We almost certainly live in a static universe.

[Michael]

News: Transfer of atomic mass with a photon solves the momentum paradox of light

Potential interstellar applications of the discovery
The researchers are working on potential optomechanical applications enabled by the optical shock wave of atoms predicted by the new theory. However, the theory applies not only to transparent liquids and solids but also to dilute interstellar gas. Using a simple kinematic consideration it can be shown that the energy loss caused by the mass transfer effect becomes for dilute interstellar gas proportional to the photon energy and distance travelled by light.

“This prompts for further simulations with realistic parameters for interstellar gas density, plasma properties and temperature. Presently the Hubble’s law is explained by Doppler shift being larger from distant stars. This effectively supports the hypothesis of expanding universe. In the mass polariton theory of light this hypothesis is not needed since redshift becomes automatically proportional to the distance from the star to the observer”, explains Professor Jukka Tulkki.

Edwin Hubble embraced two potential explanations for photon redshift in space. Energy loss of photon momentum to the plasma and gas mediums of spacetime are almost *certainly* taking place in a wide variety of forms.

There's absolutely, positively no need for metaphysical claims like 'space expansion', or "dark energy' to explain the ordinary loss of photon momentum to the gas and plasma mediums of spacetime.

It's really only a matter of time before empirical physics triumphs over metaphysical creationist nonsense. LCDM theory is a complete empirical disaster. A full ninety five percent of LCDM, including all it's placeholder terms for human ingorance, can be replaced with ordinary plasma and ordinary momentum loss to that plasma. The rest of the mainstream mathematical models of plasma behaviors are based upon pure "pseudoscience" according to Hannes Alfven, the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory. Alfven's double layer paper made the other 5 percent of mainstream mathematics obsolete and irrelevant many decades ago.

 

[Petros2015]

I'm not sure I understand (in fact I'm sure I don't understand). Does a static model then say the universe is not expanding (no Big Bang?) and it just sort of warped into existence? Kind of like how Einstein originally viewed it? Can you explain a little more about what a static universe is?

 

[lesliedellow]

For the universe to be static, all of the matter in the universe would have to be parked "just so" to make sure that the nett gravitational force on all those masses was zero.

The need for that kind of incredible (and unbelievable) fine tuning has led to more than one scientific theory being abandoned. Einstein's "biggest blunder" being amongst them.

 

[Petros2015]

Hmmm.

Static universe - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
"In order for a static infinite universe model to be viable, it must explain three things:

First, it must explain the intergalactic redshift. Second, it must explain the cosmic microwave background radiation. Third, it must have a mechanism to re-create matter (particularly hydrogen atoms) from radiation or other sources in order to avoid a gradual 'running down' of the universe due to the conversion of matter into energy in stellar processes.[2][3] With the absence of such a mechanism, the universe would consist of dead objects such as black holes and black dwarfs."

It sounds like they came up for an explanation of intergalactic redshift. Light, does in fact, get 'tired' according to the article.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Where is this "loss of momentum from plasma" idea coming from?

There is no plasma. Space is a vacuum.

 

[Michael]

I'm not sure I understand (in fact I'm sure I don't understand). Does a static model then say the universe is not expanding (no Big Bang?) and it just sort of warped into existence? Kind of like how Einstein originally viewed it? Can you explain a little more about what a static universe is?

Static universe theory was the "most popular" cosmology model prior to Hubble's revelation of a redshift/distance relationship between objects in space. It does assume that galaxies and clusters are essentially fixed in terms of their rotation patterns, and nothing needs to be expanding or contracting, just orbiting something.

Our solar system is a 'static' system. It doesn't collapse or expand, rather the momentum of objects moving around the sun tends to keep them in stable orbits over time. A static universe works essentially the same way. The movement of galaxies and clusters keeps them in orbit around each other, and the universe is neither expanding, nor contracting.

 

[Michael]

For the universe to be static, all of the matter in the universe would have to be parked "just so" to make sure that the nett gravitational force on all those masses was zero.

I see that you're still in denial of the role of kinetic energy. Why do you keep using terms like "parked" when nobody has suggested anything of the sort? The planets are not "parked" around the sun, they *rotate* around the sun, and their kinetic energy keeps them from falling into the sun. Galaxies and clusters are also moving, and that movement around a central center of mass keeps them in orbit around each other indefinitely.

The need for that kind of incredible (and unbelievable) fine tuning has led to more than one scientific theory being abandoned. Einstein's "biggest blunder" being amongst them.

Bah. You folks resurrected blunder theory when you introduced dark energy, so blunder theory was clearly never "abandoned".

 

[Michael]

Where is this "loss of momentum from plasma" idea coming from?

There is no plasma. Space is a vacuum.

No, space is not a pure "vacuum". It's filled with all kinds of plasma particles, dust particles, neutrinos, photons, etc. There's no such thing as a 'perfect vacuum' in space.

 

[Aseyesee]

Static universe theory was the "most popular" cosmology model prior to Hubble's revelation of a redshift/distance relationship between objects in space. It does assume that galaxies and clusters are essentially fixed in terms of their rotation patterns, and nothing needs to be expanding or contracting, just orbiting something.

Our solar system is a 'static' system. It doesn't collapse or expand, rather the momentum of objects moving around the sun tends to keep them in stable orbits over time. A static universe works essentially the same way. The movement of galaxies and clusters keeps them in orbit around each other, and the universe is neither expanding, nor contracting.

Would this include the distance between the moon and the earth?

 

[Michael]

Would this include the distance between the moon and the earth?

Objects tend to follow elliptical orbits so the distance can change a little bit over time, but the momentum of objects keeps them in orbit around something. Our moon orbits our planet. Our planet orbits our sun. Our sun orbits the center of our galaxy. Our galaxy orbits around the center of mass of our local galaxy cluster, etc. The movement of objects keeps things in steady orbits, even if they change slightly over time.

 

[Aseyesee]

Objects tend to follow elliptical orbits so the distance can change a little bit over time, but the momentum of objects keeps them in orbit around something. Our moon orbits our planet. Our planet orbits our sun. Our sun orbits the center of our galaxy. Our galaxy orbits around the center of mass of our local galaxy cluster, etc. The movement of objects keeps things in steady orbits, even if they change slightly over time.

Would this movement be considered a form of expansion? Like when stars gravational pull increases or diminishes relative to its fuel supply, would this effect the condition of the universe in the form of a expansion or contraction?

 

[Petros2015]

Does a Static Universe start with a Bang and then settle down into a static state? Or is it more a sort of 'things seem to have always been (or suddenly were) this way and always will be'?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

No, space is not a pure "vacuum". It's filled with all kinds of plasma particles, dust particles, neutrinos, photons, etc. There's no such thing as a 'perfect vacuum' in space.

I am aware that it is not a perfect vacuum.

However, can you show me the math that demonstrates that this "slows down photons" enough to produce a red shift?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where is this "loss of momentum from plasma" idea coming from?

There is no plasma. Space is a vacuum.

The article says it's due to interstellar gas atoms.

If this is to replace the expansion theory, it presumably needs to demonstrate that interstellar gas is homogenous and isotropic.

 

[Michael]

Would this movement be considered a form of expansion? Like when stars gravational pull increases or diminishes relative to its fuel supply, would this effect the condition of the universe in the form of a expansion or contraction?

It's not necessarily a form of contraction so much as it's simply an example of change/time. The movement of planet around our sun keeps the whole system relatively "stable over time". Planets don't fly away from the sun, nor do their orbits spiral into the sun. The objects tend to stay in motion, and that process basically applies to everything in a static universe.

 

[Michael]

The article says it's due to interstellar gas atoms.

If this is to replace the expansion theory, it presumably needs to demonstrate that interstellar gas is homogenous and isotropic.

It doesn't necessarily have to either be homogeneous everywhere, nor isotropic actually. It simply has to have an "average" density over distance.

There's plenty of it around our own galaxy and probably every galaxy:

Galaxy’s hydrogen halo hides missing mass

It's also prevalent in filaments throughout the universe.

Astronomers directly image a filament of the “cosmic web” for the first time

 

[lesliedellow]

I see that you're still in denial of the role of kinetic energy. Why do you keep using terms like "parked" when nobody has suggested anything of the sort? The planets are not "parked" around the sun, they *rotate* around the sun, and their kinetic energy keeps them from falling into the sun. Galaxies and clusters are also moving, and that movement around a central center of mass keeps them in orbit around each other indefinitely.

As I have pointed out previously, Kurt Godel solved Einstein's field equation for a rotating universe, and discovered that time travel would be possible in such a universe, with all the paradoxes that would entail. He spent the next several years pestering astronomers for evidence that the universe wasn't rotating.

 

[Michael]

I am aware that it is not a perfect vacuum.

However, can you show me the math that demonstrates that this "slows down photons" enough to produce a red shift?

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v3.pdf
ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST - IOPscience

Holushko's tired light theory even passes some very complicated cosmology tests.

Paul Marmet also has put forth a mathematical model of tired light, as have many other authors by the way, starting with Fritz Zwicky.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

 

[Michael]

As I have pointed out previously, Kurt Godel solved Einstein's field equation for a rotating universe, and discovered that time travel would be possible in such a universe, with all the paradoxes that would entail. He spent the next several years pestering astronomers for evidence that the universe wasn't rotating.

I haven't suggested that the whole universe rotates around a central point. How could that even happen in an infinite universe?

 

[lesliedellow]

I haven't suggested that the whole universe rotates around a central point. How could that even happen in an infinite universe?

In which case you are right beck with your original problem.