The Shell-Universe and The V-effect


1997-03-23

F.A.Q. Frequently asked questions :

C.Q.A. Comments, questions, answers :

( Some of the questions are asked by myself. - H.A.V. )


1.
"Why do You think You are right and all astronomers wrong ?"

I don't.

I just say, that my ideas and my calculations give results, that astonish me.
So good, that I think some open-minded astronomers should help me to control them.
And
I am stupid enough to believe, that there is a small chance, that some of my ideas are worth studying.
And
I am not alone. Read the first five references !


2.
"How about all other arguments, that prove the BigBang ?"

I am not the expert to evaluate all these questions. I refer to the books and articles in the "References" in my paper.

But, let's take one example - the Olber's paradox !
Olber's paradox is said to be a proof of the theory of BigBang.
As the theory of BigBang counts with redshift and a finite number of stars, the Olber's paradox can be explained by this theory.
But the redshift is an observed fact. It is not a creation of the theory of BigBang. On the contrary, the theory of BigBang is a creation from the redshift !
So every theory, that accepts the observed fact of the redshift and also counts with a finite number of stars, gives an explanation of Olber's paradox. Olber's paradox is not a proof of the theory of BigBang.


3.
"All prominent astronomers and also other scientists, like Einstein, have accepted the cosmological principle."

Yes, Einstein believed in it. And he said, that in the space-time world, time is the fourth dimension, so time must be included in the cosmological principle. The Universe must be isotropic also regarding time.
Then the theory of the expanding Universe came and said that the Universe is changing with time.
So Einstein's assumption was wrong. Why must the rest be true ?


4.
"You must have a theory behind Your assumptions.
What is the theory behind ´the alternative Law of Gravitation´ ?"

As written in the paper, this law is the same as Newton's, but it uses Energy instead of Mass. Compare with Newton's situation.

Newton created his Law in this way :

The "alternative Law" was created in this way :

5.
"How accurate are the calculations ?"

They are not very accurate. I make approximations and I simplify the Universe into unit cubes and unit areas.
I guess that the value 0.6E-27 has an accuracy between 0.2E-27 and 2E-27.
So the result 0.6E-27 as compared to expected 0.7E-27 is laughably good.


6.
"What do You mean with 'close to zero-gravitation' ?"

The computer gives values within error-limits. I believe that, with a more elaborate calculation, the values will differ a little from zero, but small deviations from a medium density will change the values. The whole system should be studied.


7.
"Are the computer programs available ?"

The programs are functioning, but they have not got the final touch.
If You are still interested, You can order them by post or email.
The disk contains the two EXE-files and the Visual Basic files.
PC, Windows 3.1.

8.
"Photons don´t lose energy, when they are influenced by gravitation from the sun, it is just the direction of the momentum that changes."

This is written in many books. I don´t know why. Maybe because the energyloss is very small, so in most cases there is no reason to take notice of it. From 7.6 and F10 I find that the loss is
8 * mB * ( G * h * FrA.end / y0 / c3 )2 . This is only 1 / ( 15 E75 ) of the original ( h * Fr ) .
The reason is, that the direction of the momentum of the photon is changed and, as the sum of momentum is constant, then the momentum of the sun must change. This also changes the kinetic energy of the sun. As the sum of energy is constant, then the energy of the photon must change.

9.
"You cannot exchange mass with kinetic energy in an arbitrary way. The kinetic energy is dependent of the co-ordinate system."

I just say that in this case the exchange gives the right result. The co-ordinate system has no influence as I divide the kinetic energy with the square of the speed. The kinetic energy and the speed change in the same way with different co-ordinate systems.

10.
"How was the Shell-Universe created. If it is static, then nothing changes and how could it then have been created."

The Shell-Universe is "static" in the same way as our planetary system or our sun. The different movements and forces compensate each other. Of course it would be better not to call it "static" but "stable for a long time". How was it created ? - Well, read my chapter 8.3 !"

11.
"You have misunderstood the statement of Friedmann-Lemaitre. Their conclusion was that a small movement in a static Universe would destroy the stability and cause a collapse or an expansion."

OK, I have not read their original text. Did they consider a redshift of gravitation ? Did they consider the possibility of a circulating shell ? A planet system, like ours, is stable for many tenths of milliard years. The Shell-Universe, with a "planetary moving" shell, would be stable much longer. And - I am sure - much longer than the Universe of BigBang."

12.
"You have also misunderstood the statement of Zel´dovich. He does not argue against gravitational redshift, he argues against non-gravitational redshift."

In the books, I have read, he is said to argue against gravitational redshift and "decay" of photons.

13.
"An essential question is : what is outside Your Universe ?"

Why ask me ? There are many scientists, who are better suited than I am to give a theory about that. The theory of the Universe of BigBang has been discussed for seventy years. Do all agree about what is outside that Universe ? If they do, when was that theory created ?"

14.
"How can You assume that the photon always passes four symmetrical photons ?"

It is just a method of calculation technics. When a particle passes a cloud of particles, I can assume that these are evenly distributed. Then I can calculate the influence from these particles one by one. Or I can let the computer do the job.
Another way is to calculate two by two, as I do with the V-effect. It is much easier. The computer tells that the result is the same.
The same must apply, when I calculate with photons. They don´t have to pass four symmetrical photons to give the result I have got.

15.
"You say that the photons lose energy. Where does that energy go ?"

In my theory there is an exchange with the dark materia. If that materia consists of neutrinos, then they gain energy.
If it consists of some other materia, that materia might be heated. Maybe to 2.74 degrees !"

On the other hand, in the BigBang theory the photons lose energy by the redshift.
Where does that energy go ? It is explained with: " the photons accomplish a pressure and that pressure performs a labour."
A labour on what ? That labour should increase the energy of the matter. And why is that never taken into account ?

16.
More about the statement of Friedmann-Lemaitre.

Compare number 11 !
I have now studied their calculation. As expected they did not consider a redshift of gravitation and they did not consider the possibility of a circulating shell.
This means that if my statement 4.3 is true, then the statement referred to Friedmann-Lemaitre is not true.

And Friedmann-Lemaitre use the Cosmological Principle in their calculation.
The Cosmological Principle is an assumption, made to fit the BigBang Theory.
This means that an assumption, built on the BigBang Theory, is used to get the result, that is said to be a proof of the BigBang Theory !


17.
"How can You show that gravitation is redshifted when gravitation isn´t any radiation ?".

It is not as obvious as for the electromagnetic radiation that the gravitation is redshifted, but it seems probable.

If a body, A, moves away from a body, B, with the speed v, then the distance between them changes in one second from L to ( L + 1 * v ).
In one second A radiates the energy E.
The signals from A move to B with the speed c.
From the first position it takes L / c seconds, from the second ( L + v ) / c.
The difference is v / c.
So signals from A, emitted in one second, reach B during ( 1 + v / c ) seconds.
The energy, received from a moving A, is ( 1 / ( 1 + v / c )) of that, received from a not moving A. This means a redshift of z = v / c.

In the same way we can calculate how many photons, that are ejected - and received.
We get the same effect here.
The number of photons are reduced with ( 1 / ( 1 + v / c )).

A third way is to calculate the number of oscillations.
The number of oscillations, or the frequency, are reduced with ( 1 / ( 1 + v / c )).

The number of photons is proportional to the energy.
The number of oscillations is also proportional to the energy.

Of course only one of these methods should be used, not two or three at the same time, as has been done in some literature. That would give the double or more influence on the energy.

If we compare with the signals of gravitation, it is not as natural to assume that the gravitationforce ( kg * m / s2 ) is redshifted in the same way as the energy ( kg * m2 / s2 )

We don´t know how the signals of gravitation are transmitted, irrespective of if we regard gravitation as forces or a curving of space.

Einstein said that gravitation is a physical signal and that physical signals cannot travel faster than light. So the gravitation also travels with the ”speed of light”.
The electromagnetic radiation can be regarded as waves. For gravitation Einstein talked about gravitation waves.
The force-mediators for electromagnetic radiation are the photons. Einstein talked about gravitons, as force-mediators for gravitation.

As the body A is moving away, the gravitation-effect on B grows smaller. This means, that new physical signals must be sent from A to B all the time to tell the change.

The number of signals, received from a moving A, is ( 1 / ( 1 + v / c )) of that, received from a not moving A.
This means a ”redshift” of the gravitation of zg = v / c.
The gravitation force from a moving A, is ( 1 / ( 1 + v / c )) of that from a not moving A.

If You don´t believe that the ”gravitation signals” are intermittent, then You can put the ”interval” to dt and then let dt go to zero - and the result is the same !


18.
"Why don't You use standard pattern for equations with division ?"

Evidently some mathematicians don't like the method I use. There are three ways of printing an equation with multiple divisions :
1. Y = ......6.....
............. 2 * 3
2. Y = 6 / ( 2 * 3 )
3. Y = 6 / 2 / 3
All should of course be calculated from left to right, with parenthesis first, then * and / before + and - .
Step by step the result is:
for 1. and 2. Y = 6 / ( 2 * 3 ) = 6 / 6 = 1
for 3. Y = 6 / 2 / 3 = 3 / 3 = 1
NR 1 is the old standard, before computers. It is difficult to print on computers with simple word processors. You cannot use it for calculation on computers or calculators.
NR 2 and 3 are easy to print on simple computers and can be used for calculation on computers or calculators.
NR 3 is easiest to print and to use. I consider this the modern pattern for equations.


19.
"Electromagnetic waves are not received as energy. they are received
as effect = energy per second.
Therefore they are redshifted.
Gravitation is force, not force per second.
Therefore it is not redshifted. !"

I also thought so earlier. But signals can be of different sorts and still be influenced in a similar way.

Let's look at two sorts of signals from a star or a galaxy - EM-radiation and gravitation signals.
As a comparison we can look at them as fire balls and solid balls.

The two types of signals travel with the same speed, and the two types of balls travel with
the same speed. If the source is moving away from us, then the number of signals per
time unit will be reduced ( redshifted to 1 / ( 1 + v / c ) ).
Also the number of balls per time unit will be reduced ( redshifted to 1 / ( 1 + v / c ).
In the same way for both types of signals and for both types of balls.

The result of the signals from the photons or from the fire balls is a reception of energy,
given as energy per time unit ( redshifted or reduced to 1 / ( 1 + v / c ) ).

The result of the signals from the solid balls is a pressure, given by the
number of impacts per time unit, also "redshifted" or reduced to 1 / ( 1 + v / c ).
But the pressure is defined as pressure or force per area. not as pressure pr time unit,
and still it is redshifted.

The gravitation signals give a similar effect - like a negative pressure -
and that is "redshifted" in the same way to 1 / ( 1 + v / c ) ! !


20.
"Relativistic mass"

In the first version I used the expressions "relative mass" and "relative density".
That was wrong ! I mixed the words "relative" and "relativistic" !
It should be "relativistic mass" and "relativistic density".


Back to Home page ! ........ Back to Content List !