Bring4th

I remember coming across a post on this forum that linked to a website formally explaining a newer theory about 'relative scale', which explains better some phenomenon like why galaxies have spiral arms.

The interesting parts of it included that it is actually testable and observable in scientific methods, so it can be proven or disproven in the next 50 years if we want to pursue this theory.

I can't seem to find this website. I've looked using Google and other search engines, and of course I've tried searching for the post on this forum. But this was a link given by a member of this forum to spark the interest of another member in new ground-breaking, and more grounded, scientific views about the universe.

I am asking because I am currently taking an Astronomy class in college to satisfy my last few credits, and it's sparking my interest again.

Thank you.

I found it

I've been looking for this on and off for weeks.

Here it is: http://estfound.org/

Very cool.

I have been wondering why I haven't heard about this theory or the physicist that proposed it in 1999.
Trying to look for it on google is difficult. This suggests that people did not give it much attention either because it has been disproven since it's proposal early on, or it has been snuffed out due to some political reason.

My friend suggested a reason why this theory isn't getting much public attention anymore. I will paraphrase his findings here:

The website estfound.org suggests a theory which uses the "Tired Light" theory for the cause of a "red shifting" when viewing distant objects in space.
Here is the excerpt from the site which confirms this:

Quote:According to this new theory the redshift is a "Tired Light" type redshift generated by the scale expansion. It is now a well-known fact that this redshift mechanism agrees better with observations than other models.

This site mentions the Expanding Spacetime Theory as proposed in 1999.

Since then, according to wikipedia and its plethora of sources:

Quote:Tired light mechanisms were among the proposed alternatives to the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies, both of which relied on the general relativistic expansion of the universe of the FRW metric. Through the middle of the twentieth century, most cosmologists supported one of these two paradigms, but there were a few scientists, especially those who were working on alternatives to general relativity, who worked with the tired light alternative.[8] As the discipline of observational cosmology developed in the late twentieth century and the associated data became more numerous and accurate, the Big Bang emerged as the cosmological theory most supported by the observational evidence, and it remains the accepted consensus model with a current parametrization that precisely specifies the state and evolution of the universe. Although the proposals of "tired light cosmologies" are now more-or-less relegated to the dustbin of history, as a completely alternative proposal tired-light cosmologies were considered a remote possibility worthy of some consideration in cosmology texts well into the 1980s, though it was dismissed as an unlikely and ad hoc proposal by mainstream astrophysicists.[9]
The Tolman surface brightness test rules out the tired light explanation for the cosmological redshift.

Further:

Quote:By the 1990s and on into the twenty-first century, a number of falsifying observations have shown that "tired light" hypotheses are not viable explanations for cosmological redshifts.[2] For example, in a static universe with tired light mechanisms, the surface brightness of stars and galaxies should be constant, that is, the farther an object is, the less light we receive, but its apparent area diminishes as well, so the light received divided by the apparent area should be constant. In an expanding universe, the surface brightness diminishes with distance. As the observed object recedes, photons are emitted at a reduced rate because each photon has to travel a distance that is a little longer than the previous one, while its energy is reduced a little because of increasing redshift at a larger distance. On the other hand, in an expanding universe, the object appears to be larger than it really is, because it was closer to us when the photons started their travel. This causes a difference in surface brilliance of objects between a static and an expanding Universe. This is known as the Tolman surface brightness test that in those studies favors the expanding universe hypothesis and rules out static tired light models.[10][11][12]

I have provided this information in case anyone is wondering why this theory hasn't gained much traction since it's proposal in 1999.

It seems to be the former of the two possibilities as to why this theory hasn't gained much traction. A big premise and credential theoretical proof as to why it is relevant was given as the "Tired Light" type redshifting, which has since been observably demonstrated to be false.
*Edit*: After contacting the author about the matter, which I talk about in the next comment, this has been addressed and shown to not be the case.

I have emailed the author and PHD physicist, Johan Masreliez, asking if he can enlighten me, myself being a humble novice at Physics, to better understand his body of work which seems to be overlooked.

He responded within 2 hours, lending me a link to download a book in which he describes the theory in layman's terms.

I have started reading the book, which is free with amazon's Kindle (for PC and otherwise), and it has been very informative and easy to read.
While red-shift is apparently a big focal point on the subject matter of the book, it seems to disagree with his theory only when applied using the CBM model. He is suggesting something radical: that scale is also expanding instead of just space. The PHD is suggesting that time is also expanding along with space, unlike what the current standard model suggests (that only space is expanding).

This new idea shakes the foundation of cosmology, and is unpalatable to most scientists, he explains. Despite his troubles he presses on to try and make this idea more accessible and in the hands of the every day person. While he has fought tooth and nail to shed mathematical insight via proofs and Physics papers, he has instead started to turn his attention to making it accessible to people like myself who have no super technical backgrounds in the realm of Physics.

Anyway, the major premise of the findings is the universe may be everlasting, and producing energy according to this model. With scale changing by perspective of the observer, (in my understanding from what I read) this means that instead of 14 billion years being the age of the universe, it is more like the "viewable distance" we can peer at, like a sailor seeing the watery horizon that is never quite reachable. In all directions and from every vantage point, 14 billion years is seemingly as far back as time goes. Dr Masreliez is suggesting that the scale of time also changes, suggesting that as you go back, years didn't change in their frame of reference, but they got shorter in comparison to a year in the now. Like an infinite series, despite it seeming like a finite 14 billion years, in this way there are actually infinite divisions of years to the unreachable "beginning".

A truly fascinating read, I am so grateful to have his time and honest thoughts writing to me in a moment's notice via email.

In case when reading this you are curious, the book is very accessible, being free for Kindle users on amazon. The title is The Progression of Time: How the expansion of space and time forms our world and powers the universe, and by word of the author himself, can be accessed here: https://www.amazon.com/Progression-Time-...B00D52WWSS.


*edit*: I realize this may seem trite, but I am honestly hoping to find the solution to my uneasy feelings towards a "big bang" scenario. I have had reserved feelings for such in the past, and I didn't feel I was doing the author justice in dismissing it based on opinions of people who give it less time and credence than it really deserves. As with everything I set out to do, I try to do so humbly and without judgement. I feel that this has paid off in large part to my stance on such matters.

Einstein called it spacetime, because he said you can't separate space and time. When you travel through space, you are traveling through time too.
So I thought it would be a given that when space expands, so does time too.
I thought Einstein's model was the given.