Einsteinian reason for Hubble redshift

[JimJast]

In 1950 Einstein proposed a non symmetric metric tensor of spacetime. This new metric tensor had several advantages over the old symmetric metric tensor of spacetime: (i) it didn't violate the principle of conservation of energy (which is unvoidable in the Big Bang hypohtesis), (ii) it explains the Hubble redshift in stationary space, (iii) it predicts the illusion of accelerating expanding space with acceleration as observed, (iv) it explains Arp's quasars, (v) it explains the observed minimum of angular diameters of galaxies between Z=1 and Z=2, and (vi) it explains the 'anomalous' acceleration of Pioneers. I'm not an astronomer so I don't know all the facts for which Einstein's proposition was ignored by astronomers, but I checked Einstein's idea many times and it seems OK to me. I'd be interested if someone could explain to me why Einstein's idea has been rejected by astronomers in favor of the Big Bang, violation of conservation of energy, and dark energy.

[makc]

in its original paper introducing non symmetric metric tensor Einstein himself writes that he doesnt know any way to test his theory - I guess that's why. so... any references to statements (i) - (vi) ?

[aristarchusinexile]

Relatively speaking, mankind's mind is still at a primitive stage of use. We grasp very tightly easy answers. Every child has seen explosions of some kind, even if it's only the striking of a match into flame .. so when a Big Bang was proposed, it was an easy answer easily pictured, easily accepted. Here's a link from Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics on Loop Quantum Gravity suggesting no singularity (and therefore no Bang. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Art ... r-2005-11/ However, I must accept, from my spiritual reading alone, that the galaxies are in motion, but that does not require me to accept that the only way they came into motion was through a Bang.
Another interesting link http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/3428

[JimJast]

Hi makc, I don't have any refs to statement (v) since I'm working right now on narrowing the range of distances to something better than redshifts Z=1 to Z=2. All the other things are in my paper "The general time dilation: relativistic redshift in stationary clouds of dust" at http://www.geocities.com/jim_jastrzebski/sci/3266.pdf in which I'm trying to explain all those things to amateur astronomers since as far as I know no professional astronomer is interested in Einstein's ideas or in "Einstein's (stationary) universe". If you could provide some critique of his ideas (or mine, which agree with his) it would be great. If there is something unclear in my paper, I'll be happy to explain it.
-- Jim

[makc]

Jim, the idea that in order to have space-time to red-shift light in any direction it has to have non-sym metric tensor is nice and all, but you have not even shown there that your end results are solutions of equations from [6], did you? instead, you keep operating with concepts that are part of incompatible (Riemann) theory.

all of that aside, I must notify you that current rules of this forum do not allow discussion of theories not published in scientific journals (please contact Nereid for more details: ). so, you would have to use other references to back up your theory, or this will be locked, eventually.

[JimJast]

Makc, I don't have any theory of my own. I had one with non symmetric metric tensor but then I was shown Einstein's work [6] and it turned out that Einstein did about the same thing 35 years earlier than me. So the only thing left for me to do was to check Einstein's implied results and they proved to be all right. Even the radius of curvature of space came out exactly as "Einstein's radius".

So the only thing that I'd like to know is why astronomers didn't use Einstein's non symmetric metric tensor to get back "Einstein's universe". Then they wouldn't have problem with violation of the principle of conservation of energy that they have in the Big Bang, they could get rid of the whole Big Bang, the inflation, the "dark energy", and even clear the problems of Pioneers, just to mention few. The only negative result would be that Wheeler and his team would look like dummies. Was saving a few egos worth destroing cosmology as science?

[makc]

oh please, dont go in circles with me, ok?

you have not even shown there that your end results are solutions of equations from [6], did you?

[JimJast]

Ok. I concluded from your post that you've noticed that Einstein's metric tensor implies Hubble redshift in "Einstein's universe". So what "equations from [6]" you have in mind? I don't remember Einstein's paper that well to be able to quote any equations from it. I just remember that the non symmetric metric tensor is all that is needed to explain Hubble redshift in his universe and to nullify the Big Bang hypothesis. If Einsetein was not too explicit about it one should contribute it to his politeness and that he didn't want to destroy careers of physics professors. The rest is only for astronomers to worry about anyway. So I asked you only why they didn't worry. They couldn't have not noticed what you've noticed so easily.

This is the only legitimate question here: why the astronomers keep pretending for 80 years that the universe is expanding, as if nothing happened, while their hypothesis got falsified by Einstein in 1950.

Wheeler didn't even mention it in his bible (MTW "Gravitation") published in 1973. If not for Richard Feynman we wouldn't have even known that "gravity physisicst", as they called themselves then, are idiots (R. P. Feynman, "What Do You Care What Other People Think". p.91). If it is going in circles, it is since you didn't answer the only legitimate question here. I assume you might be an insider in this trade, while I'm just a regular guy who happens to understand Einstein's gravitation (and so he just knows why things fall down) and he's curious about astronomy and about what astronomers do and why. But of course you are not obliged to answer any questions if you don't want to. I still can reason on my own. I thought the subject might be interesting to people who don't know the answer neither but know Einstein, and the job of a moderator might be to supply answers.

[makc]

...what "equations from [6]" you have in mind? I don't remember Einstein's paper that well to be able to quote any equations from it.

These. Sorry for shіtty photo, but you should be able to find them in your copy of Einstein paper (at the very end of it).

...the non symmetric metric tensor...

Say, did you noticed that it is actually a combination of two different tensors and therefore isnt even a tensor as such? For rigorous mathematician that alone would be enough to dismiss your derivations. As I was saying, the idea is nice and all, but requires far more work on the math side.

This is the only legitimate question here: why the astronomers keep pretending for 80 years that the universe is expanding, as if nothing happened, while their hypothesis got falsified by Einstein in 1950.

It seems to me that you have more interest in discussing this great astronomers' conspiracy than in doing the math correctly. If this is so, I will have to give you up to science police (consider this to be last warning).

[JimJast]

makc,
1) Am I going to be banned from this forum for asking questions about Einstein's metric tensor and its consequences for astronomy?
2) Am I allowed to reveal those consequences that I already know about to P.T. Public on this forum without being banned from it?
3) How did you get the idea that I'd like to discus the "great astronomers' conspiracy"? I don't even believe that it exists. I just believe that Einstein's opinion about two infinite things suffices to explain the illusion of conspiracy.

I hope I'll last long enough to learn answers to the above questions and maybe even to question about the conservation of energy, the luck I didn't have at some other physics and astronomy fora. But just in case I won't have access to this forum, while I'm still here, let me share with you my favorite quote by Feynman:
"Let me also say something that people who worry about mathematical proofs and inconsistencies seem not to know. There is no way of showing mathematically that a physical conclusion is wrong or inconsistent. All that can be shown is that the mathematical assumptions are wrong. If we find that certain mathematical assumptions lead to a logically inconsistent description of Nature, we change the assumptions, not nature."

[makc]

so, are you going to address my math-related points?

There is no way of showing mathematically that a physical conclusion is wrong or inconsistent

that is certianly not a valid excuse for not doing your homework without math done, all you are saying here is that equations from [6] might explain observed red shift. it is no different from Einstein himself saying that they might have solutions that describe particles. but to say that they actually do, you need the math done.

[JimJast]

makc, I'm responsible ony for my math and if you ask me about it I'll try to explain it to you since I know exactly where it came from. If you ask me about Einstein's math I don't know where it came from so I can't explain it to you, but a mathematician might be able so you should rather ask a mathematician. I may discuss only Einstein's physics which I understand. Because of Einstein's physics the spacetime can't be described with symmetric metric tensor (unless you allow violation of conservation of energy, which Einstein didn't). I'm surprised that Einstein noticed this only in 1950. But nobody is perfect, even Einstein, and better late than never. Even stranger thing is that Wheeler has never noticed it even after Einstein wrote "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation". But Wheeler, contrary to Einstein, might like the creation of energy from nothing (which is the main difference between a theory with symmetric and non symmetric metric tensors. That' about all the physics and astronomy I'd like to discuss: how astronomers who are basically physicists, treat the necessity of constant creation of energy in the Big Bang cosmology. Once Einstein found out that his old symmetric metric tensor requires creation of energy he could just reject it and the principle of conservation of energy generates all the right equations automatically. So Einstein didn't need to do anything else to fix gravitation. I just did the work for those who don't understand Einstein's physics and don't know that it is automatic since, once one agrees on the principle of conservation of energy there are no degrees of freedom left. And the Hubble constant must come out as it comes out in Einstein's model and its acceleration is also fixed, luckily both are observed in deep space. Now the astronomers should try to understand why they observe what they do, to be able to use the numbers they observe to calculate other numbers that they don't know yet for the sole reason of not understanding Einstein. E.g. what is the density of space, what is the average size of pieces of dark matter, what are the distances of particular quasars, etc, all available to those who understand Einstein's theory. Unfortunately all of those still unknown numbers unpublishable under penelty of lifelong ban from this forum.

[makc]

no sir, ungrounded claims arent allowed here. you cant just do some number tossing and expect a ton of unrelated claims to be taken seriously.

[JimJast]

makc, be serious. I'm only quoting Einstein about his 1950 discovery of the form of metric tensor of spacetime. That it must be non symmetric, since otherwise energy would have to be constantly created from nothing.

Do you seriously believe in creation of energy (constant creation, to make it even worse)? Even if it is a very popular trend in "mathematical physics" since otherwise the Big Bang wouldn't be possible, and those "mathematical physicists" found it already since they are good in math.

So where are those "ungrounded claims", "some number tossing", and "a ton of unrelated claims"?

[bystander]

JimJast has been repeatedly asked to provide support for his position and has failed to do so. Subject locked. Contact Nereid by pm if you think this subject locked in error.

[JimJast]

A while ago, acting under impression that this is an astronomy forum, I ceated a topic titled "Einsteinian reasons for Hubble redshift" hoping to get an answer from an astronomer, or at least someone undertanding problems with the metric tensor, to a question "why astronomers ignore Einstein's assertion that the metric tensor of spacetime must be non symmetric".

I specified all the advantages that in my opinion such metric tensor has over presently assumed symmetric metric tensor so there should be a good reason why astronomers don't use Einstein's metric tensor but their own symmetric one with all its disadvantages. Yet I didn't get any reasonable answer and the topic has been locked on some red hering excuse not even properly explained to me. I still like to learn why astronomers prefer their assumption of creation of the universe in the Big Bang over Einsteins stationary universe that in my opinion explains all controversial issues without introducing assumptions contradicting plain physics e.g. in a form of violation of the principle of conservation of energy as the expanding space hypothesis does.

[bystander]

You were advised to pm Nereid. Do not try to reopen the topic without her approval.