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. ( https://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 (https://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. (https://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BBtop30.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: https://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
https://wiki.fok.nl/index.php/Kosmologie .
(Note: the horizontal axis shows the redshift and the
vertical distance)
Even
more attractive
shown in the
images that I have borrowed from https://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.
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 antiquarks, 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: c ^{2} = a ^{2} + b ^{2},
then that triangle is
rectangular, with the angle opposite the side c is the
rightangle. (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
 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.
 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; https://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 (https://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

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; https://www.ukrant.nl/magazine/alternatiefvooroerknaltheorie
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:
