The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer

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.

I'm sorry, but Mayer doesn't even begin to understand the nature of metrics, as is blatently obvious from his website and the quote you have provided. Therefore, any conclusion he makes is doomed to be nonsense save for fortuitous chance. That he thinks that his quoted obseravtion suggest something different to FLRW simply speaks to his complete cluelessness of space-time physics.

quote:

---

"...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."

---

It is precisely this projection of the time-component of a distance galaxy's 4-velocity onto the local radial space dimension that gives rise to observed red-shift *and* recession. They are one and the same unified concept: time does indeed become space; passage through time becomes passage through space; passage through space is velocity.And if you are willing to discuss metrics, then how can you possibly question so unbelievingly the possibility of the expansion of space? The most obvious thing in the world is the jump from Minkwoski's:ds² = - dt² + dx² + dy² +dz²to the curved space-time physics of:ds² = - A(t,x,y,z)dt² + B(t,x,y,z)dx² + C(t,x,y,z)dy² +D(t,x,y,z)dz²Einstein's journey of discovery was simply to find what restrictions are placed upon the functions A(), B(), C(), and D().

The question here is whether the quoted material reflects the distinctions between FLWR and Mayer's theory. I have my own doubts about that, and you've already made this type of error at least once.As per present theory, we expect red shift of distant objects due to expansion of space irrespective of the proper relative motion between us and the distant objects in space. That seems consistent with what is said in the quoted paragraph.

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.

You're telling us that currently accepted scientific theory is inconsistent with observations, and that science is not taking any particular notice, and even further that science is ignoring someone whose ideas actually do match observations? Really?I'm also curious why you didn't mention this when I asked if Mayer's ideas make any predictions that would differentiate it from currently accepted theory. You replied at the time that your preference for Mayer was philosophical rather than based upon evidence.--Percy

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.

So this could only mean that you misspoke when you said that current theory was inconsistent with observations, and that you further misspoke when you claimed that Mayer's theory better matches observations. And now you're saying the exact opposite, that Mayer's ideas have yet to be tested against observations. What would those tests be?I suggest you stop suggesting that I go check out Mayer for myself. I'm discussing with you, not Mayer. You're here to make the best case for Mayer you can. The rest of us are, if they're like me, waiting to see if you will say anything about Mayer that doesn't sound like empty hype. You should be writing advertising copy for crystal water Internet sites.--Percy

What happened when you tried to edit?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I understand that. I'm trying to get you to quote Mayer saying so. Perhaps I should give up?

Nothing happened. I edited and clicked submit reply on the edited version but what actually posted was the original botched draft again.

I noticed the formatting issue and edited it myself. Possibly we were editing at the same time and clicked "submit" simultaneously. Please try again.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No, I have not misspoken anything at all. I was just being very polite and diplomatic, showing my best grace and mercy towards the utterly failed hypothesis. That was all. Insulting is not the best way to keep me within the confines of understatements, you know.
The Big Bang hypothesis simply cannot possibly match any observational data at all unless you can demonstrate to me logically how is it possible to gain any concrete physical volume from the pure unadulterated nothing the universe is bounded by necessarily and how is it possible to express that gain with an increase in a concrete physically measurable radius of the whole shebang.
Compared to the hype I am giving the man, the amount of hype the failed hypothesis is receiving daily is astronomical. The difference is staggering, if you pay attention.
Mayer shows conclusively that the standard model's predictions are not just incorrect but utterly wrong getting the size of the observable universe inflated by an order of few magnitudes. Based on the Hubble formula which historically is as constant as the weather all the distant galaxies luminosities are not what they are hyped up to be. That is all according to Mayer's graphs stemming straight from the first geometrical principles of light being a strict constant of nature with light, space and time representing three sides of a triangle the relation among which is not to be violated by any purported inflation, acceleration or expansion.
Right now I am also testing his prediction of the level of the vituperative denial the theory is bound to be met with. Those predictions match exactly my latest observations and all the data I collected over the past two months.As to the concrete tests devised and proposed by him, they are only indirectly related to the new cosmological model. First, they are to do with establishing whether his equations may explain GPS and other satellites anomalies, and secondly, if his re-interpretation of the famous Einstein's formula could be successfully used in generating energy from nuclear fusion and so on.
As I said those practical things are of the least interest to me personally. The only aspect of his Transverse Gravitational Redshift concept that is fascinating to me is his hypothesis that the Earth-Sun semi-major axis is subject to periodic variations spanning millions of years with the earth's orbit oscillations being responsible for the Snowball earth effect and the series of extinctions that are coming regularly at the interval of 65 million of years.

This is of course simple hyperbole if it is not completely false. For example, regardless of whether the current theory is the only explanation for the cosmic background radiation, it is certainly consistent that observation. Mayer merely proposes alternate explanations in Chapter 15.Further, I'm sure you aren't denying that GR has confirming experimental results. Or quantum mechanics? You may be overestimating your ability to present and defend Mayer's work.