"Jim Jastrzebski" wrote in message
...
"Robert Karl Stonjek"
Message-id:

A metric based on the principle of conservation of
energy (unlike 'big bang' metric) predicted "accelerating
expansion" and "anomalous" acceleration of space
probes in 1985 but it was too early and so all referees
said "must not be published" (now editors say: OK but
of too little interest to physicists so it doesn't need to
be published).

That IS fascinating. [...]

If you think so I may tell you briefly how it has been
done and what is the main difference wrt the "big
bang" cosmology.

The "big bang" cosmology assumes that g_ik tensor
of Einstein's Field Equations is a symmetric tensor
(and that it is "metric tensor" of the spacetime: it
is a tensor that produces "metric", the product
g_ik x^i x^k, normally called ds^2). It looks good at
the first sight and so it has been generally accepted
by majority (perhaps all) cosmologists.

On the second sight though it turns out that such a
metric (produced by symmetric g_ik) can't produce
Hubble's redshift in a stationery universe, since
symmetry of g_ik assures that light signals are time
reversible, i.e. if light has redshift one way it has
the same blueshift the other way along certain path.
The next conclusion is that if photon moved from A
to B and then back (from B to A) it would come back
to A with the same energy it left A (as in Newtonian
physics where photons are not visible gravitationally
and the gravitational field is conservative).

Yet in Einsteinian physics photons contribute to
"gravitational field" and so they are not invisible
gravitationally. It means they cause (tiny)
disturbance in the "gravitational field" and so going
from A to B they would come to B with less energy
than in purely Newtonian world, losing part of their
energy for creating gravitational disturbance (moving
masses around them and "pumping" energy into them if
they moved back and forth, making those masses
oscillate). And so coming back (from B to A) they
would came with even less energy.

This picture with "gravitational field" is a Newtonian
picture, adjusted for relativistic effects of photons
contributing to the "field". It suggests "tired light
effect", but since in Einsteinian gravity (real world)
there are no forces acting on photons the photons
can't get tired so the mechanism of "loss of energy"
or rather relativistic counterpart of this Newtonian
effect has to be relativistic (not some "force") and
therefore it should be built into the metric of the
spacetime.

There are (at least) two possible solutions:
(1) ignore the effect and leave the g_ik tensor
symmetric, which might be justifiable if the effect is
negligible, and this is way adopted by "big bang"
cosmology, unfortunately without any estimation of the
magnitude of the effect, and so by an assumption of
(slight) violation of conservation of energy (and that
is why "big bang" cosmologists maintain that "energy is
not conserved in general relativity", and (2) by
treating everything rigorously by assuming non symmetric
g_ik tensor, which allows for "loss" of photon's energy
(in Newtonian approximation) around closed loops.

Calculation of this "lost" energy, that would correspond
to Hubble's redshift is very simple: just take a flat
sheet of photons (plane), move it in a universe of
certain mass density, and calculate "created" Newtonian
"potential energy" while this sheet of photons moves.
Then subtract this energy from energy of photons.
The result is that then in such universe we would see
Hubble's redshift with Hubble's constant H=c/R, where
c is speed of light and R is accidentally "Einstein's
radius of the universe". This is where the density of
the universe 6E-27 kg/m^3 comes from, since then Hubble's
constant comes out as 70 km/s/Mpc (about what is observed).

It also says that on any moving object acts a Newtonian
"drag", called in astronomy "dynamical friction", equal
c^2/R, which then would be around 7E-10 m/s^2, about
what Pioneers experience as "anomalous" acceleration.

Since the Hubble's redshift then has an exponential
dependency on distance, the apparent expansion that this
effect produces looks like accelerating with acceleration
((c/R)^2)/2, for our universe about 2.5E-36 s^-2
(unfortunately too early to tell with any certainty if
this is what is observed).

The metric that produces all the above things (since
GR has to explain gravitational phenomena with proper
metric) is (for one spatial coordinate r, and for c=1)
ds^2=exp(-2r/R)dt^2+2sinh(2r/R)dtdr-exp(2r/R)dr^2.

This brand of GR is kept secret since 1985 (not by me
obviously, but by editors of scientific journals who
apparently don't want to make waves). IMHO it is quite
good stuff and since it explains a lot of observed
things that so far don't have any other explanation
it might be worth publishing and at least worth of some
discussion. Not many people are interested though.
The editors tell me that their readers surely wouldn't be.
Everyone seems very happy with the expanding universe.
Which means the time didn't come yet for a change of
how we imagine the universe.

-- Jim

Robert Karl Stonjek

I'm not at all convinced that light can lose energy "in flight" as time
does not progress at the speed of light. In other words, if you ride
with a photon, then the moment of your propagation and absorption are
the same moment.

When light passes by a massive body it follows curved space. If
photonic mass was gravitationally attractive like any other mass, then
light from distant objects would clump as the distance between photons
narrows.

For gravitational redshift, the clock on a the surface of a massive body
runs slower so light emitted from that object has a lower frequency at
the point of emission relative to the point of absorption way out in
flat space. It is my understanding that light is not further redshifted
between the point of emission and absorption, making the process
symmetrically reversible.

Space expanding or contracting other than by the effect of gravity has
never been demonstrated - the assumption is that it must be expanding
because light is red shifted.

But the only evidence that light can become red shifted as it passes
over expanding space is exactly the same observation. In other words,
the argument is completely circular.

--
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.

"Robert Karl Stonjek" wrote

: It also says that on any moving object acts a Newtonian
: "drag", called in astronomy "dynamical friction", equal
: c^2/R, which then would be around 7E-10 m/s^2, about
: what Pioneers experience as "anomalous" acceleration.
:
: Since the Hubble's redshift then has an exponential
: dependency on distance, the apparent expansion that this
: effect produces looks like accelerating with acceleration
: ((c/R)^2)/2, for our universe about 2.5E-36 s^-2
: (unfortunately too early to tell with any certainty if
: this is what is observed).

Anything other than a linear Hubble law in a constant universe
is problematic, as can be revealed by conducting a simple
thought experiment. Imagine a starship positioned
between Earth and a distant star. Photons travelling
from the star can be intercepted at the starship, or can be
allowed to continue unimpeded to Earth. Suppose the starship
analyses some of the light coming from the star and produces
a beam of light containing photons that are identical in every
measurable respect to the ones that they observe.

Now what do we see at Earth. If the redshift is non-linear we
see that the light reaching us directly from the star will be redshifted
by a different amount to the beam generated on the spaceship.
This is a problem. The two beams were supposedly identical at the
spaceship, and subsequently travelled the same path to earth. How
can they be redshifted different amounts? We must conclude that the
two beams were not in fact identical at the spaceship which forces
us to accept that photons have some sort of `untamperable odometer'.
In other words the photons somehow `know' how far they have travelled.
You could try running with this idea a bit further, but to me this just
looks
like turning into a nasty mess.