The Greatest Problem of Cosmology is Solved 

The precise connection between Dicke‘s variable speed cosmology and Sciama‘s Machian gravity is very much worth to be further explored

Cosmologists will continued to be "surprised" by new observations until there is a paradigm shift.

The way we describe Space, the entire concept of virtual particles, and the idea of quantum fluctuations, definitely deserve a revisitation...

The intro for the videos on this channel always makes me feel good

Cosmology has a special place in my heart. What I love most about it is that it serves as good bed time stories. As long as the cosmologists are happy, I'm happy.

Amazing video thanks

Another problem with changing the speed of light is that that would change the size of atoms. Bohr radius depends upon epsilon squared. Nothing is consistent. epsilon should increase in early times (higher density). In fact, I take it back. These models want the universe to stand still. They replace expansion with a variable c, this means that the non-idiosyncratic part of the index of refraction remains the same. The idiosyncratic part for SN1a also remains the same due to the White Dwarf always detonating at the Chandrasekhar Mass Limit. So, according to this model, there wouldn't be any redshift. It is so inconsistent that it gives you a whiplash

Thanks for bringing this forward again. Like your channel very much.

Yet another absolutely brilliant presentation of the things we ought to know. I think I am very fortunate to have been given this information and I am looking forward to the next brain growing informational nutrition. Thank you Dr Unzicker for all the work you have done and shared with us.

Great presentation as usual.

Very interesting, all the best.

Alternative ideas are important, but I’m not left feeling like I learned much. I would like to see more high level focus on how this idea resolves the current problems and avoids introducing new ones.

I recommend reading Halton Arp's book "Seeing Red" and his other books presenting the evidence he has gathered that Red Shift is intrinsic, and not evidence of speed and movement and that the Universe is NOT expanding.

Thank you for interesting and considering current mental climate, very brave discussion.

In Australia 'red-shift' is getting to the pub late because you had to go around the big red rock in the middle

I had high expectation from the clickbait title and It doesn't disappoint.

I came across a book called ‘refuting relativity’ that brings together Dr Unzicker’s work with that of Hubble, Arp, Lerner, Robitaille, Ekeberg and other physicists who have questioned the evidence for an expanding universe.

I think the real problem here is the assumption that intergalactic space is empty. The reality is that intergalactic space is pupolated by sparse plasma, which provides a mechanism for redshifting light over cosmic distances. Furthermore we don't fully understand nor have the capacity to test ultra-long distance light transmission and whether or not the mere propogation of the electromagnetic field of the photons is a mechanism in and of itself for redshifting light. For all we know, the photons in the radiating field may subdivide to lower energy states over long distance in order to maintain an even radiative distribution of energy.

awesome sauce

The problem i could never reconcile in an expanding universe is that if space itself is expanding,the space between atoms and all fermions is also increasing. This implies the strong and weak nuclear forces would have to operate differently over different distances, or bonding energies would change. Therefore, chemistry would obey different rules at extreme distances. This would affect much more than just red shift.

Great presentation. Shared. In Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological model, we have an alt. solution to the same problems within current consensus modern cosmology.

@8.05 Hal Puthoff has expressed interest in that concept for a long time, although in the context of bending light as a phenomenon of the refraction index not warping of space. I like that Dicke incorporated Machian concept in his theory. I did not know that about his work.

I watched this video with great interest. I have never been quite comfortable with the conventional interpretation of cosmological redshifts. In 1075, I published the paper "An Attempt to Resolve the Astrophysical Puzzles by Postulating Scale Degree of Freedom" (Foundations of Physics, 14 (1975) 299-311) in which I proposed the idea that, instead of assuming the expansion of the entire universe, one could assume that our galaxy, along with all its constituent atoms, is contracting. I further developed this idea In subsequent publications, where I formulated a theory based on an extension of conformal symmetry and its interpretation as a symmetry of active scale transformations.

Brilliant!!!!

Unzicker has a very different view from the mainstream, which is very GOOD. Even if it proves to be wrong, it illuminates important questions. I especially loved his CALCULATION of the Gravitational Constant. It may be wrong, but it also may be right. Time will tell.

I absolutely agree with you and Ludwig Wittgenstein's point not to take on partial problems. Instead we should "take the fight to the single great problem". I believe this is the an issue plaguing modern physics. During my time as a meteorologist in the USAF I thought the art of applying meteorological concepts to forecasting weather. The main issue I saw with struggling Airman stemmed from the tendency of forecasters to focus on the microscale without first fully understanding the mesoscale and synoptic scale situation. In meteorology refer to this as failing to follow the forecast funnel. Scientists today are much to focus on highly specialized areas neglecting the larger picture. We first must zoom out and build our understanding of the larger picture. Only then will we be able to see beyond the horizon of our current perspective. Great video! Liked and subscribed I look forward to viewing all of your content.

i already watched in future

gets better every time he re-heats it.

very cool

Dicke's original article is behind a paywall built by the American Physical Society, which is a non-profit and publishes research funded by public grants. Therefore, as with all such "professional" societies, the results should be made public. Could you please provide a pdf of Dicke's paper so that those of us no longer associated with an academic institution may read his results, which, I repeat, were funded by we the public? Thank you in advance, Prof Unzicker.

There also exists the effects of things such as Faraday Rotation, as well as the recently confirmed hypothesis of Vacuum Birefringence. Considering the distances involved and the many strong magnetic fields, these already point to a variable speed of light, affected by magnetic fields both passing through a plasma medium and within a vacuum with no effective medium.

Chris Leito channel brought me here….he seems to think he’s figured out some things to say the least.

In the paper "Introducing the dilatational degree of freedom: Special relativity in V(6)" J.Phys.A 13 (1980) 1367-1387, I cited Arp's 1970 paper in Nature. I was much impressed and influenced by his work. My theory of the dilatational/scale degree of freedom explains his observations of discrepant redshifts.

I would have NEVER guessed that the work I would do while watching popular physicist and popular physics is a psychological work, on trying to understand the human mind, and of course failing

Thanks for the time stamp, I knew the other stuff. Gravitic lensing is causing the red shift due to lowering the energy level of photons.

Electric universe. The greatest error we made was assuming gravity is the primary agent of change.

Light passing into mediums of different density bends or refracts. What do you think of Dowdye's solution? Also, regarding Eddington's observations during the solar eclipse, or similar observations, what comparisons were made of the luminosities of the stars or galaxies brought into view by the refraction versus in free space?

For you review: Was asking questions about "filtering and trigger" about CERN and biasing data.

What do you think of Halton Arp's intrinsic red shift?

Thank you for casting some light to cosmology. The currently accepted model is too bizare and complicated to be the nature's way, on top of being full of issues. I hope this approach will be investigated deeply and by many scientist.

Tahar Rahim has a striking resemblance to Mr. Jahns in the headshot ....lol...

A gravity map is the same as a spacetime density map, is the same as a speed of light map, is the same as a time dilation map. It is the elasticity and variance in density of spacetime that is described here.

Not yet. "Spacetime" is still a mystery! Considering that space is not an object, three dimensional and infinite, it cannot bend, expand or shrink, has nothing to do with time and gravity, so there is a lot of work to do for theoretical physicists to earn their money.

I'm not moving - said Light in a Bose- Einstein condensate 😅

Its not what you know. Its what you don't know

;-) Speed is also frequency: distance/tact: carrier frequency.

So we solved the group think? Amazing...

Equivalence principle. Light waves are like sound waves, but at a much higher frequency. Sound waves are faster, the denser the medium gets. Is that what we observe with light through gravitational lenses?

For a rotating spiral galaxy seen edge-on light from the receding edge is red-shifted and light from the approaching edge is blue-shifted. All the light travels the same distance to us. The red-shifted light is not *more tired* than the blue-shifted light.

Very good. Now, to take this a step further, apply VSL the same way that is shown in this video to other EM waves (x-rays, gamma rays, etc...)

How can this model (or any static universe model) account for the cosmic microwave background? Expanding universe models predict it well.

Two scientists recently got the Nobel Peace Prize for publishing a paper saying the Universe isn't real.

Charged and neutral objects have the same speed of light limit and thus the same type of interaction causing identical permittivity and permeability. As Dicke pointed out, in a polarizable medium permittivity and permeability are emergent properties of that medium. This can be interpreted as an EM self-inductive effect for charged bodies. But for the permittivity and permeability to be identical for neutral bodies they too must participate in a self-inductive interaction with the polarizable medium. Electrically neutral self induction is an explanation for inertia. So if we use the polarizable medium as the source of permittivity, permeability, the speed of light, and inertia snd Sciama's Maxwellian-like interaction with all matter as it relates to general relativity then we can combine those ideas into a consistent theory. We can continue this discussion by email if you like.

Redshift happens when light leaves the mass of a galaxy. Light is blue shifted back when the light enters the mass of another galaxy. Comparing the masses of each of the galaxies determines the redshift.

Dickes work wasn't entirely ignored.

Light from very distant galaxies passes through or by more and more masses each of which causes a slight redshift.

Red shift has nothing to do with speed of light. The late Hannas Alfven used empirical observations to show that red shift was not a function of recessional speed, but rather due to a state of plasma discharge in dark, glow or arc mode.

Impressions on the Parker Solar Probe recent data would be insightful.

Thanks for the wonderful video, the only issue I have is I haven't the faintest idea what your talking about!! , still it was a very interesting video anyway, so thanks again. PEACE AND LOVE TO EVERYONE ❤❤.

So the big bang theory is out of date. There is no expansion of universe. Red shift is caused by long travel distance of light. That's very good.

Bravo. Having studied wave mechanics in graduate school long ago at UC Berkeley as an engineer - I often wondered if a dispersion-like phenomena (i.e. wave velocity change) involving energy loss with extreme time/distance was responsible for the red cosmological redshift observation. Here it is. I never had a good feel for relativity - as it seems to contain inherent paradoxes - and the idea that space itself is expanding just seems unappealing. This would also mean the universe is probably much much much older than we thought - and much much much bigger.... Moreover - there are extremely large structures we are beginning to see (and have actually seen for some time) that cannot have had anywhere near sufficient time to evolve under the current big bang theory. The role of electromagnetism on a grand scale also seems to be underrepresented in current theory - just look at the cosmic web....

It's seems a simpler theory is that the increasing density of Planck Particle Pairs, slowed the electron down, until it jumps closer to the nucleus spinning faster (bluer) which is perceived as Quantized Red Shift. If a modified Rydberg model of the atom is presented = 2π2 (e2/ε)2 (m/h2) (1/hc) = invariant This makes far more sense, than an expanding universe.

If this were the case it could be tested in this way. You identify a distant (e.g., r > 1) visible object with two apparent images with the same metallicity / spectral properties, and measure the redshift difference. Secondly, use a dark matter map from varying light paths in the field to estimate the matter distribution in the fields. Estimate the light pathways of the dual-image object matter distribution map. Estimate the pathways using the redshift. Compare the pathways. If they are extremely different (some bound), then your redshift concept passes. If they are similar pathways, then redshift and distance is more directly related, not matter density.

Variable speed of light is easier to grasp and is likely a good place to start, but is likely not the formulation which is generally true. What needs to be done is to find a GR theory and interpretations consistent with the variable speed of light model.

Hi, if it's about vacuum decay via bubble nucleation, fase transition (Big -Bang), can you elaborate how that affect different theory?

A new incantation of the idea proposed by Einstein, Dicke, and now Dr Unziker is the idea that energy is the basis for gravity, not mass. This is described as the Z0 Code - a new way of understanding the universe in the 21st century. It offers a new equation for the idea of a gravitational rate based on energy in Lorentzian "proper time." Gs ​= -Δs / Δ√ε0​μ0 offers a mechanism that explains how all of these ideas come together to tweak relativity into reality. Collaborators sought.

In my Theory of Time, all these equations + quantum mechanics stem from the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian (Euler-Lagrange equations) which are derived from the principle of least action. A hint: the velocity of light is 0, and the angular velocity of time is c

There's that angelic smile again!

Interesting. 40 years after I asked me and my friends how we could differentiate between an (allegedly) expanding universe and the shrinking over time of the metric used, and nobody could answer that, I hear that 100 years ago someone had the same thought, and concludes a shrinking metric is the more appropriate way to describe what happens to the universe.

But the galaxies are moving in relation to each other. If they were stationary we would see no galactic collisions. This is not just a matter of red shifts.

Very good subject and you all three gentleman is also missing one fundamental fact that one equation I am engaged in that a thermodynamic nature also there. Actually I too using weber equation in geometric modification involving quantum conditions we can have a thermodynamic equivalent equation, where t^2 term can have MOND type interpolation function apparent Another term is atomic as you three concluded. Thank you for your channel and philosophy.

What sound does an condensing cloud make?.

You are getting there! Atoms shrink and grow from radiating energy/light. I have an experiment! Do it in the freezing winter. Take two 220 L oil drums, cut the tops off so that you can fill them with wood. Install a chimney on the lids and cut a round hole in the bottom. Then you install a 5 meter long pipe to the bottom hole on each drum. One straight and one with a 90 degree angle. At the beginning of the pipes you install electric fans with plastic blades. This to create a furnish, or two in this case. Light the fires and start the fans. What will happen? Well the wood will burn of course! But what is fire? Fire is energy leaving atoms, it's not a chemical reaction, or is it, because chemistry and energy is the same thing. propagation and radiation. Energy will not only leave through the chimney, it will also radiate through the metal as heat from the walls of the drum. But more important it will radiate through the pipe towards the fan even though the fan blows ice cold air towards the fire. The furnace radiate so much energy that it will melt the fan blades on the straight pipe! (sorry for wasting your fan) But not on the fan installed in the pipe with a 90 degree angle! Why is that? Well, light/energy can't radiate in any other way then in a straight line. Therefor when the energy hits the outside bend of the pipe it will radiate some energy/heat to the outside of the pipe through atomic propagation/radiation.(check the difference on the pipes sides with a thermometer) and some will continue down the pipetowards the fan, but not enough to melt the blades. There is a fundamental problem with astronomy. As soon as we started to use telescopes that are not straight tubes, but have angles and mirrors they behave exactly the same as my experiment. Energy from viewed objects are lost through radiation from the instrument, creating flawed results. Think about it! Red shift by expanding universe LOL! One man has a great idea and lay the foundation stone. If he disappear and ignorant people start stacking stones, it will never become a pyramid, just a pile of stones, due to lack of knowledge. To remove the stones and start over, is not for lazy scientists!

Finally!

If c(r, t) is determined by the distribution of masses, it is not a consequence that it decreases with cosmological time since as the light approaches the observer it should actualice its value to the local worth.

3:48 could not agree more

I only half followed, so I wonder whether this helps explain the Hubble Tension, or whether the HT is a problem for this theory?

Brans-Dicke theory was a key player in the 60s, but it's now at most marginal. The introduction of extra scalar fields and the added contraints the post-Newtonian approximation evidently make it an ad hoc measure more than anything.

I think that the Casimir effect is actually caused by the vacuum allowing for more efficient electrostatic discharge, the electrons are shared more easily between the plates, thus fusing them.

I keep getting people saying "fine tuning" proves "god" - they seem to not understand "fine tuning" - anyone have any thoughts on how to educate on what fine tuning IS?

Are you familiar with the theory of circling light in s non expanding universe as an explanation for ultra distant, ultra powerful objects? It relies on the tired light theory as well but it's still interesting. It is discussed in this paper: "The Karlsson Peaks in the Quasar's Redshift Distribution as an Indication for Circling Light in a non-expanding Universe." Would love to hear your opinion on it.

I wonder how Dicke‘s vsl cosmology could be further corroborated by Halton Arp‘s astrophysical observations including his alternative model of galactic red shifts

At University I studied geology and one of my key learnings was always to consider as many "key working hypotheses" as you could muster before assessing the evidence and daring to make a conclusion of one or two probable explanations. It is interesting from your research that in cosmology the scientists may have jumped to the expanding universe hypothesis at the expense of other explanations. Perhaps the popularization of cosmology and the romance of many of the concepts such as the expanding universe concept, dark energy and dark matter are steering good science in some quarters of the profession. I am not a cosmologist but would be interested to read others thoughts?

Very interesting. My only comment is that, if something like an ether permeates the universe, it could drain energy from light over great distances and times, accounting for red shift. But the bigger picture here is that the hold of the Big Bang on cosmology is being broken, opening the way for other hypotheses.

Another excellent presentation Alexander. James Web is currently at the Lagrange Point. Theoretically, what should we get if we measure all these quantities at the Lagrange Point? Would it be a good idea to put a laboratory at the Lagrange Point so that we can make actual measurements?

Let me now address the argument that the wavelength cannot change using the laser argument. Mr. Unzicker states that if a laser could move and that could change the wavelength of light, there would be a mismatch of the resonance conditions. That would be the case if only the wavelength were to change. If the period also changes, then that is not the case anymore. We know that the period also changes because we know about time dilation associated with motion. So, both wavelengths change with motion and the period changes accordingly. So, Mr. Unzicker doesn't know about time dilation when he postulates that the frequency remains constant. The experiment of having a traveling laser is the basis for accelerometers. Without acceleration (constant speed), both time and wavelength remain dilated by the same amount. Angular acceleration changes the situation for the beams traveling clockwise and counterclockwise. That is the principle of Sagnat Interferometers. By the way, one does not need the Theory of Relativity or Aether to explain the Sagnat Effect.

On my channel i've posted video of a Lazar-Schwarzchild black hole exhibiting red and blue wavelength-shifting either side of the event horizon, which i can only interpret in terms of spin-Doppler about a vertical axis - consistent with GR (frame-dragging) but seemingly inconsistent with the premise here; shouldn't the outline be red-only, were this solution valid?

maybe a dumb question, but my understanding is light slows down when it goes through a medium like glass, then when light emerges from the other side of the glass it seems to speed up again. Is that correct, and if so how is it possible for light to speed up after exiting the glass? (doesn't light lose energy or "momentum" when going through the glass?).

3:29 the problem with this argument is that there is no compelling reason against the expansion of the universe…eg what is the compelling reason that the universe should “just exist”.

agree

As a layman…. I’m sorry for the simplistic question. So, are we saying that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating? Or that the universe is not expanding? Did Professor Penrose never pick up on this? One would’ve thought that as a respected GR expert, and a close colleague of Dennis Sciama, he would have a view.

The following article posits the idea of producing "magnetic glass" (long considered impossible by physicists) 13 years before it was discovered. See - "Flying triangles and the black holes on my fridge" on the net Also mentions connections between gravity and magnetism. Consider that the Cavendish experiment proves attraction between relatively infinitesimal masses. Yet the warping of space time by large bodies is being taught as the sole cause of gravity. Just as sound and EM waves can express FM, AM, coherent and incoherent qualities.... Ask yourself how the traditional magnetic dipole model can be correct as shown, when a simple demonstration disproves it. Put 2 ring magnets into N to N opposition on a pencil. Notice that one floats above the other. Now try it with S to S 'poles' in opposition. They float at the exact same height. Push those two surfaces close to one another, almost touching. Now, ask yourself how you just disproved the old model with basic physics. Good Journeys All

Would this (variable c due to gravity) not be immediately supported or falsified by a variation of Eddington's experiment in two or more orientations in any strong gravitational field?

Thanks for searching.. but so far. Nobody found where our thoughts stands!

You should look into Halton Arp's observations and intrinsic red shift.

I don't know if this theory is correct or not or if it causes additional problems. However, does it really matter? Either interpretation seems to explain the observations. What benefit does a variable speed of light provide? Also why would atoms shrink (time index 11:44)? It seems like the same argument for the speed of light always appearing the same to an observer no matter what speed they are traveling because time dilation happens to compensate for those moving close to the speed of light. In this case the variable speed of light compensates for the appearance of the expanding universe.

A spring frays after many uses, a little imperceptibly each time When observing the experiment of light being recorded at a trillion frames per second, tunneling through the glass of the bottle, the body of light that was stretched, elongates vertically and shrinks horizontally, and then becomes elongated vertically again, in a position similar to the previous one but not identical. The same happens with light when passing through gravitational fields, it suffers Saphiro distortion, gravitational tunneling and loses some energy, so that when it leaves this object's gravitational field, the wave returns to a state very similar to the previous one. , but a little different. So for each gravitational field that light travels through until it reaches the earth. The light body loses some of its shape, the spring gradually frays, as it loses energy.

Will the variable speed of light create issues with thermodynamic equations and e=mc which use C as a constant? I guess with the thermodynamic stuff, the relevant speed of light is at very small scales, so a wobble in C will not have any discernible effect. In E=MC this must cause variations in either/and E and M. Thoughts?

Alexander, could you please spend some time and effort to have an editor go through your transcript and subtitles (they are the same error-filled text) and make essential corrections. Your English pronunciation is generally pretty good, so I don’t know why whoever transcribes your voice has so much trouble. Even by reading the slides they would catch the more obvious errors, such as confusing ‘refraction’ with ‘reflection’ or misspelling physicist’s names. (I could take on this task for a small fee😊)

Big Bang resorts to relativity's fourth dimension to save itself from the criticism that it requires we are at the center of the universe.