Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Redshift = expansion?

  1. Jan 23, 2004 #1
    Originally posted by shrumeo
    ... there has to be other data besides redshifting to confirm the expansion of the universe. I'd hate to know that so much theory is built on one type of data point.

    I have discovered a wave-displacement phenomenon that is the hot-radiation entropy effect that Clausius specified and searched for with Wien and Planck and others.

    You can see it when you throw a pebble in the water - that the rings are increasing their wavelengths. From that discovery I have derived a simple equation that told me that the relation between wave elongation and distance is similar for the micro and macro level.

    I can explain how the quantum theory is a misinterpretation of right measurements. I can show that Planck's constant h and Hubbles constant H are the measuring of the same phenomenon but wrong interpreted. Even Pound and Rebka measuring has the same cause.

    I can show that Lorentz translation equation is wrong and i can derive and verify the right relative motion equation.

    So there is no quantum theory. No special theory. No general theory. No big bang. No strange energy behind quasars radiation. No dark matter. No black holes. No dark energy.

    There is only a simple and understandable unified theory of physics.

    I have lectured at NPA 2000 in Storrs University in Connecticut,
    at Baltic State University in St.-Petrsburg 2002, in Paris at UNESCO TH2002, and at Kazan State University 2003 in Russia.

    People understand and agree but no science journal dare to publish my articles.

    Ingvar Astrand, Sweden,
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 30, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    one simple demonstration?

    Mr Astrand,

    Would you be so kind as to present just one demonstration of how your idea accounts for well-attested data and observations that are given as support for QM, SR, GR, the Big Bang, etc?

    My personal favourites would be the WMAP results (observations of the cosmic background radiation) and the Cassini test of GR (bending of radio waves as they pass through the gravitational field of the Sun).
  4. Feb 1, 2004 #3
    perhaps two?

    Ingvar Astrand,

    I would like to see the, quote,"simple equation that told me that the relation between wave elongation and distance is similar for the micro and macro level," unquote.

  5. Feb 5, 2004 #4
    Here you have the simple formula that I have derived from wave displacement experiments and observations

    [tex]\Delta\lambda = k \cdot s [/tex]

    where [tex]\Delta\lambda[/tex] is the displacement of the electrodynamic waves that are dependent on the distance and the constant k in both the macro physics cosmological redshift that is misinterpreted by Hubble as H, and the fractional difference in micro physics that is misinterpreted by Planck as quantum shift h.

    The fractional displacement or difference between the wave-units that I have derived is the same constant k = h = H.

    This heat radiation entropy displacement [tex]\Delta\lambda[/tex] is dependent on the emitted wavelengths and the covered distances.

    In the end the entropy displacement has elonged the wavelengths until they reaches the wavelengths in the supraleading temperature of the space that is the cosmic radiation's background and the end of the displacement that cause the cosmic horizon for us.

    I have written the whole "unified theory of physics" on a 10-pages paper that I have presented at the conferences that I said. But I can not show it for you on the webb now, because if I do, the scientific journals refuge to accept it even if I could find a referee that dare to risk his career.

    But in some way I can give more information to those who are interested.

    Ingvar Astrand, Sweden
  6. Feb 5, 2004 #5

    Teoretiskt sett kan du räkna fram elongationen, och hur den förhåller sig till storleken på molekylerna som vätskan består av. Du kan räkna fram hur stark bindning eterpartiklarna har till varandra osv.
  7. Feb 5, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    ...and I might add No wonder you are not published. You can go ahead and believe there was no Big Bang, since there was no one there to observe it and evidence can always be re-interpreted. But to say there is no quantum theory when there so plainly IS a theory that physicists believe in makes me doubt your lucidity. Or did you mean that the quantum theory, which exists, is false? That's a different matter, but makes me doubt your ability to express yourself.

    Anyway, assuming the theories exist, but you disagree with them, you should take this opportunity to tell the forum of just one experimental result that is explained incorrectly, or not at all, by current theories, but which on the other hand your theory explains correctly. Just one, OK? Then you will find that many people will take you very seriously. They might even help you get published.
  8. Feb 7, 2004 #7
    Reply to Crab:

    You do as the Swedish pataphysicists (physicists which ideas of the modern physics are as far beyond metaphysics as metaphysics is beyond physics): when they couldn't kill my proof, they tried to kill my character by running to the newspaper and lying to the editor and the readers that it is very important to stop the free researchers that is a threat to the scientific society. They say the same as you, that people who have not their right believe are on a mentally lower level.

    Your psychiatric nonsense about lucidity and so on are not scientific arguments against my discoveries and mathematically derived formulas.

    Be scientific, and respect the truth whoever you hear it from.

    Ingvar Åstrand, Sweden
  9. Feb 8, 2004 #8

    Frankly i agree wityh krab. You haven't pointed out a single observation that your theory explains correctly. Of course his remarks about lucidity have nothing to do with your theory, you haven't given us anything about your theory to try to counter or respond to. I couldn't care less about your character, and your proposition is at least interesting, but you have to be willing to give some evidence. Most of the people here (as far as i can see) are fairly reasonable, and if presented with good evidence will at least debate and consider the validity of what you claim, i know i would. But you can't jsut make claims like you did and give noe evidence. Posting your paper would be the best way, but short of that, give us a phenomenon that is inocorrectly addressed by current theories ( or not addressed at all ) and tell us how your theory addresses it. Its not that much to ask of someone who claims he has the ultimate answer to modern physics.
  10. Feb 26, 2004 #9
    [tex] \Delta\lambda = k \cdot s \Rightarrow [/tex]

    [tex] h_{\varepsilon\pi} = \frac{H_0 \cdot\Delta\lambda}{c\cdot f (z\geq 1)^-^1} \Rightarrow [/tex]

    [tex] \frac{(50\approx) 46.8 km/s/mpc \cdot 2.014 \cdot 10^{-10} km}{3 \cdot 10^5 km/s \cdot10^{19} km/mpc \cdot (1.055 \cdot 0.6)^-^1} = [/tex]

    [tex] = 6.63 \cdot 10^-^{34} [/tex]

    I will give the angry critics of me and my unified theory of physics this relation to recognize and understand.

    But I think that very few have courage and intelligence to release himself from the taboo to not questioning the holy humbug-saga of the modern physics. It will be interesting how many that dare to understand that this is the derivation of the entropy-constant.

    Here you can see the right relation how Max Planck on the micro level measured the same phenomenon as Edvin Hubble on the macro level: the fractional and constant changing difference between the redshifted wave-units.

    This is the mechanism behind the heat radiation that connects electrodynamics with thermodynamics. This is the phenomenon that Rudolf Clausius - that defined the notion entropy - and many of his contemporaries searched and hoped to find, but in vein they didn’t. Because they had no choice they must reluctantly accept Boltzmann’s speculations about entropy in his model where he interpreted how gas-molecules by probability moves over time towards equilibrium.

    Read Max Planck's Nobel Lecture


    where he said that he didn't understand what this small number of fractional difference meant. His experimental physicists and colleagues had measured the wavelength spectrum of heat radiation: its distribution of temperatures and colors. It becames a mysterious artifact in the mathematical equations and calculations that Max Planck tried to understand but he and no one until now (100 years)have solved this great problem. Planck was desperate because he couldn’t understand this number and what mechanism behind that had caused it. Einstein saw his chance (Mr. Chance) and proposed (postulated says his fans) that it was a particular energy-quantum particle, which was popular to discover as imaginary abstractions by thought experiment at that time.

    Planck’s mistake was that he inverted wavelengths to frequencies, because he would measure the radiations energy and effect that is measured per second unit. But remember that the radiation was measured as wavelengths, and it was (is) the waves that is elongated (redshifted) by its propagation. Wilhelm Wien's displacement law shows that the radiation’s color/wavelength in the optical spectrum is inverse proportional to its temperature/energy, so of course you can measure the fractional difference between two waveunits – but then you must use Wiens displacement law and Stefan-Boltsman law that shows that radiation’s energy is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature E= T^4 (approximately). If Planck is right then must Wien and Stefan-Boltzmann be wrong - laws that we understand and use.

    This simple algoritm explains the farthest galaxies that are interprated as strange “quasars”. Their radiation’s energy is proportional to the fourth power of its redshift i.e. z = (redshift)^4: so the most far galaxy that is discovered is redshifted 6.82 times (682%). Its huge energy was estimated by Maartin Smith at Sloan Sky Survey to 1000 times greater than a normal galaxy. My algoritm shows that the right calculation is 6.82^4 that is 2100 times.

    Consequently it is not needed to use help-hypotheses such as black holes to explain and understand the apparent strong radiation. It is just entropy. The galaxy has emitted high energy at 1216 angstrom that has dissipated by redshift to low energy that we receive at 8300 angstrom. The difference of energy is what drives the radiation forward. Have ever anybody wonder what drives photons forward (the fictive light corpuscle that doesn’t exist).

    This is just an introduction to the Unitheory of Physics. It is simple to understand, it is interesting and it has relevance to the real world.

    Maybe this is 5 or 10 % of the whole (but true) story. If someone is interested I can continue.

    Excuce me for my bad English,
    Ingvar Åstrand, Sweden
  11. Feb 26, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Planck's constant [tex]h[/tex] is ~ 6.626 x 10-34 m2 kg/s.

    The number you posted above (6.63 x 10-34) is dimensionless, or so it would seem. How can they be related to each other?

    There are three terms in your expression which I don't understand:

    2.014 x 10-10 km ([tex]\Delta\lambda[/tex] "the displacement of the electrodynamic waves"). Why does it have this value?

    1019 km/mpc ([tex]f[/tex]; presumably you mean Mpc - megaparsec). What is this?

    1.055 x 0.6 (this appears to be the numerical value of an inequality "([tex]z\geq 1[/tex])"). How can an inequality have a value?

    Oh, and by the way, today's best estimate of the Hubble constant, H0 is 72 +/- 8 km/s/Mpc (not 46.8)
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Redshift = expansion?
  1. Gravitational Redshift (Replies: 3)

  2. Quantum redshift (Replies: 5)

  3. Extent of Redshift (Replies: 2)