clearly specified earlier, the relativistic effect described in the quote was not due to any change in relative velocity. The two types of time dilation are just similar and parallel though their causes and magnitude may differ.

Ok, you may be right and I should have chosen a different quote. So here is another passage found on p.38 going more straight for the jugular:
"The observable effects of time dilation and length contraction are associated with three distinct phenomena; relative motion, the local gravitational field and the cosmic gravitational field. All three cases involve a similar form of coordinate transformation. In the case of cosmological gravitational field, the physical coordinate transformation (i.e. the transformation of space to time) occurs in the direction of observation. The true fundamental meaning of 'spacetime' curvature in the context of cosmology is that the farther we look out into space, the more the rest frame of galaxies at the remote location is rotated in spacetime relative to the local Galactic rest frame. Irrespective of any relative motion, the greater the distance to a galaxy is, the larger the component of its time axis projected onto the radial space dimension: time becomes space."

Well, you are right. There is indeed next to no discussion of the ideas. As far as I am aware there was a New Scientist article but I could not locate it. The author's efforts to beat his own drum and to promote the book appear to be if not non-existent, still rather subdued; there is almost no activity on his blog and FB page and so on. In the blog he stated that he was too busy finishing the book.

Well, if that effect is observed on the minor scale and it is true that your head and your feet age at slightly different rates, it is only reasonable to conclude that the effect might be mirrored on the cosmic scale with the magnitudes corresponding to scale. Macrocosm reflecting microcosm is an ancient idea.

All I can say is that if Mayer is correct then there is no SR, GR and QM any more but a single theory stemming from a single principle of light being the constant ratio of space to time with no violation physically possible whatsoever, whatever the guise that violation may be coming under.
Though not abandoning the uncertainty principle, he re-interprets it in a sense to rather vindicate Einstein's attitude to the whole thing and not of those who disagreed with the man at the time.
What he says is that there is particle AND wave all along and that the particle part of the equation is constant and is quantifiable if imaginary numbers are used instead of real ones.

First, the reality is not quite mathematics and secondly I am not yet qualified to criticise the man's mathematical approach in detail as he devoted ten years to calculating the cosmos, while I spent only a couple of months at sussing out his particular theory of it.
I must admit though that I am naturally biased in his favour and that is on the purely logical grounds.
He might need to refine his metrics just as you said he should and I am sure he is aware of the need and is working towards more extensive solution.
One thing that is clear though is that the underlying reasoning is very sound.Even if the unlikely scenario that Mayer's theory is complete nonsense like you claim being the case, that would not turn the consensus views he is debunking any less preposterous.
Whatever is the case, nothing may remain naturally physically handicapped in all its efforts to expand into nowhere, so all its best intentions to multiply may be in vain and all its best efforts to stretch may be naturally nipped in the bud. Both nothing and nowhere may not be capable of helping each other to accomplish the task set before them by the modern physical theory and that is for the simple reason that neither of the two may physically exist.
Of course, I am naturally biased, as the fellow's theory is expressing in concrete detail all that I thought about the universe a priori.
I am quoting him because he speaks my mind better than I myself can.
A few months ago in another forum I started a thread dealing with the difficulties and pointing out to the inherent absurdity of the mainstream views and somebody just gave a link to Mayer's theory suggesting that this could be a sensible solution to the puzzle of time and entropy.
Whatever the relation between black and white holes is in practice, one thing is clear: the universe is neither collapsing nor expanding as contraction and expansion are not proper attributes of the universe. The attributes have been misapplied to the universe due to an obvious flaw of reasoning.I do not observe the sky falling down. Nothing disappears into nothing for the simple reason that nothing is nowhere to be found physically, so for me it is only natural to presume that there is a certain mechanism of mass and energy distribution in the universe with the never reached sum of both remaining constant.
The only task is to figure out that mechanism in the physical detail and Mayer's is best effort towards such a solution that I have seen to date.

That is a rather strange claim on your part as the two metrics even to my untrained and unenlightened view appear to be as different as chalk and cheese.
If you notice, in Mayer's metric the radius of the observable cosmos is constant value. It may not change a single Planck length for the whole eternity. It describes a special and distinct from FLWR relationship between theta of cosmological latitude and z of redshft. The former is not even hinted at in FLWR. The very notion is absent there so the above quote cannot possibly be its description in any way, shape or form.

He does not strike me as someone who is only dimly aware what is the meaning of the metrics as you are trying to make him out to be. On the contrary, he appears to know his onions inside out.If he may or may not need a fortuitous chance to make sense very much remains to be seen. As it is, the graphs derived from his metrics seem to fit the sky surveys' data nicely whereas those derived from FLRW and Hubble constant appear to miss the target by a large margin which is all easily verifiable given the links to the databases and to the alternative metrics provided in the PDF.
The equations were derived years before the data became available. The same metrics were present already in 2005 lecture while the data came out a few years later.
I am a good detective and now I am investigating the issue. When his claims are pitted against yours, there are two distinct possibilities. Either the man is a poorly educated moron like you assert is the case, or he is as smart as he alleges to be though admitting that may threaten to take food off your table.
Nobody should wish to go hungry, thus your reaction might be a perfectly natural phenomenon.Well, the restriction Mayer seems to be placing on the second line in the maths in your post above is the invariance of the velocity of light. In light of understanding that 'velocity' to be not just any common-or-garden speed but a true existential constant expressing the strict ratio of space to time, or if you like, the ratio of energy to space, all the velocities to speak of may be limited to the peculiar velocities of the galaxies proper.

That might be my fault and I should have chewed it all out with greater vigour in my initial posts.I presumed though that I'd made it clear enough that in Mayer's theory no peculiar motion of space proper was assumed at all so the causes for the same light frequencies constituting red-shift and interpreted by the canonical hypothesis to indicate the galaxies' recession as a function of the space motion per unit of the passing universal time, in the new theory were assumed to be distinctly different just as well.

Yes, indeed, all I am attracted by is the logical beauty and that is why the pragmatic implications of it would not be the first thing I am likely to stress. Whether his theory will give the mankind the nuclear fusion and greater GPS satellites precision are the last things to bother me.
All I care about is writing a line to please myself. That model gives me inspiration so as far as I am concerned is good and useful already:
Infinite space spins its infinite sphere
Surface of time is its final frontier.
As to his graphs and predictions, you can check them all if you want. He himself does not claim to be perfectly certain but is saying that all has to be tested experimentally.
Otherwise, science is only human. Scientists..well, I've met some, they are human too and no bunch of saints at all. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : GrammarEdited by Admin, : Remove Alfred's text from where he entered it in the middle of Percy's text. Place it at the end of the post.

I wanted to edit the last post for grammar and formatting but it would not let me for some reason.