Wednesday, December 03, 2008

The Hubble Expansion Paradigm

The Hubble Expansion Paradigm

There is a lot of noise about the expansion of the Universe. The craziest idea is, of course, the Inflation Theory (Guth) from MIT.

I mentioned many times that that is one of my two pet peeves. The theory has concepts like the creation of space as the Universe expands...:) in addition to suspending all laws of physics during the Big Bang...

The second pet peeve is the much talked about Double Slit Experiment...:) In my theory, dilator surf a 4D dilaton field. The dilaton field travels through the two slits and interferes with itself afterwards. Since the electron will surf the 4D pattern, it will also surf the 3D projection (de Broglie wave interferometer)producing the interferometric deposition. This interferometric deposition is used to support the ondulatory nature of matter. It is clearly an unwarranted conclusion since there is my paradigm which also produces the exactly same results..>:) Only without the Magic

Of course, if expansion is causing the Hubble red-shift in the light coming from distant stars and if that is a property of space then one would expect that as you travel far from home (Earth), the Hubble red-shift would be present in addition to other sources of red-shift (e.g. relativistic time compression).

This is one of the components the scientists from JPL expected to find when they modeled the Pioneer Anomaly microwave signal.

In my theory, the 3D Universe is an expanding hypersphere (light-speed expanding hyperspherical shock-wave Universe) embedded in an already existing 4D spatial manifold (no space creation necessary...;). This naturally yields the Hubble expansion without the need for space creation and without assigning to space the Hubble red-shifting property.

Let me explain better.

It is not because you are at 40 Astronomical Units away (A.U.) that you would expect to sense an extra kick (acceleration due to Hubble expansion.

In fact, I derived the expected apparent deceleration due to the curvature of the 3D space embedded within the 4D spatial manifold.

An hypersphere is obviously the only topology that would yield a constant apparent deceleration.

This is because matter travels within the hypersphere and light travels freely (along the segment linking two points of an arch)...:)

In my derivation of the solution to the Pioneer Anomaly, I did not pay attention to the coherent method for measuring the distance. Call me lazy, but I considered that they knew how to measure distance.

I am interacting with a very kind and generous scientist from JPL. He was kind enough to present me his qualms about a Hubble-like theory like mine in being able to explain the data. He is generous because it take away time just to respond to an email from someone you don't know.

I would love to use his name to lend credibility to my little blog/theory, but since up to now, he is just reading my emails and not the theory, I will await until he evaluates the basic tenets of the theory and find no objections to it or present an objection to it...:)

As I mentioned, I didn't think about the microwave link between Station Control and the Pioneer spacecrafts. It took me by surprise that he would mention Hubble in the context of a coherent measurement.

The microwave link with the Pioneer spacecraft is coherent in the sense that the returning frequency has a ratio relationship with the incoming frequency. Pioneer has a frequency phase-looped oscillator or frequency divider (ratio= 240/221).

This means that the returning frequency is a slave to the incoming frequency. The resonance matching is done by tweaking the Earth oscillator such as to match the Pioneer slaved oscillator (freq. divider). The local (at the Pioneer spacecraft) resonance is calculated using standard Lorentzian relationships. The returning frequency passes through another Lorentzian transformation. The frequencies relationship depends upon both the distance and velocity between Earth and the Pioneer spacecraft through a Lorentz transformation.

To consider that Hubble equation should be used in this situation is a complete misunderstanding of Nature..:) My theory is consistent with the paradigm that the mass surrounding any region of space has an average receding velocity equal to the one given by the Hubble equation (if modified accordingly to my derivation). This is just a reflection of the 4D Big Bang paradigm and equilibrium considerations. Of course, this doesn't apply to master-slave oscillators or objects out of equilibrium (e.g. a spacecraft).

This means that being far away doesn't entitle you to an extra kick due to the expansion. There is no space expansion. There is a shockwave expansion.

In fact, the velocity is shown to be the result of a relaxation process of the local deformation of the Fabric of Space. See the Silver Surfer and ask me questions if you don't understand.

In the Silver Surfer, which is exactly the Pioneer Anomaly problem, I explained that constant velocity is a constant velocity and it is driven by the relaxation of the local Fabric of Space.

In the Pioneer Anomaly, I also explained that despite of the Pioneer spacecraft being traveling at constant speed, its apparent speed would diminishes as a function of time due to the curvature of 3D Space.

In summary, there is no reason for using Hubble expansion considerations to ascertain the added velocity due to the "Universe Expansion" on the motion of our Pioneer spacecraft.

This is a gross misunderstanding of what is happening.  I am sure, Guth would expect some drag as space comes out of those tiny, tiny little space particles..>:) as space gives birth to more space..>:) right before our eyes...

I will continue reaching out and teaching my theory to whomever wants to learn..:)

Please feel free to ask questions or present criticism...:)


Post a Comment