Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Steve Dufourny: on 7/23/12 at 18:39pm UTC, wrote Hello Mr Janzen, It is a reading full of news. " The most important fact...


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

February 20, 2018

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: A Critical Look at the Standard Cosmological Picture by Daryl Janzen [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Daryl Janzen wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 12:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

The discovery that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion has brought the basic concept of cosmic expansion into question. An analysis of the evolution of this concept suggests that the paradigm that was finally settled into prior to that discovery was not the best option, as the observed acceleration lends empirical support to an alternative which could incidentally explain expansion in general. I suggest, then, that incomplete reasoning regarding the nature of cosmic time in the derivation of the standard model is the reason why the theory cannot coincide with this alternative concept. Therefore, through an investigation of the theoretical and empirical facts surrounding the nature of cosmic time, I argue that an enduring three-dimensional cosmic present must necessarily be assumed in relativistic cosmology—and in a stricter sense than it has been. Finally, I point to a related result which could offer a better explanation of the empirically constrained expansion rate.

Author Bio

I recently completed my PhD in physics at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, where I live with my wife and two kids, and have been criticising standard cosmology for its shortcomings and inconsistencies for the past few years. This essay presents the main line of argument from my dissertation, which was defended in March.

Download Essay PDF File

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 23:23 GMT
Dear Daryl Janzen,

A truly excellent essay! Thanks for explaining Bondi's take on 'cosmic time' and Einstein's 'cosmic rest freame' and proceeding to elaborate on these concepts. While I am not as fixated on relativity as many here, your explanations and resolutions of the relativity issues ring true at first reading and make sense. I had intuitively come to the same conclusions, but your arguments reinforce but go way beyond intuition. Also thanks for the link to your dissertation. I look forward to that.

Your essay makes sense of what tends to be a hodge-podge of very confusing hocus-pocus and that is the very purpose of this particular FQXi essay contest. Congratulations.

I invite you to read and comment upon my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, where I attempt to perform a similar feat in another area of great confusion.

I think you have a winner.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 03:09 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Wow---thanks so much for your wonderful response! I've been planning to read your essay in particular, since I've been impressed by many of your comments on this site, so I'll definitely be giving it a go now that I've got mine submitted. Thanks for the invitation.

I hope you enjoy the dissertation.



Gary Simpson wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 02:39 GMT
Dear Daryl Janzen,

I love it! An excellent piece. Your Figure 1 says so much. I have often thought there must be an absolute rest frame but of course I had no basis or justification for the thought. And SR works incredibly well. Many people are not even aware of Mach's thoughts regarding inertia.

I am curious, why do cosmologists tend to think of the moment of the Big Bang as t = negative infinity? Is it because of the effects of relative motion upon time and hence, that is the only shared reference time?

If I might impose, would you kindly take a look at my work regarding spherical time? I would be keenly interested in your interpretation of equations 7.2 and 7.3. One of them implies to me both a rest frame and a preferential frame of reference.

Best Regards and Good Luck in the contest.

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 03:55 GMT
Dear Gary,

Thank you very much! To answer your first question, the big bang in an FLRW model occurs where the scale-factor is zero. In Weyl's `de Sitter cosmology' that's at $t=-\infty$ because the scale-factor that multiplies space is $e^{2Ht}$. Weyl stressed the importance of this common origin for causal coherence. More realistically, the big bang is at $t=0$ though---e.g., see Eq. (5) in my essay. I will have a look at your paper.

Good luck to you, too.


Anonymous replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 00:11 GMT
Hello dear thinkers,

It is interesting these cosmological analyzes.I love so much this matter, this topic. It is a little as a real dance of evolution, they build those spheres...

Let's go for a generalization of our laws. :)

Sometimes I say me that a lot of people have forgotten their foundamentals. The aim is to harmonize all the rational laws.The newtonian mecanic(see the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny from Belgium replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 00:12 GMT
oops sorry, this post was from me, the crazy spherical Jedi.

report post as inappropriate

Felix M Lev wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 03:47 GMT
Dear Daryl Janzen,

Congratulations with your interesting essay. I wish you success in this contest.

I am not an astrophysicist or cosmologist and never thought about the redshift problem. But recently I thought about another problem and came to strange conclusions. My impression is that such a well-known phenomenon as spreading of the photon wave function has not been discussed in the contest of the redshift. My impression is that people discuss the redshift from the points of view of classical electrodynamics, General Relativity etc., but not quantum theory. The details can be found in my paper . I would appreciate if you explain me whether my understanding is correct or not. Thank you. Felix.

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 04:28 GMT
Dear Felix,

Thanks for the kind words about my essay and the well wishes. Without having read your work, I can tell you that cosmological redshifts are thought to be caused by the expansion of space through which photons are propagating, which causes their energy to decrease. I will try to have a look at your paper.


J. C. N. Smith wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 20:38 GMT

Thank you for an interesting and well-written essay.

You wrote ". . . I argue that an enduring three-eimensional cosmic present must necessarily be assumed in relativistic cosmology -- and in a stricter sense than it has been."

I agree, and I've long argued, on different grounds, for an enduring three-dimensional cosmic present. To cut straight to the chase, I've defined what I call "particular times" as being identically equivalent to a particular configurations of the universe. I further argue that what we perceive as the flow of time is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe, an evolution which is governed by rules which we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics.

Should these ideas hold any interest for you, I've amplified the themes in my entry for our current essay competition ('Rethinking a Key Assumption About the Nature of Time') and in a separate essay, 'Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time'.

Thanks again for your essay, and good luck in the competition.


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 00:26 GMT

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. Indeed, presentism is an old theory, and one that's been challenged by a number of philosophers, particularly in light of consequences from relativity theory. Therefore, the task I took up was not so much to expound the idea directly, but to reconcile the corresponding intuition with special relativity, for the purpose of eventually supporting the similar interpretation of a different relativistic description, in which that would be less obvious.

Since you're of a similar mind as I am, I thought you might appreciate a quotation from Seneca, which to me provides a clearer description than anything I've read elsewhere:

`Our bodies are hurried along like flowing waters; every visible object accompanies time in its flight; of the things which we see, nothing is fixed. Even I . . . , as I comment on this change, am changed myself. This is just what Heraclitus says: ``We go down twice into the same river, and yet into a different river.'' For the stream still keeps the name, but the water has already flowed past. Of course this is much more evident in rivers than in human beings. Still, we mortals are also carried past in no less speedy a course; . . . the universe, too, immortal and enduring as it is, changes and never remains the same. For though it has within itself all that it has had, it has it in a different way from that in which it has had it; it keeps changing its arrangement.'

Good luck to you, too, and thanks for the references.


J. C. N. Smith replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 13:47 GMT
Hi Daryl,

Thank you for the quotation from Seneca. And yes, I'm certainly aware of the Presentism versus Eternalism debate which can be traced back to Heraclitus and Parmenides. The point I've tried to make in several essays which I've written for these FQXi competitions and elsewhere is that there is an actual correct answer to this ancient debate! We need not continue to debate the question forever! This is not the same as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! The correct answer, moreover, has important implications for our view of reality and for scientific theories which are based on our view of reality.

I fully understand that you're probably far too busy to follow up on every reference which is sent your way. Nevertheless, I hope you might at least find time to read the following abstract from my essay Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time:

"Abstract: Throughout recorded history, there has been a glaring lack of consensus regarding the nature of time. Not only is the topic a knotty one, it also has been made to appear more arcane, complex, and daunting than necessary by an insufficiently careful use of language. This paper offers definitions for what are called here 'particular times' (particular configurations of the universe), as well as for 'the flow of time' (the evolution of the physical universe). These lead to a new and helpful paradigm for the nature of time, as well as to falsifiable conclusions which are distinctly different from -- and mutually exclusive from -- conclusions which generally are believed to stem logically from the operational definition of time (time is that which is measured by clocks) upon which much of the edifice of physics is founded. "

This is not merely some intellectual exercise in loosey goosey philosophy or metaphysics! There is a correct answer. For example, time travel either is or is not possible; we can't forever continue to have it both ways. Reasoning based on special relativity allows for the theoretical possibility of time travel. Reasoning based on the view of time presented in my essay does not. This is a real and important difference. Moreover, it is potentially falsifiable.


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 21:12 GMT
J. C. N. Smith,

`Reasoning based on special relativity allows for the theoretical possibility of time travel.'

If you read my essay, you'd know that I disagree with that statement, as I see more reason for an interpretation of the theory in which time travel is identically impossible. You would also know that I already agree with the thrust of the argument in your essay, as well as much of what you've written. However, I hope you'd also see that I disagree with the notion that the changes we observe *are* the flow of time, since then the Universe (the present, the particular time, as you've called it) might not equably endure, which I think has to be a prior aspect of our existence.

You've cited Augustine's Confessions: I'd refer you to the parts where he discusses the length of a day as 24 hours, regardless of whether the Sun stays still for a time or runs its course in only twelve, as well as the different durations of syllables. These are the types of reasons why I think time has to describe the equable endurance of a three-dimensional present. This is why I've described the present as real, and the past and future as purely ideal (in the original adjectival sense of the word idea that's used in philosophy, e.g. as defined by Johnson). But there is a reason why I haven't lingered much on this: if such a theory is to be acceptable, it must be consistently philosophically and mathematically reconcilable with physical theory, and there must be physical reasons to motivate its acceptance over other possible interpretations. This, therefore, is how I've argued for a reconception of time in my essay.

As for the essay you linked for me: I liked it; I found it interesting and easy to read; and I agreed with most of what you wrote. If you're interested in knowing how much, you could read sections 2.1 -- 3.2 in my dissertation, which I've provided a hyperlink to in the references section of my essay. I think you'd like that.

If you have any more questions or comments, I'd be glad to hear them. As I said before, I am trying to get to your essay for this contest. When I do, I'll try to post something for you there.



Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 21:02 GMT

If this physical reality is expanding then it is omnipresent and therefore has no effect on measurements and cannot be detected. Or to be more precise, the chances of detecting any ‘current’ change, if it is not of the same value everywhere, is probably zero. What we can detect, indirectly, is alteration in this over considerable lengths of time.

There is only timing, not time. Physical reality exists as at any given point in time (as in timing). Timing being a measuring system which compares rates of change, of themselves, ie irrespective of type. That is, numbers of changes are compared. For example, 40k crystal oscillations whilst man moved 3 yards (if you were using a quartz timing device).

SR, as defined by Einstein, involves:

-no gravitation

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary (which is in effect, stillness)

-fixed shape bodies at rest (no dimension alteration)

-light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed

Frames of reference, etc, are references (ie this is not an allusion to observation). As there are no absolutes, every judgement must employ one. The significance of a ‘rest/stationary’ frame (which could be any entity) being that it is not subject to dimension contraction, because that which causes that, also changes momentum.

Observation (or indeed any form of sensing), has no effect on physical reality, but, obviously, it is important to know how that which is input to the sensory systems, occurs, in orderr to infer what originally existed (reality).


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 01:46 GMT
Well, I guess you've got your opinions and I've got mine... On second thought, I do tend to agree with the last one.

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 06:01 GMT

I would prefer none of us to have opinions, this is supposed to be science. Some statements may prove to be wrong in due course, but so long as they were correct given knowledge at that point in time, this is the best we can do.


report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear Daryl Janzen:

I enjoyed reading your well-written and logical paper. However, the paper seems to support, rather than criticize, the assumed cosmic absolute time and an accelerating universe expansion by the Standard Cosmology as per your concluding statement in the paper -

“It is therefore only by reconceiving the relativistic concepts of time and simultaneity that SdS can be legitimated as a coherent cosmological model with a common origin—and one with the very factor of expansion that we’ve measured—which really should expand, according to the view of expansion as being always driven by Lamda.”

I would like to bring to your attention that if the missing physics of the spontaneous decay/birth of particles is included in the current theories, the observed universe expansion can be predicted without any cosmic time. My posted paper, From Absurd to Elegant Universe, describes the relativistic universe expansion (RUE) model as an alternative to the Hubble Model that predicts the observed so-called accelerating expansion of the universe without any explicit consideration of an absolute cosmic time, present, past, or future. It is shown that the so-called accelerating expansion is only an artifact of the incorrect over-extrapolation of the linear Hubble expansion in the far field; it is actually predicted as a relativistic expansion by RUE. It also derives a mechanistic relativistic equation for the Cosmological Constant. The uniformity of the CMB is explained via relativistic space-time dilation without the need for inflation.

Please read my paper and I would greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments.


Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 01:27 GMT
Dear Avtar,

I'll try to pick through the few things I think you have mixed up about my argument, according to your first statement. First of all, by the word `critical' in the title, I meant to indicate careful analytical evaluation, and not simply to pass negative judgement on standard cosmology. Indeed, the one argument is meant to provide physical motivation for the assumption of an absolute cosmic time in relativity, only not as it is given in the RW line-element, which further sets the corresponding present as actually being synchronous with fundamental observers. I also agree with the description of an accelerating universe, as this is the natural tendency of a universe that expands through the `de Sitter effect'. But there is nothing about standard cosmology in that last sentence, except a hope that the model would be empirically equivalent, according to the result stated above that; i.e., SdS is not isometric to RW, but I think it may be empirically equivalent to the particular FLRW model we observe.

I will try to look more closely at your paper.


Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Daryl:

Thanks for clarification of the title. There are some other serious consistency problems with the concept of an absolute and unique cosmological time:

1. An absolute cosmological time implies an absolute location wherein the Big Bang occurred. The open question is to identify this unique location in empty space of the universe, which would be the center of the universe. Widely accepted cosmology theories, consistent with observations, are based on isotropic universe, which is independent of a unique location as the center of the spherically expanding universe.

2. Another widely used assumption is that when we look into the far field galaxies, we are looking into the early universe where the location of the Big Bang and the center should reside. On the other hand, the Hubble observations imply that we are at the center of the universe since the universe is expanding spherically and symmetrically all around us. Hence, the center and the edge of the universe, implied by an absolute cosmic time, can be flip-flopped and are impossible to define.

3. Since time t=0 represents the Big Bang Singularity, there are well-known questions and presumptions about what was before the Big Bang that seemingly represents a supernatural creation out of nothing violating the laws of conservation.

4. Clocks only measure the time interval, while the absolute time t=0 can be arbitrarily set (as in different time zones) by the observer. Where is the unique cosmic clock located in the universe and who set it t=0 at the instant of the Big Bang?

Again, as described in my paper, the observed universe and galactic expansions can be explained without any explicit considerations of the absolute cosmic time or clock. Hence, the paradoxical presumption of a unique cosmic time may be scientifically unnecessary and irrelevant.



report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 20:14 GMT

Your comments suggest to me that you lack an understanding of the basic concepts of cosmic time and cosmic expansion. A few quotations from Eddington's Expanding Universe might help you to better understand expansion:

`The lesson of humility has so often been brought home to us in astronomy that we almost automatically adopt the view that our own galaxy is not specially...

view entire post

Anonymous replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 23:32 GMT
Dear Daryl:

Thanks for the clarification, and I understand the cosmic time and cosmic expansion used in standard cosmology as you mentioned:

“The standard model assumes maximally symmetric space that expands in cosmic time, which is, moreover, the proper time of all fundamental observers. Those *are" the basic axioms of standard cosmology, so to say that it only assumes maximal symmetry of space, or that maximal symmetry and cosmic time are mutually exclusive, is just wrong.”

However, my point is that the fundamental assumption of “a synchronous time and clock in the entire universe” adopted by Standard Cosmology is directly in violation of the relativity of space and time and non-synchronicity of time at varying relativistic velocities (from near-field to far-field universe) demonstrated by the relativity theory. This assumption only holds approximately true in the near-field universe wherein the radial expansion velocities of the galaxies are small (V much less than C) compared to the speed of light because the relativistic effects are small. However, as my paper shows that in the far-field, wherein the velocities are large (V close to C), the standard cosmology deviates from predictions of the supernova observations resulting in the unexplained and paradoxical dark energy. The error results from the fact that at large velocities (V=C), both the space and time dilate to zero stopping the clock and dissolving any cosmic time. Hence, the fundamental assumption of a standard or proper cosmic time cannot be imposed on the far-field universe and must be corrected to eliminate the current inconsistencies and paradoxes that are artifacts of the basic axioms of the standard cosmology.

Thanks for being patient as we are investigating the fundamental assumptions that are wrong in this forum.



report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 02:13 GMT
Dear Avtar:

Your response has clarified your position a lot for me, but there are two points I think I can clarify further. First, standard cosmology does not `[deviate] from predictions of the supernova observations resulting in the unexplained and paradoxical dark energy'; rather, the Nobel prize winning observation was that a parameter of the standard model that had been presumed to be zero---viz. Lambda---is actually positive (as it should be, I think, for reasons I've argued in my essay). The flat LambdaCDM model agrees extremely well with the supernova observations---only with different parameters than were expected.

The second point is really key to truly understanding the expansion scenario, which I think you're still not quite grasping. The cosmological redshifts are not thought to be due to relativistic effects or recessional velocities through space. Rather, cosmological redshifts are thought to result from the expansion of space through which the photons are moving, causing them to continuously lose energy in transit. This has been confirmed by the fact that thousands of distant quasars, galaxies, and supernovae have been observed with redshifts *greater than 1*. In fact, the largest confirmed redshift is greater than 8. But rather than taking this to imply that these objects are actually moving away from us faster than the speed of light, we interpret cosmological redshifts within the context of the standard model, as resulting from the expansion of maximally symmetric space where comoving observers actually remain always at rest---i.e., at constant spatial coordinates in the metric

describes three-dimensional maximally symmetric space and a(t) is the scale-factor that multiplies it throughout the course of cosmic time.

I hope this is helpful to you.



Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear Daryl,

Though a receding light source certainly looks redshifted so the redshift of galaxies can indicate that they recede from us –in which case our universe expands, a redshift does not necessarily mean that it actually recedes from us.

The problem I have with the Big Bang hypothesis is that a Big Bang Universe lives in a time continuum NOT of its own making: here the existence of an absolute kind of clock is posited (be it an imaginary one), a clock showing cosmic time, the time passed since the bang, so in this universe it is the same time everywhere.

As in a BBU the speed of light is interpreted to be a (finite) velocity (in contrast to referring to a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely), here we see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past as it took its light so long to reach us.

In contrast, a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference has no such 'cosmic' clock, nor does it, as a whole, evolve IN time.

A Self-Creating Universe (SCU) contains and produces all time within, so here clocks are observed to show an earlier time as they more distant –which is only possible if they (are observed to) run slower as they are more distant, even if they are at rest with respect to us.

In other words: here we see galaxies shifted farther to red as they are more distant even if they are at rest with respect to us, so in a SCU we should find a linear distance-redshift relation, so this universe doesn't expand at all, let alone suffer an accelerating expansion.

Though I find it sad to see how a learned and highly intelligent scientist as Stephen Hawking can waste his life on a hypothesis which, in the final analysis doesn't make any sense at all, I find it appalling to see how everybody and his dog in physics follows the same mantra, not even bothering to at least try to dream up contradicting creation scenario's, just for the fun of it, or, in the absurdities such schemes might lead to, affirm the original big bang hypothesis.

For why the Big Bang isn't such a good idea, after all, see my essay, topic 1328.


Anton Biermans

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 01:27 GMT
Dear Anton,

I guess physicists waste their time with things like big bangs because we're concerned with empirically verified and verifiable physical theories. I've criticised the big bang in the standard model to the extent that I could manage coherently in this short essay. If you're interested to read more of my thoughts on that, you could have a look at my PhD thesis, which is hyperlinked in the references section of my essay.


Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 02:17 GMT
Dear Daryl,

As to ''empirically verified and verifiable theories'', I'm afraid that big bang cosmologists confuse observations with interpretations of observations.

Most physicist seem not to be troubled by the fact that their cherished theories are riddled with contradictions and infinities, at least not so much as to even consider that predictions they arrive at may be wrong because of these problems.

Big bang hypothesis doesn't even offer a beginning of an idea about the origin of all matter and energy created: as it cannot explain the observed isotropy and homogeneity of the universe, nor why, despite gravity between galaxies, its expansion doesn't slow down in time, it is a source of new far-fetched, artificial, ad hoc hypotheses like inflation and dark energy.

I'm afraid that BBC describes a fictitious universe: if these hypotheses seem to paint a consistent picture of our universe, then this isn't because they are true but because they are designed, crafted to fit observations instead of following from first principles, because they are based on the same conceptual error.

This is in contrast to a self-creating universe (see my essay) which has no such problems, no crippling contradictions and infinities.


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 04:09 GMT
"see my essay"

... or you could read *my* essay

... and write something about *it* here

... after all, that's what this space is for, isn't it? Just as your space is there for discussing yours?

(By the way, I've criticised the standard big bang theory in mine, too).

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 17:11 GMT
Good Afternoon Daryl Janzen,

This is an excellent presentation of scientific observations on red shift in spectrum from distance objects. In the context, it is suffice to say, the presumption that the cause of shift is at source and not billions of light years it takes the light to arrive at detector is inherent in mainstream thinking on the nature of this phenomenon.

In PicoPhysics, the explanation of this phenomenon is common with cosmic background radiation and dark matter. It has lot to do with space traversed by light from source to destination. Latest observations where-in mainstream physics has contemplated oscillating universe (Cyclic Model) is also relevant here.

PicoPhysics proposes a steady state model of universe and accounts for all these different set of observations by taking account of all factors namely

1. Path from source to destination

2. Relative speed of source and destination

3. Dark Energy present along the path of travel

4. Uneven directional matter density due to detector location in galaxy

We have started to unfold PicoPhysics to mainstream scientific community. The first effort is the essay on 5-dimensional universe.

May I invite you to review my essay at

I look forward to your comments and rating of the essay.

Thanks & Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
Dear Vijay,

Thanks for your kind words and interest in my opinion, but I fear you've missed the point in my essay. I actually favour an expansion scenario through which redshifts would incur as photons traverse space, as I feel this is the most realistic and logically simplest way of accounting for the phenomena. The point I've argued for is that, if our expanding Universe *should* expand, the principal cause of that expansion should not be undefined.



Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 03:01 GMT

Your essay begins with:

''The discovery that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion has brought the basic concept of cosmic expansion into question.''

Well, I said ''see my essay'', because I wanted to avoid having to copy the arguments of my essay in your thread why the observed redshift of galaxies doesn't necessarily mean that the universe expands.

What's more, I reject the entire big bang hypothesis, not because of arguments like those of Fred Hoyle c.s., but for a much more fundamental reason: because big bang cosmology in the concept of cosmic time states that the universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making.

The idea that we, in our imagination, can look at the universe from without only holds in a universe where particles, particle properties only are the cause of interactions.

However, if we reject the idea that the universe has been created by some outside intervention, then ours must be a self-creating universe.

If in such universe particles have to create themselves, each other, then particles, particle properties must be as much the product as the source, the cause as the effect of their interactions, of forces between them.

In that case we are not allowed to regard the universe as an object we can, in principle, not in practice, inspect from without, so we simply cannot assert that it expands.

There is a much simpler explanation for the linearity between the redshift of galaxies and their distance.

In contrast to a big bang universe which lives in a time realm not of its own making, a self-creating universe contains and produces all time within, so here we see clocks showing an earlier time as they are more distant, which only is possible if they (are observed to) run slower as they are more distant.

Though you'll object by saying that we see clocks run slower because of the finite light speed, in a self-creating universe the speed of light isn't a velocity but refers to a property of spacetime, which, if you take the trouble to read my essay, is something else entirely.


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 05:41 GMT

"Well, I said ''see my essay'', because I wanted to avoid having to copy the arguments of my essay in your thread"

I do agree with the general point being made here. There are some very awkward exchanges taking place, as this becomes more like a beauty contest than a search for facts, and hopefully controversial ones. There is a difference between making a relevant point, but having to refer back for substantiation (or purely by implication referring back), and making an oblique point (or just saying 'well done') in order to market an alternative essay. Posts can only be short. And understandably, people would prefer a discussion which has direct relevance to something they have written to be on their blog, because it inherently looks as if there is interest in their essay.

I might also take the opportunity to express my opinion that I am unhappy rating other people's work, particularly since this has implications. By definition, if one can 'understand' what is being said then unless it tallies with what you have said......we are back to beauty contest, more than assessment by factual validity.


report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 07:18 GMT
In my last post I meant to say:

A self-creating universe does NOT live in a time realm of its own making but contains and produces all time within, so here we see clocks showing an earlier time as they are more distant, which only is possible if they (are observed to) run slower as they are more distant, even if they are at rest with respect to the observer.

In such universe we need no mysterious dark energy to explain the observed linear relation between the redshift of galaxies and their distance.

As to the point Paul makes:

For reasons I have set out in my essay, I think big bang cosmology is a waste of time and taxpayer money, so I try to subvert any paper I can find on this subject in this year's essays, not to wage a beauty contest or to fish for readers for my own essay, but mainly to put an end to a completely outdated idea and clear the way for some real progress.

Though I certainly don't intend to offend people working in big bang cosmology or don’t respect their good intentions and efforts, I want to break through the habit in this branch in physics which, based on a deeply flawed idea, keeps spawning other hypotheses which, based on the same misconception, necessarily are as flawed.

To me what happens in cosmology here, is comparable to an alien society where the belief that their own planet is at the center of the universe is a truth which under no circumstances is to be relinquished. As a result these alien cosmologists had to dream up an artificial, very complicated scheme which keeps that illusion intact but nevertheless is able to predict motions of stars and galaxies pretty good.

If observations are made which seem to contradict these hypotheses, then they either are in the process of being incorporated into a new hypothesis of processed into a variation of an already existing hypothesis, so what I want to do is break the taboo by showing a how things look like from a different vantage point, where no far-fetched hypotheses have to be thought up to explain observations.

Though in general I agree that physics shouldn't be a playground for philosophy but a domain for statements which can be experimentally tested; some philosophical insights can have a huge impact on physics if they concern the interpretations of observations, even if they aren't experimentally verifiable, like the question whether the speed of light refers to a velocity or to a property of spacetime.


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 13:26 GMT

That's quite enough of that. Without having read my essay, you admit that you're trying to "subvert" it, even though you don't have a clue what it stands for.

For the record, at the end of my essay, after careful analysis, I have drawn attention to the result of a calculation that indicates a potential connection between cosmology and gravitational collapse, although I haven't explored the possibility here at all. What I have done in my essay is criticise a big bang that is both singular (undefined) and the cause of everything---so I'm actually sympathetic to your cause, although I wish you would be less offensive in going about it.

You've said that you don't mean to offend, but you're trying to pick fights with people whose position you are totally ignorant of, and attempting to subvert essays you've not read past their abstracts. Please consider: I entered an essay on cosmology into a contest that's entitled `Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?'; so, obviously, I too think there are fundamental problems with the standard cosmological picture.


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT

Thanks for a delightfully well argued essay. I always appreciate work in which no attempt is made to hide assumptions, and everything falls into place precisely. For an alternative view in which no background space, coordinate system or cosmic rest frame applies (or can apply), I hope you get a chance to visit my essay site.

Congratulations and good luck,


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 04:44 GMT
Dear Tom,

Thanks very much for your kind words about my essay. It means a lot to me that you had this to say about it. I will post something on your site as soon as I can.


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 17:26 GMT
The main thrust of your paper is a distinction between the symmetries of spacetime, or its local transformation group SO(3,1) of Lorentz, and the symmetries of the spacetime solution. The synchronous basis is one where Killing vectors K_i, i = 1,2,3 obey the SO(3) group [K_i, K_j] = ε_{ijk}K_k. The distinction is then between the Lorentz group of spacetime that holds in local frames and the global symmetry of the spacetime manifold.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Dr. Daryl Janzen,

Congratulations for your PhD. and for an excellent paper.

I read your essay (rather also had the pdf read most of it to me aloud!) and liked your conclusion, although some of the arguments where a bit too technical for me to follow. For some years I have concluded that Einstein did a disservice to physics by insisting on a fixed speed of light, a flexible time and space dimensions in an ether-less universe. As your two quotes on the first page show he was great enough to revise some of these ideas later, but now it is time to do away with SR altogether and start anew.

In 1905 Einstein could have simply restated Lorentz (and Poincare's ?) ideas of the existence of an absolute universal ether (with matter permeable to the ether), and measurements subject to Lorentz transformations according to moving frames. The point is that it is clocks that slow down, not time itself dilates (and rods contract, not space itself). There is no time dimension in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory, just 'instantaneous' local states of the universe. A position reiterated in my present fqxi paper "Fix Physics!". I would really appreciate your reading both papers and hearing your feedback.

With best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 06:24 GMT
Vladimir (Daryl)

As previously stated, please see my posts in my own blog for an explanation as to what SR is, as defined by Einstein, and how it came about (13/7 11.24) and where the original mistake was made (11/7 19.33). This is not my essay by the way, just a 'side issue' substantiating what is a rather 'throwaway line' in it. Some of the points you are making are correct, but not the totality. As per your reaction to my cold case review, it would be a big step forward if everybody revisted what was actually said over 100 years ago.


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 06:08 GMT
Dear Vladimir:

First of all, just in case you're interested (since you mentioned the quote; and since it's so relevant to the aim of this particular essay contest), here's a more complete exerpt from Einstein's (1916) tribute to Mach:

``But how does it happen anyway, that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there not more valuable work...

view entire post

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 07:22 GMT

But 1905 is not SR. More importantly, that definition of simultaneity (from Poincare) is where the problem starts, because it is incorrect. So the subsequent expounding of relativity was incorrect. But their core start point, ie dimension alteration (and then light curvature in GR), may be correct. A flawed explanation of a hypothesis does not mean the hypothesis is wrong. It is spacetime and simultaneity that is wrong, these being the contexts within which it became 'explainable'. Dimension alteration might be right.


report post as inappropriate

james r. akerlund wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 10:47 GMT
Hi Daryl,

I've read parts of your essay, and it leads me to a problem. I will try to show you the problem. Whenever people present their understandings of the universe it goes through a filter that is in my mind. This filter once offended can't be reset back into neutral. Here is an example of the filter in action. We first claim that the earth doesn't exist. now our model of the.... ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 17:59 GMT

The essential point here is that relativity is not a theory of observation, but a theory of referencing (the clue as they say, is in the title!). The next point, and most important one, is (see my post above to Daryl is that one needs to understand SR, as defined by the man who wrote it. And he defined what it was. At that stage, reconciling anything with SR can then be seen as the 'red herring' for which it is. But that does not necessarily then underrmine Darly's general arguement.


report post as inappropriate

james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 04:49 GMT
Hi Paul,

The title of Einstein's paper on SR is "On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies". That title is in no way about the theory of referencing, it is a title about observations. Poincaré also tried to describe SR but he didn't get it quite right. Einstein correctly described SR not SR was created by Einstein. If you come along and give a better description of SR (not aether) then we will be calling it Reed's better SR. SR exists independently of it's finder. Science to be understandable needs SR. It is like trying to remove oxygen (SR) from the earth (science) and still have us living on it (universe making sense).

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 06:29 GMT

Not so. The title of Einstein's 1905 paper is On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. But this is not SR (see my post in my blog 13/7 11.24). The other point is that none of his theory is about observation, per se. This is a misconception based on his frequent mentioning of light, the use of phraes such as frame of reference and observer moves with, and the substitution of light for distance incorrectly in an equation (see my post in my blog 11/7 19.33)

For now here are a few quotes where Einstein defines SR, ie it is not 1905:

1 Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 3:“the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation.”

2 Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 28: “The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists.”

“In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity.”

3 Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 18: “provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion.”


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 18:39 GMT
Hello Mr Janzen,

It is a reading full of news.

" The most important fact that we draw from experience as to the distribution of matter is that the relative velocities of the stars are very small as compared with the velocity of light.

So I think that for the present we may base our reasoning upon the following approximative assumption. There is a system of reference relatively...

view entire post

post approved

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 09:58 GMT

What is this universl puzzle? We can never ever know. However, within that which we can potentially know a generic answer is provided by my post this morning (06.42) in my blog.


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 22:52 GMT
Dear Steve from Belgium, fellow countryman of the great cosmologist who always believed in the importance of the cosmological constant, thank you for your comments. I'm so glad that you read my essay, and that you found it to be "a reading full of news". I enjoyed your comments, and I think the idea is interesting. What do you think of the possibility that this universal sphere should have an induced metric,

---or, equivalently, that it should be described as a four-dimensional Riemannian surface,


The mathematics of the de Sitter sphere is beautiful, as its Lorentzian signature is so naturally induced...


Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 12:59 GMT
Hello Mr Janzen,

You are welcome.It is always interesting to see the evolutive point of vue.Of course we cannot really take the time like a pure dimension. But it is intersting to see this evolutive point of vue.

De Sitter was a rationalist at my humble opinion. I like the ideas of a homogenous and isotropical Universe. But of course I don't like the extradiemnsions where the foundamentals loose their universal meanings.

The Eulerian appraoch seems relevant. The convergences, RATIONAL, are numerous if they respect the universal foundamental laws.

The positive constants are essential like the isotropism and the homogeneity.

The spatial curves are on a pure rational road of polarization m/hv. The mass curves .....the mass spherisizes even this Universal sphere. The GR and the SR are ok. But for the respect of all proportionalities, the 3D is essential with this time constant of evolution in its pure irreversibility.

the sphere universal possesses an equation so incredible that it seems difficult to understand it at this moment, indeed we are youngs at the universal scale. But we evolve, so the metric induced can be optimized all days in fact. In all case the system is closed and evolutive and isotropical and homogene and rational and deterministic and SPHERICAL in all centers of interests.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen wrote on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT
Dear Jim Akerlund,

Thanks for "raising your hand". First of all, to address your "warning sign", although Einstein's presentation of SRT seemed simple enough to start with, as he realised he could base the whole theory on just the light-postulate and the principle of relativity, and thus do away with absolute time, etc., there are significant philosophical issues with the theory that have...

view entire post

Anonymous replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 04:53 GMT
Hi Daryl,

Now I see why it took you so long to reply. Your well thought out reply deserves a well thought out response. That will have to come later, but I do have two points I want you to know.

You read to much into my comment about the movie. My plan was to see it sometime that Friday, but not at midnight. I am more of a line avoider type of movie goer, so that would have got me there ten hours later. But events precluded that.

About an hour after I sent off my first post, I realized a sixth issue. In Hyperbolic geometry, one of its points that sets it apart from Euclidian geometry is the 5th postulate (a line and a point not on said line, an infinite number of lines passing through that point are parallel to the line.). So Hyperbolic - infinite number of lines parallel. Euclidian - exactly one line parallel. Elliptic - zero lines parallel. Now we come to your last sentence in that paragraph. "...both the proper space and time axes in these local frames must also be scaled hyperbolically.". So if you are scaling local frames hyperbollically then you are saying; in a spacetime diagram of x and t axises along the x axis at y distance there are an infinite number events that could pass through the y distance and all of them are in uniform motion to the origin. The argument I present in number 2 that you call the Andromeda paradox, would suggest a universe that is scaled ellipically locally, because I say all observers are moving at greater then zero velocity relative to each other. Which translates to zero events at y distance are in uniform motion to the origin. I'm not sure your hyperbolic scaling can be tested. How do you get more then one event to pass through the same point in spacetime?

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 05:20 GMT
Hi Jim,

Just quickly, because I only have Internet access through a cell phone: the hyperbolic scaling is not something new that I bring up, it's just the Lorentz transformation equations; it's not hyperbolic geometry, but a hyperbolic *scaling* of a Cartesian coordinate system, which ultimately has to do with the Lorentzian signature of the metric; i.e., it has to do with how different coordinate systems used to describe the same metric scale relatively to each other. Please check out "invariant hyperbolae", e.g. as described in Bernard Schutz' relativity book.

Mathematically, I've not described anything beyond standard SRT; I've only tried to reconcile that with intuition about time's passage, with an interpretation of simultaneity that's more consistent with cosmology.

I hope that helps some.


james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 00:19 GMT
Hi Daryl,

So, our discussions about special relativity got me to start reading "Einstein" by Walter Isaacson. I had just finished "Judging Edward Teller" by Istvan Hargittai, so I needed to go onto the next. I was more in the mood for "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" by Kai Bird & Martin J. Sherwin, but you concinced me to read more about Einstein. ...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 07:29 GMT
Hello Janzen

I really enjoyed reading your work, it was nice to see your view. There are several topics that draw my attention and encouraged my imagination. So I am allowing myself to ask you a series of questions. I most confess, however, that I consider myself a novice in the cosmological matters. You argue, for instance, that the FLRW and the de sitter model are not empirically...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 03:39 GMT
Hi Israel,

First of all, allow me to apologise for my previous typo in spelling your name. That was a truly unfortunate mistake. Secondly, thank you very much for your very positive response to my essay, and for the time and thought you put into asking these questions. I'll do my best to go through them in order.

Your first question has to do with what's empirically supported. That's...

view entire post

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 05:56 GMT
Hi Israel,

I thought it would also be worth mentioning, with regard to your statement that "Most of them hold... that there is a preferred frame", that the Steady State theory was proposed by Hoyle, Bondi, and Gold in 1948, and that Bondi certainly did appreciate the need for a preferred frame in cosmology, as I noted in my essay.


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 18:55 GMT
Hi Daryl

I invite you to take part in discussion on Philip Gibbs essay.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 14:20 GMT

Finally i have my own essay

I invite you to read specially my Appendix-comments

report post as inappropriate

Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 03:28 GMT
Hi Daryl

I like your essay, and the historical depth you have in it. Yes indeed real cosmology has preferred rest frames, our motion relative to that frame being observationally detected by CMB anisotropy measurements. The de Sitter universe doe snot model this.

As to your model (4), it is of course spatially inhomogeneous. Now this may be correct, but it's not the generally accepted view [there is quite a large literature on such inhomogeneity - see the articles by Roy Martins and Chris Ckarkson on the archive]. But in any case it can only be a partial model of cosmology as it has no dynamic matter in it. So it is interesting geometrically, but it needs supplementation by a dynamic matter and radiation description in order to relate to our cosmic history.

Best wishes

George Ellis

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 11:18 GMT
Dear George:

Thanks very much for taking the time to consider my essay. I appreciate your comments.

You agree that cosmological models describe preferred rest frames and that time flows in the manner described by standard cosmological models, according to which the "surfaces of constant time are uniquely geometrically and physically determined". In fact, you believe these...

view entire post

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
George (in response to your second paragraph):

You wrote that the cosmological model given by equation (4) of my essay is inhomogeneous. The slices of constant r, which I've argued should describe surfaces of constant cosmic time, are translation-invariant, since the metric doesn't depend on spatial coordinates; therefore, "space" is described the same at every point, so it's homogeneous,...

view entire post

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 02:16 GMT
With regard to the idea I've described here, in which the expansion rate of the Universe would not be at all influenced by its material content, as it would occur purely as a result of the cosmic background structure, it may be of interest to note that Abraham Loeb's essay describes a possible unexplored phenomenon which would give us cause to seriously reconsider this fundamental assumption of standard cosmology. In a post on Aug 12 at 11:47 GMT, he wrote:

"So far, cosmologists made the fundamental assumption that the Universe has no life in it, and that any cosmological observable can be interpreted in terms of interaction between "dead" bodies. For example, cosmologists assume that large scale structure was shaped by gravity. This assumption is at the foundation of modern cosmology, and it is widely adopted by the current physics establishment. I am questioning this foundational assumption..."

Author Daryl Janzen wrote on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear Avtar:

Loeb does not refer to the possible unexplored phenomenon that he considers, as being the cause of cosmic expansion. He discusses the possibility that distant civilisations might choose to congregate so as to remain in contact into the future, and claims that if this were to be observed, it would call into question the assumption that the large scale structure was shaped by gravity.

The fundamental assumption that's made in standard cosmology is not that the expansion occurs as a result of a fundamental background structure, but that the Universe has a particular fundamental background structure which is supposed to be the only one consistent with observations, and also that the rate of expansion is determined by its material content. The standard model does not lack a physical mechanism, and doesn't violate conservation laws.


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 17:47 GMT

I see you reassign the hyperbola for additive 'rapidity' to better resolve some of the issues. Beautifully done and described, and I agree a closer approximation to reality. However, I see that many issues are not addressed and no real mechanisms or phenomena are described for the mathematical abstractions to re-connect to. A tall order I know, but have you considered any not covered...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
Dear Peter:

Thanks so much for reading my essay! I'm sorry I haven't gotten to yours yet, as I've always had every intention of doing that. I promise I will, and I hope I'll have something intelligent to say about it, too.

You note that I "reassign the hyperbola for additive 'rapidity' to better resolve some of the issues", which is an excellent characterisation of the core point of...

view entire post

Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 19:54 GMT

I agree a 3rd frame is a logical prerequisite, as is an ultimate cosmic frame. But this alone does not resolve all the paradoxes and anomalies, even with expansion. It never did. (If it did of course SR would not exist!)

Let's just consider red shift. To 'prove' anything all other possibilities must be eliminated. Our essays identify assumptions; Eddington 'assumed' there was...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 22:01 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thanks for the further description. I'm totally intrigued, and will read with interest. I'm pretty busy over the next couple of days, but I hope to have read through and understood your essay soon.

But for now, with regard to the patchwork theories you mention, that are often given to describe local clusters embedded in an ambient FLRW universe, I really prefer the description that I've given on pages 46 -- 47 of my thesis (there's a hyperlink in my essay), which is more consistent with the interpretation of cosmic expansion as being due to the "de Sitter effect"---i.e., pure Lambda---than with an ambient Hubble flow that strips clusters of the galaxies at their boundaries. (But of course, I also think cosmic expansion is a basic metrical property of our Universe, which isn't affected at all by its energy-content as local gravitational fields are.) According to this alternative idea, it's just that the local gravitational field, regardless of what's going on cosmologically, can only support circular orbits out to a certain radius before galaxies would just spiral out because of a cosmological constant. The math is straightforward and the idea is old and offers a very natural explanation, but it didn't gain any momentum when it was assumed that Lambda\equiv0 should be logically simplest.

Best, Daryl

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 03:15 GMT
Hi Peter:

I've now taken my time reading through your essay, and I think I've got a much better idea of what you were driving at in your above two comments. In fact, I think that apart from the physical mechanism for achieving a constant speed of light in all frames (I believe it's purely geometric; could you please write something here to help me better understand your thoughts?), I think...

view entire post

S Halayka wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 07:40 GMT
That's a really great essay.

Do you know of anyone who has spent any considerable amount of time patching the SdS mass calculation and the Wheeler–DeWitt equation together?

P.S. Saskatonian expat. Small world.

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 20:37 GMT
Dear Shawn:

Thanks a lot for reading the essay, and for the awesome compliment! I was going to ask whether you managed to submit an essay before the deadline, but thought I'd check before asking, and I see that yours was actually posted today. Congrats, and best wishes!

I wasn't aware of this work before you asked your question, but I did a little searching and found a set of papers from '97 -- '99 by a Japanese group [1,2,3,4] that might be what you're looking for. Equations (34) and (35) in [2] for the RNdS solution should simplify to SdS when Q=0, of course.

Cheers, Daryl

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 20:45 GMT
P.S. I was born and raised in Saskatoon (I've never actually lived away from here for longer than three months at-once), and Israel Perez is currently here for a postdoc. With you, that makes three of us in this contest with a strong connection to the city, which is pretty neat. Do you still live in Saskatchewan?

S Halayka replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 00:15 GMT
Hi Daryl,

I was thoroughly impressed that you could gain a measure of mass-energy in a way that is more general than the ADM formalism. It makes me proud that there's really great work going on in Saskatchewan. :) I sincerely appreciate you pointing those papers out to me.

I was born in S'toon, and have lived in the city off and on. My youngest was born at RUH just a couple of years ago. :) I'm currently living in P.A., and I'm having serious Fuddruckers withdrawal! I'll have to give Israel Perez's essay another read.

Take care,


report post as inappropriate

Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 21:30 GMT

Excellent essay, congratulations. I read it before I finished my own, as you may see if you manage to read it.



report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 02:30 GMT
Dear Daryl

Just to let you know about the reply to your previous post in my thread with respect to the interpretation of the red shift. Unfortunately you did not answer any of my questions about the estimation of the radial velocity of galaxies. Your reply was alluding to the explanation of the red shift according to the expansion model. I asked the questions because I am interested in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:10 GMT
This is part 2

Three years later, in 1920, the Shapley-Curtis Debate took place and in 1922 and 1924 Friedman published his solutions.

During this period Eddington appeared in the scene (1923). From the paragraphs you quoted one can easily grasp that astronomers have already estimated a considerable amount (80) of radial velocities as well as the corresponding distances. Eddington...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:16 GMT
This is part 3

Ok, I understand that expansion is one explanation to df vs d. Then, what do I argue? Based on the preceding historical discussion, I ask: Is the expansion the only possible explanation? If, according to the conclusions drawn from the essay, the aether is reconsidered, the answer clearly goes in the negative. As we have seen, all that is required is to explain the relation df vs d. The theory of waves can easily reproduce this. And it tells us that the larger the distances the more energy is dissipated/scattered by the aether and therefore light will appear red shifted for an observer on the earth. In this model there is no expansion and space is essentially Euclidean avoiding in this way the horizon and flatness problems. This also explains Olber’s paradox even if the universe were infinite in extension. The CMBR it is not interpreted as a relic radiation but it is just the signature of a thermodynamic system in equilibrium, etc.

This model also implies that not only the determination of red shifts is in need of corrections but also the distances; for the luminosity is function of the light energy per unit area. Moreover, we can see that this model is quite simple, explains many problems, it is more consistent and could lead to new insights.

So I hope you have understood my points and I will be looking forward to seeing any response you may have.

Best regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Israel:

My apologies for not responding to your detailed post until now. I haven't been in a position to dedicate a great deal of time to these comments, and I couldn't properly respond to you without doing that. Your initial statement bothers me because you still really don't understand how cosmological expansion is commonly thought to be connected to the observed redshifts, and your...

view entire post

DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Daryl

Congratulations for your essay, I see it relies on very clear and strong arguments. Unfortunately I haven´t studied cosmology in depth yet (it would take me an amount of time I don´t have to completely understand all the major points in your essay). I think I can´t make any major contributions to the debate. I just would like to point out that just as 3+1 ADM formalism of GR, there is an alternative formulation from purely Machian first principles in which the basic building blocks are parameterized shapes of the universe (this parameterization is arbitrary, however there is one distinguished parameterization which could have a relation with your ''cosmic time''). It is the research of Julian Barbour, Shape Dynamics.

I also invite you to take a look in my essay , for it discusses absolute and relational (and possible extensions of it) conceptions of motion.

Best Regards,


report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 22:29 GMT
Cosmic past,present,future

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

report post as inappropriate

Hyoyoung Choi wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Daryl Janzen!

I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

I greatly enjoyed reading your essay.

In my article, I show that negative mass(energy) provides an explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

Article : Negative mass and negative energy

Computer simulation on negative mass

If you read my essay, I will be very...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:23 GMT

After reading your paper(rather finishing reading it, after a long pause) and your exchanges with Israel, I thought I might make a some observations/ask questions. First off, I would say I agree with Israel that universal expansion is unnecessary, but rather than defining space as an ether, would describe it as an infinite equilibrium state(necessarily filled with varying levels of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:25 GMT
Daryl, not Garyl. Sorry about that.

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 19:42 GMT
Dear John:

First of all, thanks very much for reading my essay! I appreciate your comment, and think I can help with some things. I'm not too bothered by your saying that you agree with Israel about expansion, because there are a few things that you seem to misunderstand about how cosmic expansion is thought to work, which I think I can explain, hoping you might like it better in a...

view entire post

John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 03:28 GMT

Thank you very much for such a detailed response. Time is valuable. While I'm lacking the time to fully unravel and consider all you have said in one sitting, I'll start with the first point:

" Every galaxy stays at the same coordinates while the space between them all expands."

Galaxies are not inert point particles. Relativity specifically makes the argument that gravity contracts space, such that galaxies amount to space wells. So, yes, the space between galaxies is expanding, but then it would seem to be balanced by the effect of falling into galaxies. As an analogy, think of walking up the down escalator. It only seems the floors keep moving apart as you walk from one to the other, but the space of the steps is falling into the floor from which you started and keeps increasing in front of you. The resulting balance between the overall expansion and contraction results in overall flat space, as measurements from COBE and WMAP seem to show.

One more point,

"If you draw a line on an elastic at a constant speed while also stretching the elastic,"

What defines/sets that constant speed???? Supposedly it isn't space, because space is expanding. C is the speed of light in a vacuum. If the stretching space were what is actually setting the speed of light, wouldn't it then carry the light along on its expansion, such that it conforms to that stretching, such that the pen would have to move faster, as the elastic is stretched?? Otherwise there is some mystery frame, setting that constant speed.

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 03:53 GMT
Dear John,

I appreciate your questions. I think they are good ones and I want to answer them for you. I however lack the faculties to do so properly tonight and I'm busy for a couple of days. But I will leave you for now with this:---when you speak of velocity/speed/etc., make sure you understand you're not just talking about rates of motion through space, but rates of motio through space in time. Also, please do take some time to consider the response I gave you earlier, because I think the answers you're looking for are there if you do try to find them. But I will continue to try to help you see them as long as it seems you're willing to look.

Best regards, Daryl

PS I did try to read through the article this afternoon, but my son and his friend were really quite demanding. I did notice some inaccuracies in the history, however, but I am going to continue. As I hope you would see from my essay, I agree that there are irreconcilable issues with the standard model. I just don't think that's expansion.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 16:30 GMT

My own entry lays out what I think is the problem with our view of time. In brief, it is that we perceive time as a series of events and physics re-enforces this view by treating it as a measurement issue, from one event to the next, in whatever series constitutes the clock. The physical reality is that action creates change, thus it is the events which proceed through the present,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 20:10 GMT
Dear Daryl,

While I don't have anything to say about cosmic issues, I am sure about my comments on your attempts to understand questions that relate to Einstein's relativity. So I am not in position for positively contributing to your essay. That's why I decided to post my promised reply at 1364.

Nonetheless best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 08:29 GMT
Dear Daryl

I have read your reply to John. I have thought about the measurement of distances in an expanding universe. A simple reflexion about this topic clearly shows how a measurement becomes highly dependent on the theory. In other words that the measurement is not a pure experimental fact but a mixture of theory assumptions with measurements. This is why it is important to define our...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 10:32 GMT

Thank you for that. The theory does fall apart if one is forced to accept the light is being carried by the moving frame. I just want to make clear to Daryl that currently the model has unconsciously included a stable frame.


Israel and I have been debating whether energy dissipates more due to ether, or the increasing volume of space it has to cover, with increasing distance. Here is an interesting paper you might consider;

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 04:28 GMT

"In summary, when astronomers say that a galaxy is at a distance of 10^9 Lyr, the value corresponds to the value measured in the co-moving system of reference and it will never change because the ruler is also expanding at the same rate as space." You're mistaken. If you had understood my detailed message to John, you would know that the physical distance that light travels through...

view entire post

John Merryman replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 10:49 GMT

"Galaxies stay the same size and move apart from one another in an expanding universe."

What about the space essentially collapsing into these galaxies? The reason Einstein came up with a cosmological constant in the first place was to balance gravity and keep the universe from collapsing into a point, due to gravity, so why does cosmology now treat galaxies as inert points of measure in an expanding universe?

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 16:46 GMT
Hi guys

Sorry for opening a new thread, it was an error of mine.


In my thread where I started the discussion of the red shift John asked me this: Was it you who linked me to this article (Christov's) last year?

This was my reply to him:

"I do not remember but it is likely since I have cited before and I am aware of that paper. Actually, I consider it of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT

Keep in mind that fluids can freeze(and contract), or become gaseous and expand. I think rather than space, this applies to what occupies space, that it is a cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass. So any measure based on physical properties, is of some part of that cycle. We only detect light as a point, or wave, depending on the method of detection, but does it travel that way? It would seem reasonable that rather than traveling as a point particle, this quantum of energy would expand to fill space, gas-like. Then when it is detected, by an instrument composed of mass, it contracts into the structure of the mass, as it becomes part of the content of that structure.

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 03:34 GMT
Dear John

From the perspective of solid state physics, space can be seen as a state of condensed matter, in particular as a continuous solid (or liquid) fluid. There are some models that account for this and work very well even at very low temperatures. The kind of fluid that you may have in mind (gas) pertains to a "macroscopic" fluid composed of atoms and molecules. This is not the kind of fluid I have in mind, since at the Planck scale even electrons look like galaxies. I have discussed in my previous essay about the Aristotle's paradox of place. You may be interested in reading it. I think that one has to get rid of the idea that things occupy space, because this implies that space is the arena for objects and fields as in Newtonian space or Einsteinian space. I hold that the fluid is space itself and that the objects are in fact patterns moving through this fluid.

What we measure are localized wave packets. A wave packet is an envelop of waves that differ slightly in their frequency. A wave or a photon of one single frequency has never been measured. This is in view of the fact that atoms never emit at one single frequency. Recall that spectral line (for instance for the emission spectrum of the hydrogen atom) do not represent a single frequency but a series of frequencies around an average value. The fact that a spectral line is not a Dirac function reflects this experimental fact.



report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 10:42 GMT

Here is an [link/
Mead.htm]interesting point of view, on the nature of electrons.

report post as inappropriate

Chris Kennedy wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 20:26 GMT

Forgive me, I am still trying to get caught up on my responses. Awhile back, you had made this statement on my thread: “Schutz' resolution of the "paradox" is consistent with the description that's given according to the special relativistic framework I've set out in my essay.”

At the time, I suspected that it was the same inertial frame shifting resolution that J.A....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 05:39 GMT
Hi Chris,

I did read your essay, and I found it to be a really interesting read up to a point. But near the end I thought you got into a bit of a mess and I was left with the impression that you maybe don't correctly understand purely special relativistic effects such as time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity. So here goes...

Are we in agreement that...

view entire post

Chris Kennedy wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 19:28 GMT
Daryl – see my specific responses to your specific comments below:

DJ: Hi Chris, I did read your essay, and I found it to be a really interesting read up to a point. But near the end I thought you got into a bit of a mess and I was left with the impression that you maybe don't correctly understand purely special relativistic effects such as time dilation, length contraction, and the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 19:44 GMT
For better clarification my approach

I sending to you Frank 3 keen articles

All the best

Yuri Danoyan

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT
I missed part 1

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 14:51 GMT

You destroy the remnants of rationality in science by making people assimilate texts like this one:

"...we should have to relinquish the concept that there can be no priviliged observers, as well as Einstein's light-postulate in its original form. With regard to the latter, consider that photons will still be perceived as travelling at a constant speed in all directions of all reference frames, due to the invariance of null-lines. But this is indeed a matter of perception, since an observer moving through the universe will keep pace better with a photon in their direction of motion, and will remain closer to that photon at all later times, on the cosmic hyperplane."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 06:50 GMT
Dear Pentcho:

Smiles. As with quite a number of the comments you post, I do appreciate this one. I'm really happy that this is the passage of the essay that stood out for you the most, because I actually thought to write it as a result of a comment you had made somewhere here while I was finalising the draft.

While I'm very glad that a number of people have read that passage and understood it, such as Charlie Cotgrove who posted so below (thanks, Charli! reading your essay is on my list of things to do), I think that can only be because for them I must have done a sufficient enough job in developing the thought experiment and the different interpretation of special relativity on which it's based. Because along with time dilation and length contraction, this is quite a confounding result of the differently interpreted theory of special relativity that I propose. Nevertheless, it is what's required in order to reconcile the mathematical theory with a true passage of time; and Minkowski space is in any case very unintuitive.

So, what I'll say in defence of your comment---which I do think was brilliantly put---is that I don't agree that every consequence of a theory needs to make immediate sense with physical intuition in order for the theory to be rational, but that the theory needs to be based on reasonably justifiable principles and has to incorporate what logically follows from them, in a manner that's consistent with the evidence. For then it is possible to make some sense even of the otherwise unintuitive consequences of a theory, when one understands why they must logically be. In that sense, it's not the conclusion that needs to be assimilated, but the rationale on which it lies.

A personal example is the way Einstein made time dilation very clear to me with his thought experiment involving a clock on a train that ticked by bouncing a photon straight up and down. According to the light postulate (which I know you deny), an observer standing outside the train will have to conclude that the clock ticks slowly because the distance the photon travels is greater from his perspective.

Thanks for reading the essay.

All my best, Daryl

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 08:13 GMT

You wrote: "...the theory needs to be based on reasonably justifiable principles..."

Is the constancy of the speed of light a "reasonably justifiable" principle? Let me ask you a question that Brendan Foster will almost certainly delete but still you may have the time to answer:

The question: Is the equation v'=v+vO in the quotation below true?

Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 05:00 GMT
Dear Pentcho:

Yes, I think the constancy of the speed of light is a reasonably justifiable principle, because it's part of what leads to special relativity (time dilation, etc.), which has been empirically verified countless times. I don't know if you can make any sense of that based on wave theory, however, and I have to admit that I haven't thought about it in that respect as much as I probably should. But I do think you can make sense of it from a geometrical perspective, thinking about the problem kinematically. In that case, if the space-time continuum of events is Minkowskian, and light moves through space in time along null lines, then the velocity of light has to be the same value in every inertial frame of reference.

Best, Daryl

Matthew Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 18:02 GMT

An enjoyable read and very sensible. I also find logical sense in the passage above that Pentcho fails to understand due apparently to his false assumptions.

Well done. I hope you'll read and comment on ours Matt Jackson and Charli Cotgrove.

Best of luck.


report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:33 GMT

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regard !


August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Member Thomas Sotiriou wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 10:30 GMT
Dear Daryl,

I have enjoyed your essay. However, I think that you might be reading to much into the symmetries of a configuration and underestimating the distinction between a symmetry of a solution and a symmetry of the theory (as has been pointed out already by George Ellis and, in a mathematical language, by LC). Running the risk of repeating or rephrasing what has already been said (I admit not having read thoroughly all of the posts and replies), let me stress that the world is full of broken symmetries and preferred directions and that once you include matter in general relativity, the matter configuration will inevitably induce preferred frame effects. After all, Lorentz symmetry is a local symmetry.

It is, therefore, expected that the matter in an isotropic and homogeneous universe will induce a cosmic frame. In fact, a common question in theories with preferred frames is exactly: if there is a preferred frame why should it be aligned with the cosmic frame of the matter in the universe (if it didn't we would see that in the CMB). That is to say, having a preferred time does not explain why one empirically has a cosmic time, but instead gives rise to even more complicated questions.

Best of luck,


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 21:08 GMT
Dear Thomas:

Thank you so much for reading my essay, and commenting on it and the further discussion that's taken place here. I want to assure you that I do appreciate this perspective on symmetries and symmetry breaking. My point in the above discussion with George Ellis was not that I think it's wrong to think of the theory in this way. Indeed, I appreciate that it has proven to be a very...

view entire post

Jin He wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 16:28 GMT
Heaven Breasts and Heaven Calculus

Since the birth of mankind, human beings have been looking for the origin of life. The fact that human history is the history of warfare and cannibalism proves that humans have not identified their origin. Humanity is still in the dark phase of lower animals. Humans can see the phenomenon of life only on Earth, and humans' vision does not exceed the one of lower animals. However, it is a fact that human beings have inherited the most advanced gene of life. Humans should be able to answer the following questions: Is the Universe hierarchical? What is Heaven? Is Heaven the origin of life? Is Heaven a higher order of life? For more than a decade, I have done an in-depth study on barred galaxy structure. Today (September 17, 2012) I suddenly discovered that the characteristic structure of barred spiral galaxies resembles the breasts of human female essentially. If the rational structure conjecture presented in the article is proved then Sun must be a mirror of the universe, and mankind is exactly the image on earth of the Heaven.

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 05:09 GMT
Dear John Merryman:

I'm sorry that I got sidetracked from these comments over the past couple of weeks. In two posts above, on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 10:42 and on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 10:49, you wrote:

`What is the source of that "rate of propagation through space as a constant value," if it isn't space? The most basic measure of cosmic distances is how far light travels in a year. So you say...

view entire post

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 09:31 GMT

You wrote: "Yes, I think the constancy of the speed of light is a reasonably justifiable principle, because it's part of what leads to special relativity (time dilation, etc.), which has been empirically verified countless times."

An argument based on "verified countless times" cannot be contradicted and therefore is not scientific. Why don't you pick out a single experiment - e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment or the cosmic-ray muons experiment - so that we can analyse it and see if it really confirms the constancy of the speed of light.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 00:18 GMT
Dear Pentcho:

An argument based on "verified countless times" *can* be contradicted if the theory's ever shown to be inconsistent with experiment, and this is *exactly what science is about*. In science, hypotheses are made, and no matter how many times they're verified they're never proven; however, they can always be refuted by experimental evidence. Physical theories build on...

view entire post

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 00:26 GMT
In a post to Peter Jackson above, I explained, in better detail than in my essay, why the cosmological evidence does indicate that we observe an absolute frame of rest. I've copied it here in order to clarify that point in my last post:---

I thought I'd give some more details about why I think the cosmological evidence justifies the assumption---usually thought to be unjustifiable strictly...

view entire post

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear Daryl,

In my opinion a lot of problems disappear if we say that Big Bang never took place. All cosmological effects may be explained without the Big Bang. See for example the paper: osmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. . Big Bang is denied in the Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter . There is no black holes, singularities, inflation of Universe.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear Daryl hope this finds you well.

Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.


report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 01:19 GMT
Hi Daryl

I thought you may have overlooked my last replies of Sep. 12, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT and Sep. 19, 2012 @ 00:56 GMT. I would like to remind you about them, I would appreciate any comments you may have.



report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 05:37 GMT
Dear Daryl,

I enjoyed reading your essay. I think the ideas you present are worthy of very serious consideration. I know that there are indications of something similar in discrete theories of quantum gravity: if not a unique cosmic rest frame, at least a family of frames that are "more rest-like" than arbitrary boosts in a given direction. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 15:54 GMT

Sorry I missed your long post of Sept 5th. I will revert. I don't seem to have posted you this brief cosmology paper yet (due for update) but do look at my post today to LC for theory clarification.

The frame concept is hard to grasp in terms of current theory so I have abandoned most of that approach and language. Effectively the assumption for the Rel of Sim are amended, allowing many local frames in local backgrounds with no relevance to infinitely many greater ones (or smaller ones within the immediate 'next one down'). Learn TPL and substitute 'frame' for 'proposition'. They are however as real as real can be, with physical limits and mutually exclusive, but nested at all scales, only defined by kinetic state. Look at Richard Kingsley-Nixey's Essay Fig 2. for a REAL cross section through one properly re-interpreted.

I'm now rating essays and confirm my positive first thoughts about yours. I hope you won't forget to rate mine by Friday if not already done. I'll finish reading and respond again shortly. (If I don't do remind me!).

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 19:02 GMT

We only need to reduce simultaneity to the basis that the light cone surface is perturbed. Observed from frame A (state of motion with physical limits) the light from any event occurring in frame B+ will be distorted at the boundary (aberration) subject to the relative vector. i.e. apparent c+v is possible but always only apparent. Yes I did largely understand your proposition, but could not connect it to an 'reality'. Perhaps this will emerge in your 'mechanism'.

The mechanism I invoke, Raman coupling and scattering, is well known and demonstrated, but just not assimilated into theory. Minkowski is also better interpreted when it is, (including by my co-author John Minkowski) more closely with his intent, because all such 'distortions' are completely equivalent to his “imaginary” c+v, which has been rather ignored. Curved space-time is such a quantized distortion ALL caused by temporal evolution of interaction, or motion DURING charge and re-emission interaction.

This is a slightly different and simpler case of REAL small space "s" moving within REAL big "S". It gives clear mechanistic resolution to your question; "...why should the fundamental emergent space-time metric be Lorentzian and expanding?" The hyperbola is as shown as the Unruh effect as local ion density approaches the 'optical breakdown' limit at ~10^20/cm^-3 (Gamma hits Planck!). Expansion is constrained and will reduce, eventually to contraction (I'll pass you a link to that paper if ready).

But nothing is ever cast in stone or fully understood, so do tell of your mechanism, or renormalisation to underlying observed reality (as well as giving your opinion on or questioning mine).

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:47 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Frank Ullmann wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:00 GMT
Dear Daryl,

I have read your essay with great interest. And I really like the way you introduce worldlines using a barograph.

After reading your essay I thought that you might like to read something that was once intended to be my diploma thesis (in a quiet longer and more complicated version). : About the length of world lines … (my essay)

My abstract could be like this:

There is a way to test if the metric (based on the notion of distance, given by the Minkowski norm) tying space and time to space-time really exists.

By using an assumption that is (WLOG) weaker then the assumption that has been used to derive Minkowski norm, we can see that reversed triangle inequality (one of the three conditions that have to be met for space and time to be a four-dimensional metric space) is violated. Thus space and time can not be seen as a four-dimensional metric space.

Kind regards,


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 04:27 GMT

Congratulations !!!!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
Thanks, Ed. Congratulations to you, too! This has been one heck of a roller-coaster.

Jonathan Kerr wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 18:39 GMT
Well done for being among the finalists Daryl, and thanks for enjoyable discussions. Good luck in the finals.....

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 22:43 GMT
Thank you, Jonathan. I really enjoyed our discussions, too (particularly the one on Edwin Eugene Klingman's topic from Aug 20 to 24). It was abominable what happened to your score right at the end---from top 35 to now 106. I suppose some might argue that it doesn't matter anyway because that's the final score that it is, was, and always will have been---but you and I know better, at least:---someone, or a group of people, really *did* that to you then, and they shouldn't have, *and it was in no way predestined that they would*. (Please, anyone who sees this post in the future, read both Jonathan's essay and mine to understand what I'm alluding to here).

I'm going to make a suggestion on the contest blog for a way to fairly remove the type of hateful down-voting that took place in this contest, by making the community ratings count as a running total, so that the essays with the most points move on. This would make the community rating part of the contest more of a race, and the worst someone could do if they decided they didn't like you or your essay, for whatever reason, would be to just not vote on it. Since final judges should be disinterested voters, the average community score could then be calculated, and the final rating could proceed as outlined for this essay.

I'd really like this idea to be discussed by as many people as possible, so that a change might actually be considered by FQXi, and we might find a way to improve the atmosphere during future contests; so I'll ask that you and anyone else who notices this post go over there and comment below my post when I've added it.

By the way, thanks for posting your email address on your site the other day. I hadn't noticed that before, but it would be nice to keep in touch.

All my best, Daryl

Jonathan Kerr wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 09:32 GMT
Thanks a lot Daryl,

It's very good to find your post. I agree that adding the ratings is much better than averaging them, have thought that for a while - I think there may be a change of that kind next year anyway. It may be that the positions up to the last 24 hours are more indicative, but whatever. Having been in the top 35 for the last two weeks up to there, I've had a great response to my essay from colleagues both in the ratings and in discussions, the latter being more important. I've also learned a lot from the exchange of ideas, as I think most of us have.

Do keep in touch, and you mentioned at one point that you might want to show me some other work you had done - feel free to communicate on that or anything else. And good luck with winning a prize!

Cheers, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 05:44 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I went back and found the posts where I mentioned this, because the context of those discussions is relevant to the proof I wanted to show you. The first time was on Ed's site on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 00:20 in reply to a comment you left me there on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 06:03, and the second time was on your site on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 22:33. The first time was after you stated that "Spacetime distances include imaginary numbers, which people accept in an 'emperor's new clothes' kind of way", and the second time was after a point you made regarding time dilation.

The calculation that I wanted to show you, which proves in a few lines that space-time distances shouldn't have to include imaginary numbers, would explain that the weird Lorentzian metrical structure of space-time, through which time-dilation, etc., emerge, could really be due to a fundamental uniformity, or regular order, in physical reality---whereby all irregularities or deformities in space-time would only be said to be irregular or deformed or warped *relative to that basic uniformity*. Beginning from the assumption of this basic uniformity, together with an assumption that this metric space should be real, and therefore globally describable by a real coordinate basis, I actually already posted the calculation above (in the last comment I made below George Ellis' post on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 03:28, which I posted on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 03:21), where I showed that such a space would only be Lorentzian if it had positive curvature---i.e., only in the case of a positive cosmological constant.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

Cheers, Daryl

Jonathan Kerr wrote on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 10:22 GMT
Hello Daryl,

Thanks. Well when you said that to you SR did indeed apply, but within its domain of validity, that made sense, and it fits with what you've said now. I still don't believe in a universal present moment, because the local aspect of time in SR seems to fit with block time being wrong. Time being local, and only relevant within the light cone, would explain several things at...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 07:20 GMT
Daryl Janzen: "Dear Julian and Pentcho, This was an interesting exchange. I've discussed the differences between absolute and relative simultaneity, and argued for absolute simultaneity and a privileged frame from the perspective of cosmology in my essay for the current FQXi contest. I'd be very interested to hear your reactions to my argument. Regards, Daryl"


You failed to do an interesting experiment. You could have ended your essay with:


...and seen what your rating would look like in the end.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 11:41 GMT
Dear Daryl Janzen,

In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, the observer is a three-dimensional tetrahedral-brane of eigen-rotational string-segment, whereas the observer that is expressional with Minkowski space is zero-dimensional and point like particle.

In this paradigm, ‘present’ of an observer is its state at the current time of event in the cyclic time period of eigen-rotation of that observer string-segment, where the ‘cosmic present’ is the state of the eternal universe at current cosmic events in simultaneity at the cyclic time period of the universe for the current cycle of Homeomorphic segmental-fluctuations in that each cosmic event is also in reference with individual cyclic-times in the holarchy of universe.

With best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 20:33 GMT
Dear Jayakar,

Thanks for your interest! It seems you'd agree with me that there is reason for there to be an absolute cosmic time, contrary to what relativity is commonly supposed to imply. I hope you saw the relevance in my attempt to show how this could possibly be, even from the point of view of special relativity, which, although a simple theory, is already a major obstacle to anyone wanting to advocate for absolute simultaneity.

Personally, I feel it's important to work through these very basic issues, and come to grips with the implications that our assumptions will have for the understanding of our most simple theories first, before moving on to consider implications for more complex and abstract proposals like superstrings and extra dimensions. In fact, since Einstein based general relativity on the same idea of relative simultaneity as he had advanced in the special case, I think there are already significant implications for the way we'd have to interpret local general relativistic solutions, if they should be consistent with an absolute cosmic simultaneity relation. I'd really like to explore this, because I think we'd find that there really wouldn't be any reason to propose a more exotic theory of quantum gravity if general relativity were finally understood in a manner more consistent with the evidence from cosmology.

Best, Daryl

Charles Weber wrote on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 19:43 GMT
Dear Daryl,

In portrayals of the Universe astronomers present as if the big bang and expanding galaxies were an established fact. But actually there is no evidence that the we are at the center of the Universe and the galaxies are all moving away from us other than the assumption that the cosmological red shift is a Doppler shift. There is a discussion of other possible causes of the red shift in . My own view is that the red shift is due to an interaction of the photons with masses passed in space. If light actually is degraded by the ether itself, It should prove impossible to establish the cause by experiment, because the affect would be so tiny.

Astronomers speak of a "young Universe". It was, of course, younger than it is now when distant stars shone. However, there is no chance at all that the Universe was as young as astronomers say when the light from those distant stars was created even if the big bang hypothesis were valid. It took the light over 13 billion years to arrive here, so it is obvious that the atoms emitting it took well over 13 billion years to get out there even given a big bang. It does not make any difference if the atoms traveled out there from a spot near here or the ether is expanding, well over 13 billion years would have had to go by, so by now the Universe could be over 30 billion years old even in the unlikely event that there was a big bang.

You may also find interesting a hypothesis that the characteristics of quasars arise because of refractive lensing by gases near a huge mass inside the quasar of the light from an opposite jet in .

Sincerely, Charles Weber

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 30, 2012 @ 20:00 GMT
Congratulations Daryl,

I hope this well deserved recognition leads on to bigger and better things!


Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Daryl Janzen replied on Nov. 30, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT
Thanks very much, Ed. And thanks for all the great discussion and feedback here. It was an excellent contest. I hope we keep in touch.

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.