### Exploding Supernova Evidence

Here again is the Type Ia supernova data. Low redshifts increase linearly with apparent magnitude, which is how Edwin Hubble concluded that the Universe expands. Theory predicts that ci/co = sqrt(1 + Z), so when light of redshift Z was emitted, c was faster by sqrt(1 + Z). This leads to a precise solution of the "accelerating universe" problem.

An object of redshift Z = 1.0 recedes at 60% of today's speed of light. That is only 42% of c at time that light was emitted. The redshift we measure is z = 0.57. For an object of absolute redshift Z = 0.5, apparent z = 0.38 (horizontal arrows). Energy conversion E=mc^2 is also affected by c change. For an object of absolute Z = 0, that energy is doubled for a magnitude change of -0.75 (vertical arrow).

For low redshifts, sqrt(1 + Z) is negligible and the line is straight. Only at high redshifts does the line curve upward, making the universe appear to accelerate. The black prediction line is difficult to see because it is covered in data points. In the lower right it is blown up bigger. Within the error bars, the prediction still intercepts 95% of data points. This has been accomplished without dark energies, cosmic constants, or other epicycles. When a prediction fits the data this closely, what does it mean?

The sqrt(1 + Z) factor explains the "jerk parameter," why redshifts increase linearly at low Z and then curve upward. Corroborating data comes from the geological record compared to the "Faint Young Sun." If c had not changed in exactly the amounts predicted, Earth would have been frozen solid and we would not be around. People believed the accelerating universe because it came from two "independent" groups both on the Berkeley campus and in constant communication. Now there are two lines of evidence from truly different sources pointing to c change in physics.

## 14 Comments:

Interesting as always, Louise. Regarding Mahndisa - it would be helpful if you could do a post on cosmic rays.

HI Kea. Good idea, working on that. I regret if anything I said was interpreted the wrong way. I haven't the time to answer every question thrown, but try to reply as many as possible. I appreciate when you (or Nigel) have answered.

Hi Louise,

I understand and appreciate your equation, but I don't understand this posts' text or the graphs.

The labelling is unclear, and I don't see what the arguments are.

Since I'm a simple person, there will be others probably who have difficulty with this as well!

Here are some questions:

* Are you saying that light coming towards us from distant (receding) galaxies is slowed down?

* The graphs are unclear since you are plotting as functions of some abstract variables like redshift factor or whatever versus astronomical magnitude.

I'd like to see a plot of velocity against distance or velocity against observable time past.

I'm going to try re-reading the whole post and will comment again.

Best,

Nigel

Here again is the Type Ia supernova data. Low redshifts increase linearly with apparent magnitude, which is how Edwin Hubble concluded that the Universe expands. Theory predicts that ci/co = sqrt(1 + Z), so when light of redshift Z was emitted, c was faster by sqrt(1 + Z). This leads to a precise solution of the "accelerating universe" problem.

An object of redshift Z = 1.0 recedes at 60% of today's speed of light. That is only 42% of c at time that light was emitted. The redshift we measure is z = 0.57. For an object of absolute redshift Z = 0.5, apparent z = 0.38 (horizontal arrows). Energy conversion E=mc^2 is also affected by c change. For an object of absolute Z = 0, that energy is doubled for a magnitude change of -0.75 (vertical arrow).

For low redshifts, sqrt(1 + Z) is negligible and the line is straight. Only at high redshifts does the line curve upward, making the universe appear to accelerate. The black prediction line is difficult to see because it is covered in data points. In the lower right it is blown up bigger. Within the error bars, the prediction still intercepts 95% of data points. This has been accomplished without dark energies, cosmic constants, or other epicycles. When a prediction fits the data this closely, what does it mean?

The sqrt(1 + Z) factor explains the "jerk parameter," why redshifts increase linearly at low Z and then curve upward. Corroborating data comes from the geological record compared to the "Faint Young Sun." If c had not changed in exactly the amounts predicted, Earth would have been frozen solid and we would not be around. People believed the accelerating universe because it came from two "independent" groups both on the Berkeley campus and in constant communication. Now there are two lines of evidence from truly different sources pointing to c change in physics.

You need to rewrite this before I can understand it.

Theory predicts that ci/co = sqrt(1 + Z), so when light of redshift Z was emitted, c was faster by sqrt(1 + Z).What I need to know is what physically you mean. What is the relationship of c to distance or time-past when the light was emitted?

What is sqrt(1 + Z) physically? How does it relate to distance or velocity or time past?

What kind of mechanism could be responsible physically?

I can accept that there is a possibility that the speed of light emitted in our direction from stars moving away from us at velocity v is c - v (assuming that special relativity works only for tested reception of light and not emission, since the Lorentz contraction explains relativity).

This mechanism would clearly not be the basis for what you are proposing, because you seem to be implying that light speed was faster in the past, not that light coming from large distances (or times past) is slowed down when we receive it.

I don't grasp the graphs at all.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Louise,

If you want to use a graph to explain your theory, you'll have to plot what your theory gives and label the line, then plot the experimental data and label that, on the same graph.

I'm unable to see what you are comparing with what, since you seem to plot the experimental data on one graph (top) and your theory on another graph (bottom).

I'm also not clear whether the change in light speed you refer to is a change in the speed of redshifted light which we receive (due to recession of the light sources), or a real change in the speed of light between different epochs in the universe.

I can see now from sentences at the end of your post that you are explaining the data without involving dark energy. I strongly agree with your dismissal of dark energy! Whether your solution as it stands is completely compatible with the correct underlying mechanism is another question.

Thanks,

Nigel

Hi Louise,

OK, now I've got it. I think there may be some question over the way in which dark energy is dismissed.

My argument starts like that of Prof Philip Anderson: plot recession velocity versus distance (or time past if you prefer).

You get a straight line, including all the data like recent supernovae data for immense redshifts.

This implies, as Anderson stated, that what is called evidence for "dark energy" is merely a lack of evidence that gravitation is slowing down expansion speeds.

Friedmann's solution to GR is false because he assumes gravity slows down expansion over cosmic sized distances.

Actually, Yang-Mills quantum field theory (which is the quantum field theory of the Standard Model, the best tested theory ever) says that forces are caused by exchange radiation being passed between charges (eg, masses are gravitational charges for a quantum gravity).

Over small distance scales in electromagnetism experiments and weak/strong nuclear force experiments, there is NO COSMOLOGICAL RECESSION TO "REDSHIFT" (and/or slow down) THE GAUGE BOSONS SIGNIFICANTLY.

But in gravity over distances like half the size of the universe, there is appreciable redshift, which would weaken gravity very much!!!!!!!!!! Nobody takes account of this in the mainstream when they apply GR to cosmology.

I found this out indirectly via investigating a mechanism for gravitation back in 1996 and was able to predict Perlmutter's result from it! Here's part of a comment I made to Dr Christine Dantas' blog on his:

Ten years ago (well before Perlmutter’s discovery and dark energy), the argument arose that if gravity is caused by a Yang-Mills exchange radiation quantum force field, where gravitons were exchanged between masses, then cosmological expansion would degenerate the energy of the gravitons over vast distances.It is easy to calculate: whenever light is seriously redshifted, gravity effects over the same distance will be seriously reduced.

At that time, 1996, I was furthering my education with some Open University courses and as part of the cosmology course made some predictions from this quantum gravity concept.

The first prediction is that Friedmann’s solutions to GR are wrong, because they assume falsely that gravity doesn’t weaken over distances where redshifts are severe.

Whereas the Hubble law of recessionis empirically V = Hr, Friedmann’s solutions to general relativity predicts that V will not obey this law at very great distances. Friedmann/GR assume that there will be a modification due to gravity retarding the recession velocities V, due effectively to the gravitational attraction of the receding galaxy to the mass of the universe contained within the radius r.

Hence, the recession velocity predicted by Friedmann’s solution for a critical density universe (which continues to expand at an ever diminishing rate, instead of either coasting at constant - which Friedmann shows GR predicts for low density - or collapsing which would be the case for higher than critican density) can be stated in classical terms to make it clearer than using GR.

Recession velocity including gravity

V = (Hr) - (gt)

where g = MG/(r^2) and t = r/c, so:

V = (Hr) - [MGr/(cr^2)]

= (Hr) - [MG/(cr)]

M = mass of universe which is producing the gravitational retardation of the galaxies and supernovae, ie, the mass located within radius r (by Newton’s theorem, the gravity due to mass within a spherically symmetric volume can be treated as to all reside in the centre of that volume):

M = Rho.(4/3)Pi.r^3

Assuming as (was the case in 1996 models) that Friedmann Rho = critical density = Rho = 3(H^2)/(8.Pi.G), we get:

M = Rho.(4/3)Pi.r^3

= [3(H^2)/(8.Pi.G)].(4/3)Pi.r^3

= (H^2)(r^3)/(2G)

So, the Friedmann recession velocity corrected for gravitational retardation,

V = (Hr) - [MG/(cr)]

= (Hr) - [(H^2)(r^3)G/(2Gcr)]

= (Hr) - [0.5(Hr)^2]/c.

Now, what my point is is this. The term [0.5(Hr)^2]/c in this equation is the amount of gravitational deceleration to the recession velocity.

From Yang-Mills quantum gravity arguments, with gravity strength depending on the energy of exchanged gravitons, the redshift of gravitons must stop gravitational retardation being effective. So we must drop the effect of the term [0.5(Hr)^2]/c.

Hence, we predict that the Hubble law will be the correct formula.

Perlmutter’s results of software-automated supernovae redshift discoveries using CCD telescopes were obtained in about 1998, and fitted this prediction made in 1996. However, every mainstream journal had rejected my 8-page paper, although Electronics World (which I had written for before) made it available via the October 1996 issue.

Once this quantum gravity prediction was confirmed by Perlmutter’s results, instead of abandoning Friedmann’s solutions to GR and pursuing quantum gravity, the mainstream instead injected a small positive lambda (cosmological constant, driven by unobserved dark energy) into the Friedmann solution as an ad hoc modification.

I can’t understand why something which to me is perfectly sensible and is a prediction which was later confirmed experimentally, is simply ignored. Maybe it is just too simple, and people hate simplicity, preferring exotic dark energy, etc.

People are just locked into believing Friedmann’s solutions to GR are correct because they come from GR which is well validated in other ways. They simply don’t understand that the redshift of gravitons over cosmological sized distances would weaken gravity, and that GR simply doesn’t contains these quantum gravity dynamics, so fails. It is “groupthink”.

Best,

Nigel

Louise,

Here's a comment regards your equation I just made over at Mahndisa's blog:

(1) Einstein's equivalence principle of general relativity:

gravitational mass = inertial mass.(2) Einstein's inertial mass is equivalent to inertial mass potential energy:

E = mc^2(This equivalent energy is "potential energy" in that it can be released when you annihilate the mass using anti-matter.)

(3) Gravitational mass has a potential energy which could be released if somehow the universe could collapse (implode):

Gravitational potential energy of mass m, in the universe consisting (the universe consists of mass M at an effective average radius of R):

E = mMG/R(4) We now use principle (1) above to set equations in arguments (2) and (3) above, equal:

E = mc^2 = mMG/R(5) We use

R = cton this, and this gives us Louise's equation:c^3 = MG/tor

MG = tc^3This is hard physics. Tell me what is wrong, please.

Best wishes,

nigel

HI Nigel: Thanks for replying to questions. No one should take that as a slight, for I am very busy and don't have time to respond to every question right away. It is nice that we think differently on some things, and there could be a dimensionless factor like e^3 in there. I will try to answer your questions ASAP.

I think that the graphs have been labelled properly. The thick black line is the prediction. Horizontal axes of the redshift graph have been labelled with redshift and comparative size of the Universe.

It is very possible to interpret this as change in G, which is a fascinating subject you are welcome to explore. No doubt you have more questions which I will answer as time permits. Again I appreciate your contrubutions.

Will try to answer some questions here:

c ~ t^{-1/3} and scale R ~ t^{2/3}.

Redshift Z is defined Ro/Ri = 1 + Z, therefore:

(to/ti)^{2/3} = 1 + Z and (ci/co) = sqrt(1 + Z).

Whew! Much easier to express c change in terms of redshift, which is how supernova data is measured. I recommend everyone read good books on cosmology. This stuff is difficult to figure out, which makes it easy to just follow the standard interpretation.

Hi Louise,

Thanks!

"c ~ t^{-1/3} and scale R ~ t^{2/3}.

Redshift Z is defined Ro/Ri = 1 + Z, therefore:

(to/ti)^{2/3} = 1 + Z and (ci/co) = sqrt(1 + Z)"

I wish you'd have a list of definitions for symbols and their subscripts somewhere!

So c falls inversely as the cube root of the age of the universe?

Your statement that the universe's radius R increases as the two-thirds power of time is in agreement with Friedmann's solution to GR for a critical density. I've elsewhere said what I think of Friedmann's solution (it's rubbish because it assumes GR is the final theory fo gravity; the error specifically is that the dynamics of gravity over massive distances in an expanding universe are ignored, and the redshift of "gravitons"/whatever exchanged between masses receding significantly from one another will limit the range of gravity, preventing the universe from slowing down as Friedmann says).

You say "Redshift Z is defined Ro/Ri = 1 + Z", and suggest reading a textbook. Well I did cosmology ten years ago.

I've just looked up the formula and it is:

{wavelength observed}/{wavelength emitted} = 1 + Z

That's what been confusing me. You shouldn't use letter R for radius in a definition of redshift. I see Wikipedia has a definition of redshift like your "definition" and labelled Friedmann redshift.

This is the Friedmann worship s*** which will wreck physics.

The cosmological redshift can be interpreted, as you know, as a stretching of light due to the expansion of the universe.

(Actually the light may well be fully redshifted from our frame of reference the very instant it leaves the receding atom, so this interpretation physically may not be up to much, but it is OK as a mathematical relationship.)

In that case, then your formula is OK so far as it goes, although it should be clearly written:

{wavelength observed}/{wavelength emitted}

= {radius of universe now}/{radius of universe when light was emitted}

= 1 + Z

That's relatively clear physics which I understand. I need to be clear exactly where the experimental data links to theory.

Louise, the reason why there is so much s*** in cosmology is because the mainstream is too lazy to plot the facts, leading to distortions and epicycles. Instead of getting to what the true variables are, it uses shortcuts which obfuscate physics.

Notice in the above formula,

{wavelength observed}/{wavelength emitted}

= {radius of universe now}/{radius of universe when light was emitted}

= 1 + Z

we have nothing to do with real distance of the galaxy cluster or supernova which is emitting light with redshift Z.

We only have the radius of the universe then and now, neither of which is anything to do with Z.

Sorry, but this is totally obfuscating. The first thing to do is to get from the experimental data to the facts.

The special relativity Doppler formula 1 + Z = sqrt{(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)}.

This is nearer what we need, not that Friedmann solution stuff!

The Hubble law is v = Hr

Where H is now known pretty well to be 70 km/s/Megaparsec.

From this it should be possible to plot recession data versus distance from us, or preferable time-past. (Distance is ambiguous and often misleading to people who don't think naturally in terms of spacetime, since the data relate to emission of light at both increasing distance and decreasing time after big bang.)

One very slight concern of mine is whether the special relativistic Doppler formula is perfectly accurate, since I recall an issue with it being raised in Electronics World around 1989 (but I'll accept it for the moment until it can be shown to be wrong and a replacement found).

I'll investigate this further.

Best wishes,

nige

HI Nigel: I believe that Ro/Ri = 1 + Z also applies to scale factors as well as wavelengths.. I will look into that too. It is very enjoyable reading your well-thought replies.

Louise,

I missed this post, but I have added it in a comment at the SciGuy blog, I think a number of people there will be very interested.

Thanks Ttyler. This business has caused controversy and some very strong feelings. I appreciate your contribution too.

Post a Comment

## Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home