Хайдук wrote:
"Вселенная" это то, где мы живем.
"Существует", - так как все существует.
"Меняется", - а все меняется, растет, процветает, развивается...
Вообще это все аксиомы, то есть то, что не может быть выведено ниоткуда, это первичные законы, которые просто поясняются.

wpiter wrote:
Вас никогда не учили, что тавтология это нехорошо?

Впрочем я догадываюсь, почему Вы упорно не хотите ответить.
Потому что в глубине души Вы уже понимаете, что сели в лужу со своими "аксиомами".
У человечества слово "меняется" далеко не фундаментальное.

Если Вы вкладываете в него другой смысл, то это Ктулху фтагн.
Если тот же, но не можете объяснить, то Вы шарлатан.

There’s some people who would have you believe the Universe is expanding. They’re peddling this idea it all started with a bang, and that expansion is continuing and accelerating. Yet, they can’t tell us what force is causing this acceleration. Just “dark energy”, or some other JK Rowling-esque sounding thing. Otherwise known as the acceleration that shall not be named, and it shall be taught in the class which follows potions in 3rd period.

I propose to you, faithful viewer, an alternative to this expansionist conspiracy. What if distances are staying the same, and everything is in fact, shrinking? Are we destined to compress all the way down to the Microverse? Is it only a matter of time before our galaxy starts drinking its coffee from a thimble or perhaps sealed in a pendant hanging on Orion’s belt? So, could we tell if that’s actually what’s going on?

Representation of the timeline of the universe over 13.7 billion years, and the expansion in the universe that followed. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team.

Better get some scotch tape for the hats, kids. This one gets pretty rocky right out of the gate.
The first horrible and critical assumption here is that shrinking objects and an expanding universe would look exactly the same, which without magic or handwaving just isn’t the case. But you don’t have to take my word for it, we have science to punch holes in our Shrink-truther conspiracy.

Let’s start with distances. If we assumed the Earth and everything on it was getting smaller, we’d also be shrinking things like meter sticks. In the past they would have been larger. If everything was larger in the past, including the length of a meter, this means the speed of light would have appeared slower in the past. So was the speed of light slower in the past? I’m afraid it wasn’t, which really hobbles the shrinky-dink universe plot. But how do we know that?

The diagram shows the electromagnetic spectrum, the absorption of light by the Earth’s atmosphere and illustrates the astronomical assets that focus on specific wavelengths of light. ALMA at the Chilean site and with modern solid state electronics is able to overcome the limitations placed by the Earth’s atmosphere. (Credit: Wikimedia, T.Reyes)

You’ve probably seen spectral lines before or at least heard them referenced. Scientists use them to determine the chemical composition of materials. A changing speed of light would affect the spectral lines of distant objects, and because some people are just super smart and were able to do the math on this, we know that when we look at distant gas clouds we find the speed of light has changed no more than one part in a billion over the past 7 billion years.

Shrinking objects would also become more dense over time. This means that the universal constant of gravity should appear smaller in the past. Some have actually studied this, to determine whether it has changed over time, and they’ve also seen no change.


Artists illustration of the expansion of the Universe (Credit: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center)

If objects in the Universe were shrinking, the Universe would actually be collapsing. If galaxies weren’t moving away from each other, their gravity would cause them to start falling toward each other. If they were shrinking, assuming their mass doesn’t change, their gravity would be just as strong, so shrinking wouldn’t stop their mutual attraction. A Universe of shrinking objects would look exactly opposite to what we observe.

So, good news. We’re pretty sure that objects, and us, and all other things in the Universe are not shrinking. We’re still not sure why anyone would name a thing Shrinky Dinks. Especially a craft toy marketed at children.

The most widely accepted theory of the universe is based on the notion that the world started with a big bang, and has been expanding ever since. But, in a radical counter view, the Universe in not expanding according to a Christof Wetterich, a theoretical physicist at the University of Heidelberg in Germany who has devised a different cosmology in which the Universe is not expanding but posits that the mass of everything has been increasing. His theory could help physicists to understand problematic issues such as the so-called singularity present at the Big Bang.

In his 2013 paper: A Universe Without Expansion, Wettrich discusses a cosmological model "where the universe shrinks rather than expands during the radiation and matter dominated periods". In his abstract of his paper published on the arXiv preprint server, he writes: "Only dimensionless ratios as the distance between galaxies divided by the atom radius are observable. The cosmological increase of this ratio can also be attributed to shrinking atoms."

Cosmologists envisage the Universe as expanding, says Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, only because it is the most convenient interpretation of galaxies' redshift. The extremely distant galaxy A1689-zD1 shown above appears on this picture as the elongated reddish object; its light has been magnified by a factor of more than 9 by the massive gravitational lensing effect of the galaxy cluster Abell 1689. Astronomers were surprised to discover a far more evolved system than expected. It had a fraction of dust similar to a very mature galaxy, such as the Milky Way, which dust is vital to life, because it helps form planets, complex molecules and normal stars. (J. Richard / ESO).

In the 1920s, astronomers including Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble analysed the light emitted or absorbed by atoms, which appeared in a spectrum of characteristic colours, or frequencies. When matter moved away, they discovered that galaxies exhibited a shift to the red, lower frequency part of the spectrum. After observing that most galaxies exhibit a red shift that became greater for more distant galaxies, they theorized that the universe was expanding. The Hubble image at the top of the page shows a gravitationally lensed image of the highest known redshift galaxy.

However, Wetterich highlights that this light emitted by atoms is also determined by masses of the elementary particles, and in particular, their electrons.If the mass of an atom increases, it emits more energetic photons. If the particles were to become lighter, frequencies would become redshifted.

In Nature News, Jon Cartwright explains: “Because the speed of light is finite, when we look at distant galaxies we are looking backwards in time — seeing them as they would have been when they emitted the light that we observe. If all masses were once lower, and had been constantly increasing, the colors of old galaxies would look redshifted in comparison to current frequencies, and the amount of redshift would be proportionate to their distances from Earth. Thus, the redshift would make galaxies seem to be receding even if they were not.”

In Wetterich's alternative interpretation of redshift all of cosmology looks very different: The Universe still expands rapidly during a short-lived period known as inflation. But prior to inflation the Big Bang no longer contains a 'singularity' where the density of the Universe would be infinite. Instead, the Big Bang stretches out in the past over an essentially infinite period of time. “The current cosmos could be static or even beginning to contract,” he adds.

Vladimirovich wrote:
можете прочитать вот это -



А можете не читать, ведь "аксиома" не предусматривает переопределение через что то иное, ведь это АКСИОМА, а не ТЕОРЕМА.
И совсем не имеет значение, как это у вас происходит, и как это у вас определяется.
Я установил аксиому, и это "точка отсчета" для теории.

PauLita wrote:
Слушал доклад про объяснение космологических эффектов увеличением масс.
И это отнюдь не были забугорные делаши.
Это были ребята из России.
А забугорные делаши умеют классно только воровать идеи.
( а Джонни в курсе, что там воруют? )

Джонни в курсе, что еще в далеком 2005 году Louise Riofrio , сотрудник национа́льного управле́ния по воздухопла́ванию и иссле́дованию косми́ческого простра́нства, сделала предположение и опубликовала:

Ему только низкопробную фэнтизи перепечатывать

Луйза Riofrio также связала уменьшение скорости света с увеличением лунной орбиты:

Apparent lunar distance would increase proportional to decrease in c:

Top Customer Reviews:

Louise Riofrio's "The Speed of Light" is a delightfully written, straightforward, clear introduction to the likely role of a slowly declining speed of light in the history of the universe and beyond. It is a quick read that goes easy on the math, maintaining congruence with the theory that formulas describing these events are probably, when mature, quite simple. Even more delightful for me was the opportunity to read the book immediately after Riofrio had presented her work at the monthly meeting of the NASA Johnson Space Center Astronomy club monthly meeting! A double-barreled treat! I suggest you don't pass up a chance to enjoy both as they are very enlightening and entertaining.


The best book on the subject out there. The author examines the concept that the speed of light decreases as the universe expands. This would account for the present state of the universe without resorting to theories of inflation or fudge factors like "dark energy." She gives a history of how the present mainstream thought (that the speed of light is constant) developed, then presents the evidence for VSL in clear prose, refraining from jargon, and she doesn't load the book with equations. A nice addition to any science bookshelf.


From the first sentence in the book, my to interest was instantly piqued. The author hit on such a human event as to parallel what the universe is all about. I could not put it down. Names and terms and theories were explained in simple terms. It is a textbook for the ordinary mind. Even so, formerly complicated equations came to light. Names of physicists became more friendly. I would recommend it as a handy manual for those who are interested in theories of how the universe came to be and continues to become.


The excellent book reviews a great deal of the basics in cosmology and argues against the theory of Negative Energy and for the theory that the speed of light has slowed significantly since the Big Bang.


The author of “The Speed of Light”, L. (Louise) Riofrio, has written for scientific journals – and has simplified her research and theories for the common person. Bragging that “this book has only one equation” (hers), she attempts to explain the basics of physics in such a way that the non-physicist reader can walk away with enough background to understand the theories that she puts forth.
For this reader, who earned a math degree longer than he will admit, the effort fails. I was taught that physics IS math; as such, any attempt to explain physics without delving into the equations behind the scenes cannot succeed. Further, the “no equations” mantra becomes a distraction – to the point where she refers to Einstein's “famous equation”, but refuses to actually WRITE “e = mc2” - one of the few equations that virtually EVERYONE knows (even if they may not understand it).
The book itself is not a failure. I believe the author does an excellent job of taking us back in history to understand some of the most basic premises of physics – and of the people who made those discoveries. Unfortunately, I did not walk away with the sense of understanding of the author's theories of the speed of light which she was striving to provide. The premise – yes. The proof / justification – no.

wpiter wrote: Меняется - Это не аксиома. Это Фтагн. У людей это не аксиома.
Если у Вас аксиома другое, чем у людей, то Вы шарлатан.

"На пятый день сотворил Впитер аксиому.
И увидел он, что [это] хорошо." (с)

Вот еще одно независимое, статистически значимое (3-12 сигм за последнее столетие), подтверждение теории сжатия уменьшения скорости света:

PauLita wrote:
Она в 2010 ее распространять стала, я свою книжку в 2002 распространял...
Сдирают плагиаторы забугорные почем зря, а всякие академики и прочая проплаченная из за бугра шваль, все эти вещи скрывают.
Да и величина изменения скорости света не та, которую там прописали.
скорость
света уменьшается за год на 1,5 – 3 сантиметра в секунду за год

wpiter.narod.ru/Variant.pdf

Vladimirovich wrote:

"Вселенная меняется" - аксиома

PauLita wrote:
а нужно измерять на уровне С^*/ C = 6.67 Х 10^-11за год.

То есть на 3 (!!!) порядка улучшить измерения, чтобы эти изменения заметить.

wpiter wrote: А "меняется" - НЕТ
И пока не определено, что такое "меняется", все "аксиомы" идут в дупу. Ктулху фтагн.

Я сейчас даже не буду говорить о том, что в естествознании аксиом вообще нет. И никогда не было. Это дурь само по себе.

Vladimirovich wrote:
Зато нобелевскую премию, за чистую математику, - получают, хотя в завещании Нобеля этого не говорилось

А потом, аксиомы не определяются, иначе это не аксиомы, а теоремы, то есть выведенные из других аксиом вещи.

wpiter wrote: Вранье.
Эта математика соотносится с мат.моделью, которая используется для объяснения астрофизических наблюдений.
Коих Вы не знаете и тысячной доли.

Хотите опровергнуть? Опровергайте! А не издавайте вопли недорезанного хряка.
А будете ковыряться в носу на семинарах придурков, так останетесь придурком.

Vladimirovich wrote:
Куда уж мне...
Лжеученые, как поняли, что их лжеучение может рухнуть, так стали блокировать кругом.
Вам же неоднократно говорили, что теории инфляции нет совсем, если скорость света меняется, она не нужна даже в виде "кухонных разговоров".
А кто допускает к конференции, и цензор в журналах?
A.A. Starobinsky
-
www.uiss2016.ru
..................
A.A. Starobinsky
-
kpfu.ru/math/conference/mezhdunarodnaya-...ravitacii/orgkomitet
...............
A.A. Starobinsky
-

rgs.vniims.ru/main.htm
..................

даже в популярном журнале.

wpiter wrote: Говорить не значит доказать.
Чтобы создать новую теорию нужно найти необъяснимые противоречия в другой. Опровергнуть!
Так было и с небесной механикой и с появлением квантовой, о коих говорит вышеупомянутый Кун.

Вы же не способны опровергнуть "доказательства" 1=-1. Мы это видели.
Вы просто безграмотный балабол.

Таков печальный итог (с)
Ну и куда Вы в калашный ряд?

а вы, впитер, как пришли к тому, что свет тормозит? может на базе ваших "аксиом" об изменении Вселенной? если чессно, то я не вижу как можно заполучить свет на базе этих "аксиом"

Он и сам не знает.
Аксиомы он придумал, когда его здесь задавили интеллектом на верхних уровнях...
Тогда он и стал вопить про мировоззрение и аксиомы

А на энтих семинарах для придурков он по прежнему, без всяких аксиом, помножает литры на километры с поправкой на Меркурий в седьмом доме.
Ибо понимает, что с энтими "аксиомами" его и туда не пустят.

Vladimirovich wrote:
Уже опровергнута космология относительности -
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ускоряющаяся_Вселенная

Хайдук wrote:
нет, аксиомы появились позже

кстати, теорию инфляции чё-то начали развенчивать

Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges
The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the long-cherished inflationary theory of the early cosmos and suggest we need new ideas
By Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt, Abraham Loeb | Scientific American February 2017 Issue

лично всегда мерещилось, что не имеем никакого представления о том что (не хуже самого пространства, должно быть) и почем должно распухнуть взрывом, дабы позже притормозить и "вывалить навозом" наблюдаемую материю?

wpiter wrote: ну, а почем выхватили за уши свет несчастный, ведь тот ничем не примечателен и ниже травы?

Хронология:
1 Исследование.
2 Вывод о необходимости "нестандартных подходов".
3 Создание способа, который в последствии, намного позже нахождения основных результатов был понят как обобщение нечеткой логики.
4 Понимание теории гравитации, как свойств разных участков пространства "сжиматься" с разной скоростью.
5 Вывод о наличии наибольшей скорости сжатия, это сжатие "пустого" пространства.
6 Отождествление скорости распространения света( как скорости передачи взаимодействий ) с параметром "скорость сжатия Вселенной".
7 Необходимость формализовать идеи.
8 Построение исходя из аксиоматической теории, с соответствующими аксиомами.

...

И Большого Взрыва не было?

говорят, что не только Большой Взрыв может привезти к гомогенной Вселенной, но и большое сжатие (а ля впитера?) тоже