An alternative to the Big Bang Theory

Henk Druiven, 6 February 2012.
(Dutch version)

See also The theory of Relativity for dummies


Not so long ago Galileo was put to prison in 1633 by the church because he suggested that the earth moves around the sun. It lasted until 1992 before the Catholic church made her apologize and said that Galileo was a religious man. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei).

1986:

I think it was around 1986 that I was on the anniversary of my brother Gerard who is an artist. There were more artists present.

I believe that at that time man thought that the universe was about 10 billion years old while in that same time galaxies were discovered that were almost as old as the universe. That could not be true. Now the age of the universe estimated at 13.7 billion years but that was not at that time.

Anyway, we spoke about this and I remember that Siert Dallinga suggested that the fact that Hubble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law) discovered that all galaxies are moving away from us may be based on an illusion just as the planets, stars and the sun seems to move arround the earth. Possible is that the red shift can be explained by an another effect.

That idea has never left me. Suppose there is no Big Bang then there must be an alternative explanation for Hubble's Law.

There are numerous of other reasons to doubt the Big Bang theory. (http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp)


The universe is round and static

I will not bore you with the many fantasies that I've developed over the years. None of these fantasies have led to something reasonable. Until I developed the following idea.

If the universe is static and round what can be the explanation that if we could see a star on the horizon of our visible universe it seems to move away from us with the speed of light?

It is indeed true that if you assume that there is no Big Bang, the universe does not has to be round. However, it appears that the nature/universe/God has a great preference for round shapes, for instance the planets, galaxies, planetary orbits, etc. and it fits me fairly well.


In the figure above, the space is represented by a circle with on the upper side an observer. He/she will see that a star on the edge of the visible universe will have a redshift equal to a redshift that a star would give that moves away from us with a speed of  300,000 km/s (the limit).  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

As you can see the time vector of the star coincides with the velocity vector we see from the star which is removing from us. Can we assume that the time vector of the star is the same as the velocity vector? After all, the time vector of this star is located in the space dimension of the observer. So can we assume that a distance of 300,000 kilometers is equal to a time difference of a second?

Obviously this means that 1 second should be equal to 300,000 km and our perception of time must come from a displacement of 300,000 km.

Apparently I had put myself checkmate because nothing indicates that we move with that speed.

Note on this representation:

My idea also has implications for Hubble's law. Hubble's law states that there is a linear relationship between the distance of a galaxy and the speed at which it moves away from us.

My idea suggests that relatively nearby galaxies have a relatively bigger redshift than the galaxies on the horizon. To be precise, my thesis suggests a derivative of a minus quarter cosine, or a quarter of a sine.

If we compare the results that others have observed than my hypothesis gives a better fit of the data than a linear relationship, at least in the measurements that I have borrowed from http://wiki.fok.nl/index.php/Kosmologie
(Note: the horizontal axis shows the redshift and the vertical distance)

Hubble_s.jpg

Even more attractive shown in the images that I have borrowed from http://mico2maco.net/?p=839. This is mainly due to the use of linear axes. Striking is that some points of the redshift, caused by corrections, are above 1 in the second image. Of course this is not possible.

   wpid-Hubble-DiagramV-D3-300x241.pngwpid-Hubble-Diagramz-D2-300x238.png



Nuclear particles do a trick on physics

On April 24, 1993, there was an article in the scientific contribution of the Volkskrant, entitled "Kerndeeltjes draaien fysica een loer." It says literally that "Nuclear particles are in fact an ocean of quarks, gluons and anti-quarks, that are all moving with the speed of light ."

So it seems that we exist of particles that are all moving with a speed 300,000 km in 1 second without an average displacement in space. But does that mean that our time vector has right angles to our dimensions of space?

Eventually, I imagined that we consist of tiny particles that are all rotating with 300,000 km/s.

Suppose we mount a bicycle wheel on a car such that it rotates freely and without friction. What is then the distance traveled by a point on the rim of the wheel as a function of the distance traveled by the vehicle and the distance traveled due to its rotation?

For me this was a complex problem, but fortunately it can be solved by the energy equation.

Because both movements are completely independent of each other, the motion energies can be added together. So


or


(If for a triangle with sides a, b and c the following is true: 2  = 2 + 2, then that triangle is rectangular, with the angle opposite the side c is the right-angle. (Pythagorean theorem) )

Because the linear displacement of the car can take place in all three dimensions the vector of the rotation must be rectangular to our three space dimensions.



An alternative to the Theory of Relativity

Special Theory of Relativity

    1. The Principle of Relativity – The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.
    2. The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." (from the preface). That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light source.
Let it be noted that the measured speed of light could be different from the actual speed of light. 
A received frequency of a sound source that moves relative to an observer is also not equal to the actual frequency. Also called the Doppler effect; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

If my proposal is correct, so that a distance of 300,000 kilometers is equal to a time difference of one second, than the actual speed of light is infinite or something close to it.
Imagine that you are an astronaut leaving from earth in a rocket and building up a very high speed. With enough equipment on board you will see that you build up a speed which depends only on the amount of energy on board. Your top speed can be even far above the 300,000 km/s. Of course if you refer your track to known galaxies along the way. The laws of the classical mechanics stay in effect for you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics). What you'll see is that the clocks that you pass are going ahead on your clock on board. This is entirely in accordance with the theory of relativity. You can draw the conclusion that the clocks run faster in the surrounding area as your speed increases, as Einstein concluded, but, logically and according to my idea, you can conclude that with the distance traveled you made a jump in time. At very high speed, you will eventually conclude that the limit is a jump of 1 second per 300,000 km.

Graphically it looks like this:


Where 1 / c = 1 sec per 300,000 km.


Or the second formula of special theory of relativity.

In 1994 I registered my idea by Notary Nielsen, Ubbo Emmius Singel 38, 9711 BJ Groningen.

A pleasant side effect is that in my proposal the twin paradox does not exist.

4 May 2013: It is not necessary to have a second theory that makes the relationship clear between acceleration and time. This relationship is entirely due to the fact that 1 m is equal to 3.33 nanosecond.
For example:
The force of gravity on the earth is equal to 10 m / sec^2 = 3.33 * 10^-8 per second

Differences between my vision and that of Einstein, Georges Lemaître and others.
Henk Druiven Einstein, Georges Lemaître and others
The universe is round and static. The universe is much older than 13.7 billion years. The Helal expands and comes from a kind of big bang. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old.
As stars are further away from us they have a certain redshift. This effect is caused by the fact that the time vector will be located more and more in the space dimensions of the observer. As stars are further away from us, they move faster away from us and for that reason they show an increasing redshift.
The function by which the time dimension shifts in the space vector of the observer is a function of a quarter sine wave. This smooths out on the edge of our visible universe.
The expansion of the universe appears to increase in time. As we look to very distant stars the redshift is less than we expect on base of the Hubble constant.
A clock that bridges a certain distance, bridges a certain period of time.
This clock runs behind the environment.
A clock which is relatively moving to its environment will slow down.
This clock runs behind its environment.
The speed of light is infinite. If an object wishes to achieve this speed then it needs (therefore) also an infinite ammount of energy.
For the surrounding the object never seems to go faster than 300,000 km/s.
The speed of light is 300,000 km/s. If an object wishes to achieve this speed then it needs a infinite ammount of energy.
The relativistic mass of an object increases as its speed increases. The amount of energy needed to accelerate therefore also increasing.
This relationship is
alt="m_{v}=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=m_0
There is no twin paradox. There is a twin paradox
There is no need for a second theory to explain the relation between acceleration and time. That relationship has already been established. A second theory is required that describes the relation between acceleration and time.

You can sent a reply to henk@alternativebigbangtheory.org

- I know of course that in my proposal the things are made far too simple, but please send me a reply in which you explain where I make a mistake.

Link to interview in the University Newspaper Groningen; http://www.ukrant.nl/magazine/alternatief-voor-oerknaltheorie
A copy of the interview in Dagblad van het Noorden; Interview

If required and if there is sufficient interest I like to give a college, provided that the travel expenses are reimbursed.

News:

Astronomers discover the largest structure in the universe.
An international team of astronomers, led by academics from the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), has found the largest known structure in the universe.
The team, led by Dr Roger Clowes from UCLan's Jeremiah Horrocks Institute, has identified the LQG which is so significant in size it also challenges the Cosmological Principle: the assumption that the universe, when viewed at a sufficiently large scale, looks the same no matter where you are observing it from.
The large quasar group (LQG) is so large that it would take a vehicle travelling at the speed of light some 4 billion years to cross it.  
A bit strange statement in this regard because it will cost you less than a second to bridge that distance with the speed of light.

Attachments:

The Theory of Relativity for Dummies


E=mc2 for dummies


The holographic principle