I built a simulator to explore expansion of space through a specific pattern of motion, away from a clear center. It began to yield observations that are being reported by astronomers. I built a website to record my development of the simulator and what it generated.
I also posted an "Alternative Theories" entry suggesting that this pattern of expansion motion could be an explanation of why Dr. Hubble saw everything receding from us, how everything could just be drifting away from a center and produce just such a relative motion experience. In other words, space itself would not have to be expanding to explain it.
I recently decided to think about the CMB as a global flash that could be thought of as a "moment" in the history of expansion. Now, I have built a second simulator to examine what an observer would see if he were the only thing in an expanding Universe and a "Global Flash" happened at any time during that expansion history. The results offer a suggestion as to why the CMB and Observation are offering two different values. Maybe, they are suppose to.
I have included the output and suggestions on the same website linked above. You can scan it for "CMB verses Observation", or
here it is in brief...
Global Flash: CMB verses Observation
I read about a disparity between observation verses CMB in the search for the current Hubble Constant value. It seemed to me that if the light waves that make up the CMB are directionless, and all emitted at a common moment (relatively speaking) in expansion, a “flash” in the Universe’s past, then maybe I could use my simulator to play with something like that.
I wanted to use my simulator to create a global flash with a stationary observer to see it. My observer would need to receive an unlimited supply of light from increasingly far away distances in all directions. Every second would bring new photons from objects that were just a little further away than the object that emitted the light he just measured.
I came up with a way to view this in my simulator. I could set my observer at center (which would render him expansion motionless) and have him staring off in a set direction. Instead of placing billions of objects spaced evenly apart along his line of sight, I could just use several objects and treat them as if taking samplings. I could then let the simulator expand each object normally until my randomly selected moment for the flash. I could then simulate the flash by extracting the data from each object’s chart for that moment and place the extracted data in a data chart as if was data from one source, a composite object. It occurred to me that the many flashes from many sources coming from one direction would look to him like one continuous beam of light from one source, one emitter. A continuous stream of photons from back-to-back sources could create the appearance of a single star in the sky receding from him. It would be a “Phantom” object.
The composite chart would then show how much time it takes for each object’s light to reach the observer, how far it away it was, and a virtual velocity. That information can be used to calculate a Hubble Value for the flash using the Hubble formula.
I had to alter the code that determines the length of time that light travels between emitter and observer. Instead of knowing the observing position and pushing the emitter back down its axis to know when the light he is seeing was emitted, now the light emission point is frozen in place and I had to know when its light will intercept the observer. Since the observer is sitting still, the light bursts will be the only movement.
In the sample data below, I selected 1000 seconds into the expansion as the flash point. I used various speeds for light (the chart below is using 200cm/sec. It turned out that the speed of light dictates the values of the parameters but does not alter the results.)
To see the data charts from the simulator, please go to my website. Here are some analysis from what was generated:
· Observer sees phantom objects moving directly away from him and the intensity dimming with time. (Assuming all the objects are identical emissions and knowing that distance dims intensity.)
· Observer will see phantom object moving at the speed of light, even if he is sitting still, or moving toward or away from emission points.
· The Hubble Constant values from Phantom objects will be Hf = 1/tL , where tL = Age of flash.
· Every “flash” has an independent expansion profile, its own Hubble Values.
· With age, Hf becomes more and more of a constant, depending on sensitivity of data.
· If the observer is set in motion, moving toward observed emission points, the perceived density of the observed points will increase and the time to view them will decrease.
· If the observer is set in motion, moving away from observed emission points, the perceived density of the observed points will decrease and the time to view them will increase.
New Simulator: Global Flash Motion
I coded a new simulator just for flash events. To do that, I worked backwards from the observation to the virtual motion of the Phantom object.
I started with an observer moving in this expansion pattern. I set it up where he could look in a single direction, at an angle θ with his axis in the direction of his motion. At any direction he looked, the emission point from the flash would be
Observed distance = (Age of Expansion – Age of Flash) * C
I could then calculate the distance of the emission point to the center of expansion and the divergent angle between observer and the emission point.
I began running simulations on various scenarios. When I plotted the results I drew a line through all the positions of the Phantom objects (emission points) to create a virtual path through space. I could see that every virtual path intersected the path of the observer at the position he was in at the moment of the flash. The data and plots resembled the suggestions from my old simulator, that the Flash has its own expansion motion relationships.
The plot below is of data from a simulation with the observer moving along at a proper expansion velocity for the regular expansion pattern. He is observing a flash that happened at 1000 seconds into expansion. The second plot is just superimposing each observer position, with its corresponding Phantom object, into one image (to depict relative motion).
The H of the expansion of the universe (HE) is based at the moment expansion began. The H of the "Flash" (HL) is based at the moment the flash happened. In this evaluation, HE – HL will give the observer the time in history of the flash. That implies that if HE < HL, then the flash would have to have come before expansion began.
Even so, I decided to include this idea -- for one, because I have been including whatever comes out of my simulator even when it seemed that actual observations would invalidate it (only to then learn that it doesn’t). I decided to include it also because I wonder now if light propagation from a flash event, with emission points frozen in place, just might not ever offer the same Hubble Constant Value as an ongoing expansion motion of light emitting objects. Unless the flash and the expansion are simultaneous, they do not make the same presentation. Observation of a flash is always a straight line between the point of emission and the point of observation. Moving emitting objects dictate location of the emission points that make up the continuous beam of light. A flash can substitute emission points to maintain motion of a phantom object, keeping it always directly away from the observer, wherever he looks. A flash presentation doesn’t care what generated the light.
Current theory about space itself expanding might demand that the red shift of received light comes from the expansion of the space it is traveling through. If that theory requires the two offer the same value, but they don’t, it might mean that stretching space is not what is stretching wavelengths.
Edited by RodneyBelieves, 16 May 2019 - 10:57 AM.