Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs

Okay I've your entire article "The Theory of Everything
Foundations, Applications and Corrections to General Relativity".Up until p.19, there is nothing to disagree with really, in the sense that if somebody said "The moon goes around the Earth" I wouldn't disagree. Until p.19 you just restate standard knowledge.On p.19 however, there appears things that don't make sense. The electromagnetic contributions are quantum mechanical, not classical, since you are talking about QED (Quantum Eelectrodynamics). This sentence alone is a labyrinth of bizarre statements. First of all, QED involves quantum fields (it's in the name).Secondly, what are spinning light-like manifolds?Manifold - any abstract shape of any dimension which is smooth enough to do calculus on.Light-like - a type of distance between two points that occurs in certain types of manifolds.Spinning - conventional everyday meaning, I assume.The only sense I can give to this, is that you are talking about a manifold which is made out of points that are all light-like distances from each other in a bigger (unmentioned) manifold. This manifold is then spinning in the bigger one (?).QED then, is the theory of classical fields interacting with this spinning manifold?Well, all I can say is that this has no resemblance to the QED I learned as a graduate student.QED is about two quantum fields. The Dirac field (which electrons are little excitations of) and the Electromagnetic field (which photons are little excitations of). These two fields then interact, which we would percieve in most cases as the interactions of electrons and photons.
The two fields do live on a manifold (spacetime/the universe).Anyway, I think I'll stop here. P.19 has some other strange stuff and P.20 has even more, I think we'll deal with these first.Edited by Son Goku, : Typos

quote:

---

The electromagnetic contributions are quantum mechanical, not classical, since you are talking about QED (Quantum Electrodynamics).

---

Quantum mechanics is derived from classical field theory, unless you are talking about second quantization. The Lagrangian density (equation 89) for example contains the Dirac equation for the first part and the electromagnetic tensor F(uv) for the second part. The only non-classical aspects of QED are spin and probability.

quote:

---

Secondly, what are spinning light-like manifolds?

---

The spinning manifold is attached to the electric field of an electron and determines how the field deforms through relative motion or gravitational interaction. What the Dirac equation does is track two points, one at the classical position and one displaced along a spinning field (the electric field). By determining the motion of a single point displaced from the classical position, the entire field's dynamics are solved for. This is what I refer to as quantization, as the process reduces the time-dependence of a localized field to that of a single point in space-time.

quote:

---

QED then, is the theory of classical fields interacting with this spinning manifold?

---

QED depicts the interaction of a spinning, light-like manifold (the electric field of an electron) and photon. Zitterbewegung for example is a misinterpretation of the spinor component, because a massive particle cannot travel at the speed of light. It is instead the surrounding field that moves at the speed of light, while the classical position remains v < c. It is also the classical position that corresponds to energy conservation via classical potential and momentum.

quote:

---

Anyway, I think I'll stop here. P.19 has some other strange stuff and P.20 has even more, I think we'll deal with these first.

---

The cosmological aspects are almost entirely separate from the QED/QFT and only require equations derived prior to page 19. The most important parts are discussed on pages 38 - 40, 45 - 47 and 48 - 52.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

So is all this silence the sound of you guys checking your sums? I hope so because I need someone to understand this for me.I am surprised that Alphabob's claim that there is a centre to the non-expanding universe has met such a meagre resistance from this group. Or has he been dismissed?

I have not dismissed his claims. But the paper in which the claims are written is mostly beyond my own capabilities to critique. Accordingly most of the discussion here has been about AlphaBob's methods and manner for promoting himself. He sounds like a crank.I've asked questions about how differently the universe would appear under his proposals and how his proposals explain what we observe, and in my opinion, the answers are unsatisfying.At this point, I think it is best to see what Cavediver or Son Goku make of the paper.

Son Goku popped in, read the paper, posted a response that drew a reply from AlphaBob, then disappeared. Anyone know his email address?--Percy

No it is not. Quantum Mechanics is, at best, derived from classical mechanics, not classical field theory. Though in truth it is just an independent theory. That would be like saying that the only non-Newtonian part of General Relativity is that space-time is curved. The introduction of probability makes an enormous difference to the entire theory.QED is not a classical field theory. Sorry, but this is completely wrong. The Dirac equation describes how a field (the field that the electron is a lump of) evolves over time and space. It has nothing to do with what you said. That's not what quantisation is. Quantisation is a procedure for converting a classical theory into its quantum version.

Sorry for the delay, I have time now, I hope AlphaBob is still around!

Is this a different idea from what Mr Pike is hypothesizing?

quote:

---

Now that conventional thinking has been turned on its head in a paper by professor Christof Wetterich at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. He points out that the tell-tale light emitted by atoms is also governed by the masses of their constituent particles, notably their electrons. The way these absorb and emit light would shift towards the blue part of the spectrum if atoms were to grow in mass, and to the red if they lost it.

---

Universe may not be expanding after all, new research suggests

quote:

---

No it is not. Quantum Mechanics is, at best, derived from classical mechanics, not classical field theory. Though in truth it is just an independent theory.

---

But the classical electromagnetic tensor is directly included in the Lagrangian, so I don't see how it's not derived from it. If you start with basic quantum mechanics, the entire theory is based upon the position and momentum of an electron in a classical potential. QED reduces the degrees of freedom via minimal coupling but Lorentz invariance and classical field theory are still included.

quote:

---

That would be like saying that the only non-Newtonian part of General Relativity is that space-time is curved. The introduction of probability makes an enormous difference to the entire theory.

---

Einstein’s field equations add a bit more than the space-time metric; but if you look at the mechanics of QED, the only additions with respect to classical Lagrangian dynamics are spin and probability. Probability is the product of the ensemble interpretation of QM and requires nothing beyond classical position and momentum.

quote:

---

Sorry, but this is completely wrong. The Dirac equation describes how a field (the field that the electron is a lump of) evolves over time and space. It has nothing to do with what you said.

---

The Dirac field is only real in the sense of momentum and position. How it determines these attributes from the underlying system is a different aspect. Using space-time algebra, the spinor component of the Dirac equation can be directly interpreted as a point spinning around the classical position of an electron. This is well known as Zitterbewegung, except it is not the classical position that is spinning.
So what I’m saying is that there are non-local hidden variables, which is completely valid with modern theory. These hidden variables determine the position and momentum of a particle, which is depicted by the Dirac field.

quote:

---

That's not what quantisation is. Quantisation is a procedure for converting a classical theory into its quantum version.

---

There are many types of quantization, but I refer to the common definition. Quantization is the procedure of constraining something from a continuous set of values to a relatively small discrete set. So if a particle is a localized field that exists over all points in space, quantization is reducing this continuous set of positions to the classical location. QFT I believe refers to particles as field condensates, but it is in general the same concept.

quote:

---

Is this a different idea from what Mr Pike is hypothesizing?

​

quote:Now that conventional thinking has been turned on its head in a paper by professor Christof Wetterich at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. He points out that the tell-tale light emitted by atoms is also governed by the masses of their constituent particles, notably their electrons. The way these absorb and emit light would shift towards the blue part of the spectrum if atoms were to grow in mass, and to the red if they lost it.

​

Universe may not be expanding after all, new research suggests

---

I was actually going to post that story to see if NoNukes believes that Wetterich is a crank for proposing a theory that so clearly violates fundamental laws of physics. But yes, the two theories are completely different.

No, I don't believe that simply proposing an explanation makes one a crank. If you'd like me to point out some distinctions between Wetterich's presentation and your presentation here, I'd be happy to do so.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, I don't believe that simply proposing an explanation makes one a crank. If you'd like me to point out some distinctions between Wetterich's presentation and your presentation here, I'd be happy to do so.

---

Well for one he didn't go through being censored by arxiv. Here's some more distinctions:" If the mass of everything including the official kilogramme has been growing proportionally over time, there could be no way to find out."
1. His theory violates fundamental laws of physics
2. His theory cannot be tested
3. His theory makes no predictions"Although the paper has yet to be peer-reviewed"
4. It lacks peer-reviewNow my paper is based upon classical (experimentally verified) physics, can be tested and makes several predictions in agreement with direct observations. It has been peer-reviewed but not published. I will also be finishing a shorter paper by next week, which I will be publishing. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.

I don't think you understand what the word censored means. You might want to try a different word. I don't think that means what you think it means.

Okay, bro...Perhaps the science/math in the paper is not valid. Perhaps that is also true about your paper. I have not even seen either his paper or any direct statements from Wetterich about the content.As I have repeatedly stated in my past comments, it is primarily your behavior here and your own description about your behavior elsewhere that appears highly crank like. I haven't seen or heard of any of Wetterich's behavior.So far I haven't seen any indication that Wetterich expects an honorary doctorate from his work or that he believes such an honor would be a viable alternative to an academic degree. I haven't seen any complaints from Wetterich based on not being allowed to host his paper on someone else's server for free. I also see actual positive comments about the content of the paper from a named scientist or two and not empty bragging about 'endorsements' that have nothing to do with the content of the paper. And I haven't seen Wetterich whining about censorship despite his paper being unpublished.Now perhaps those things will turn up. But we cannot see any of them in the article that was posted. And given that the article is from a newspaper I'm not going to assume that the article is even an accurate description of the paper.

quote:

---

Wetterich takes the detached, even playful, view that his work marks a change in perspective...

---

In short, I have no indication yet that Wetterich is a whiny brat with illusions about his place in science, and plenty of reasons to suspect that you are such. Perhaps. It may well be that Wetterich recognizes that. I don't know if those statements are true, and I am certainly not going to take your word for them. As is the case for the majority of the papers on arxiv.

quote:

---

I don't think you understand what the word censored means. You might want to try a different word.

---

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body."Arxiv is the controlling body of preprints, as posting on vixra seemingly makes you a "crank". I received endorsement to upload, where the endorser is suppose to skim through the paper and ensure it meets the requirements of arxiv (so it is actually being endorsed). Arxiv moderation suppressed my research as they determined it to be inconvenient with respect to their interests.

quote:

---

I don't think that means what you think it means.

---

"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field."My paper was under peer review from January 2013 to April 2013...It is kind of funny because one of the major characteristics of pseudoscience is the lack of falsifiability and presence of untestable claims. So arxiv clearly lets pseudoscience that fits their interest while censoring legit discoveries. What's more important is the lack of ability for many to differentiate between actual science and pseudoscience, including the media.Anyways I'm done discussing this crank stuff. If it isn't clear at this point to some, then it probably never will be. My second paper will be finished soon and I'll let that do the talking.Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.