Cosmology at Dr Cormac O’Raifeartaigh’s blog

Professor Cormac O’Raifeartaigh has an interesting blog post about The Cosmological Distance Ladder – the key to understanding the Universe, a lecture given by Micheal Rowan-Robinson, Professor of Astrophysics at Imperial College London.  Rowan-Robinson is author of the textbook Cosmology, which is very good.

I believe that the cosmological distance ladder is the key to understanding the universe, very literally indeed!  So I commented on Professor O’Raifeartaigh’s blog as follows:

Take the Hubble law v/r = H

a = dv/dt = d(Hr)/dt = H*(dr/dt) + r*(dH/dt)

dH/dt = 0, so

a = H*(dr/dt)

= Hv

= H(Hr)

= rH^2

Which predicts a cosmological acceleration at cosmological distances of what is seen in observations, approximately 6*10^(-10) ms^(-2). Smolin’s T.T.W.P. book for example translates the small cosmological constant into an acceleration in units of ms^(-2).

I did this and published it via Electronics World in 1996, well before the cosmological acceleration was discovered by Perlmutter in 1998 and published in Nature.

It’s wrong of Hubble to solely express the recession as v/r = H. Didn’t he know about spacetime?? Distance isn’t meaningful here. The velocity v only correlated to distance r is you are looking back in time as well as distance, because light takes a time of t = r/c to come to you from distance r. During this time, velocity v is quite likely to change!

So Hubble should have expressed recession velocities less ambiguously using the concept of spacetime, where the constant is not v/r, but v/t. If he had done that, he would have noticed that v/t has units of acceleration! (The ratio v/r has units of 1/t, i.e. in general it’s inversely proportional to the age of the universe – and is exactly the inverse of the age of the universe if the universe is flat rather than curved on cosmological scales.)

Once you differentiate Hubble’s law v = Hr to get acceleration a = rH^2, you can do a lot of interesting physics using Newton’s simple laws of motion. E.g., any receding mass m has an outward force from you of F=ma (Newton’s 2nd law of motion), and Newton’s 3rd law of motion then suggests an inward “reaction” force must be directed towards you of equal size F=ma. This reaction force presumably (from the possibilities) is carried by gravitons, and when you calculate with this you find that gravity and all the confirmed aspects of G.R. are reproduced by spin-1 gravitons.

E.g., spin-1 gravitons come inwards towards us from distant receding masses in all directions. The pressure acts on all fundamental particles, and since nearby masses aren’t receding, they don’t have an outward force relative to one another and hence don’t exchange gravitons forcefully with one another. This tells you that the net effect is that nearby particles shield one another and get pushed together. You can predict how much.

This predicts gravity. As Feynman showed in his Lectures on Physics, G.R.’s main difference physically from Newtonian gravity is that there is a contraction radially of spacetime around a mass; the earth’s radius is reduced by (1/3)MG/c^2 = 1.5 millimetres due to the G.R. contraction term. This contraction is the effect of inward graviton force on the earth, shrinking it radially.

The bottom line is that there’s loads of evidence to support the contention that dark energy is spin-1 graviton energy.

Spin-1 graviton exchange between masses on large (cosmological) scales pushes the masses apart, causing the cosmological acceleration as predicted in 1996. It also pushes cosmologically “nearby” masses together (because nearby masses aren’t receding much if at all, there is little or no forceful exchange of gravitons between nearby masses; so the only forceful exchange of gravitons occurs between each of the masses and converging inward gravitons from the surrounding receding masses in the universe, which means that nearby masses get pushed towards one another; gravity).

That’s the answer to “dark energy”. It’s graviton energy!

Sadly, all the stuff above life Hubble’s law, spacetime, differentiation, Newton’s empirical laws of motion, and so on, are rejected when combined to come up with a quantum gravity theory.

The mainstream prefers to believe that two nearby masses only exchange gravitons with one another, which means that for attraction the gravitons would have to have spin-2. They just can’t see that an apple is going to be exchanging gravitons more forcefully with the massive surrounding universe than with the earth; although the earth is closer, the gravitons coming inwards from surrounding masses and hitting the apple are converging inward from the surrounding universe (they’re not diverging outward). So there is no loss due to inverse square law divergence!

It’s so hard to get anybody who believes in spin-2 leprechauns to listen to straightforward physical facts, that I’ve virtually given up!


‘I guess the real question concerns the Hubble equation really means. Is it meaningful to talk about a Hubble graph for one galaxy only? If we measure the distance and velocity of galaxy A, plot it, then measure the distance and velocity of galaxy A again some time later, plot that etc, do we get a straight line of slope H?’ – Cormac

Thanks for responding! If we take a single highly redshifted receding galaxy or supernova, there is evidence that it is accelerating away from us. Perlmutter’s original paper on the discovery of the cosmological acceleration is titled:

Discovery of a Supernova Explosion at Half the Age of the Universe and its Cosmological Implications published in Nature v. 391, pp. 51-54 (1 January 1998).

By that time, 50 supernova with extreme redshift had been discovered, but the paper dealt with just the first one of extreme redshift, the SN 1997ap which has a redshift of z = 0.83. Thus, the implication from this research is that individual supernovae are indeed accelerating!

So this acceleration of individual masses away from one another isn’t controversial.

If you remember the story, Einstein added the cosmological constant to general relativity a year or so after publishing the basic field equation in November 1915.

He believed that the observed universe was static (Hubble’s analysis of redshifts wasn’t completed until 1929, and is still falsely attacked by some people who have mistaken ideas, as exposed on the excellent page, and that it would collapse unless there was a repulsive force between masses which increased with distance (thus being negligible over small distances) and cancelled out gravitational attraction over a distance equal to the average distance between galaxies.

At smaller distances, Einstein’s cosmological constant produced a repulsive force which was smaller than gravity (so gravity dominated), while over bigger distances it produced a force which was bigger than gravity (so universal repulsion dominated). One immediate problem was that this model would make the universe unstable.

So it was abandoned by Einstein in after Hubble’s results showed that the universe was expanding.

However, in 1998 the cosmological constant (albeit with a much smaller magnitude than Einstein had stipulated) had to be taken back into the field equation to account for the observed lack of gravitational curvature on the largest distances. The exact value is still hazy, but the approximate order of magnitude is well established: it’s certain from the evidence that there is cosmological acceleration on the order of 10^{-10} m/s^2 or so at large redshifts. There is some uncertainty from gamma ray burster evidence over whether the cosmological acceleration actually implies a cosmological constant or an evolving parameter:

So from observational evidence, every receding mass has a small cosmological acceleration away from every other masses. On small distances, gravity dominates over cosmological acceleration, and so the cosmological acceleration only becomes important over large distances.

Going back to your question about testing the applicability of the Hubble law to individual galaxies by measuring the recession and distance of a galaxy at successive times, I fear that we’d have to wait too many lifespans to get statistically significant results. Experimental errors are generally too large to wait short periods of time and detect whether an individual galaxy is accelerating or not. Obviously if we naively apply the Hubble law to predict the motion of an individual galaxy, it fails because as the galaxy recedes to greater distances the Hubble law is describing earlier times after the big bang; when of course the recession will take time so the galaxy will age as it recedes, instead of getting younger. My feeling is that, as Minkowski stated in the quotation above, we have to base physics on observables. The Hubble law is what is observed. Even though an individual galaxy may just be coasting along at constant velocity, or maybe slowing, that doesn’t really matter because all we we see appears to be an acceleration in the frame of reference at our disposal, in which information is carried to us at light speed from times past which increase with distance. Because other effects like gravitons will go at the same velocity as visible light, this observed reference frame is the correct one to be using in making predictions. For gravitational purposes, the apparent spacetime observations of the universe are fine, because the data is coming from the past just at the same velocity that gravitons come at. So the apparent positions and accelerations of masses as seen with visible light are going to be the same as those corresponding to gravitons coming from such receding masses. In any case, from the fact that the universe really is acelerating, I have no problem in deducing from this acceleration that receding individual galaxies themselves do have an effective acceleration in observable spacetime. If we could see them in a reference frame whereby we could see things when the same age after the big bang – without looking backwards in time with increasing distance – then maybe the acceleration would be modified. But we can’t see the universe in reference frame where everything is 13,700 million years old, so it’s unphysical. We have to accept, as Minkowski stated in 1908, that when we look at distant things we’re seeing them as they were at earlier epochs in the big bang.


Dr Chris Oakley:

Thanks! Taking your last point first, the flat universe cosmology has

t = 1/H


H = 1/t

so it does suggest that the Hubble “constant” is falling as the universe expands. But Hubble’s constant is not a time-independent constant, but merely

v/r = H

= 1/t

in flat cosmology, where t is age of universe.

So v is only a “constant” with respect to r as far as Hubble was concerned. H is not a variable as observed in the Minkowsky flat spacetime metric of the universe we see.


v/r = H = 1/t,

your argument (‘so it is Hubble’s “constant”, not the speed of the galaxy that is changing’) suggests that v is constant and in

v/r = 1/t

each denominator (r and t) is increasing in proportion.

That’s a nice simple idea. Unfortunately, it’s completely wrong, because the time t in this formula is the age of the universe, whereas r = cT where T is time past.

The age of the universe, t, is not proportional to time past T = r/c. E.g., the closest star, the sun is T = 8.3 light-minutes away, but the universe is not t = 8.3 minutes old. (We’re just seeing the sun as it was 8.3 minutes in the past.) So you can’t set v/r = H = 1/t and try to get rid of a changing v by saying that r is proportional to t!

Now for your earlier comment above about the explosion analogy. This particular explosion analogy has been tried and criticised. In about 1931, when initial attempts were being made to understand the Hubble law (before the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric was dogma), people like Lemaitre were suggesting that the universe was like an explosion in a pre-existing space.

A letter appeared in Nature in I believe 1931 (I think you will find the details discussed in Eddington’s book The Expanding Universe) pointing out that the Hubble law is not what you expect from say a bursting bomb.

Just before the bomb explodes, the compressed hot gas of explosion debris will have a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities, which is skewed so that most of the molecules have low velocities, and the above the peak there is a long tailing-off to a small number of molecules with very high velocities: see or

The letter in Nature pointed out that the Hubble distribution is quite different, it is in fact an anti-Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. In the universe, the greatest number of galaxies have the greatest recession velocities, which is contrary to what the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution predicts for molecules from a bursting bomb.

‘Afterwards the distance of the fragments from the site of the explosion is proportional to the velocity they set off at, so if you observe at a later time T the distance from the initial point d=vT. So the “Hubble constant” for this is just the inverse time since the explosion. And, because of vector addition of velocities, one gets the same answer in a co-ordinate system comoving with any fragment.’

There’s a graph showing the Hubble law for distribution of air molecule speeds behind the shock front in an explosion, in a paper by Sir G. I. Taylor, ‘The formation of a blast wave by a very intense explosion. II. The atomic explosion of 1945’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, v. 201, pp. 175–186.

However, that’s an air burst detonation, not an explosion in space. The die-hard general relativists who believe in curved space (even though the universe has been shown to be flat, and curvature is anyway just an approximation to a lot of quantum graviton interactions), will tell you (falsely) that spacetime in the universe curves back on itself at great distances, so any effort to model the big bang as some kind of explosion is automatically void.

I’m not sympathetic with those people who want to use the authority of popular speculations to rule out the simplest possible physical model. Within seconds, the big bang universe became mainly compressed, ionized hydrogen gas. As in a H-bomb, fusion occurred in the extremely high temperature and pressure but was not complete; the expansion of the universe quenched the fusion rate by reducing the temperature and pressure before all of the hydrogen could fuse into helium, etc.

If you get away from the curved space of general relativity, and move on to a model of gravitation where accelerations result from the exchange of gravitons in discrete interactions (so spacetime curvature is just an approximation for the effect of a large number of discrete interactions), then it might make sense to try to model the late stages of the universe as a 10^55 megatons H-bomb in a pre-existing space. But this won’t address the very early-time physics (less than 1 second after the big bang), where the energies were initially so high that the binding energy of hadrons was trivial by comparison, so there was a quark soup instead. Also, it will annoy all the pacifist physicists who don’t like the morality of using an explosion as any kind of analogy to the big bang. Finally, general relativity indicates that space was created with the big bang, not pre-existing (this is because spacetime is defined by the gravitational field, so where you don’t have such a field there is no spacetime).

I find these arguments vacuous because general relativity is just a classical continuous-field line model for gravitational fields. Because of the clever way it incorporates conservation of mass-energy for fields (something which Newton’s gravity law ignored), it makes checkable predictions that differ from Newtonian gravity, and which is correct. But the evidence supporting general relativity is just supporting the inclusion of conservation of mass-energy by general relativity, it isn’t specifically supporting the classical curved spacetime model of general relativity. Curved spacetime at best is just a classical approximation to many discrete graviton interactions. Sum the Feynman diagram interaction histories for many graviton interactions, and you get something that approximates to the spacetime curvature of general relativity.

A simple physical way to get the observed cosmological acceleration out of big bang is by spin-1 graviton exchange between masses. All masses have the same gravitational charge (say positive gravitational charge), so they all repel by exchanging gravitons. The repulsion makes masses accelerate away from one another, giving the Hubble law. The same effect predicts gravitation with the correct strength (within observational error bars).

‘As for an “accelerating” universe, that observation depends entirely on the redshifts of Type Ia supernovae. Many astrophysicists are not sure their luminosity is constant.’ – Louise Riofrio


In addition to Type Ia supernovae, gamma ray bursters (stars collapsing into black holes) also provide alleged evidence of “acceleration”, albeit an “evolving dark energy” (changing cosmological constant), see the plotted gamma ray burster data at:

However, as Nobel Laureate Philip Anderson has argued,

‘… the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating …’ –

The radial recession of galaxies in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric of general relativity is the Hubble recession law with a gravitational slowing down at large distances due to attraction to the mass centred around us (in our frame of reference, which is the frame of reference we’re observing the universe from).

The 1998 results of Perlmutter on Type Ia supernovae suggested that this metric is wrong because there is no observable gravitational slowing down of the expansion.

So the mainstream knee-jerk response was to say that the inward-directed gravitational acceleration (which is only important at large distances, i.e. immense redshifts, according to general relativity) must be cancelled out by an outward-directed acceleration on the order 10^{-10} metres/second^2. The outward-directed acceleration would be due to a universal repulsion of masses, i.e. a small positive cosmological constant.

However, this explanation makes quite a lot of assumptions. As mentioned, gamma ray burster data indicate an evolution of the cosmological ‘constant’. There is also the idea that gravity gets weaker over cosmological distance scales. If you believe that gravity is due to spin-2 gravitons being exchanged directly between the masses which are attracting, then for redshifted masses the gravitons can be expected to be redshifted and thus received in a degraded energy condition, weakening the gravity coupling constant G from that measured in a lab where the masses are not relativistically receding from one another.

But if gravitons have spin-1 rather than spin-2 (and thereby act by pushing masses together instead of pulling them together), the spin-1 graviton exchange actually causes the cosmological acceleration as well as gravity. This makes checkable predictions.

I think one thing to be made clear is that a gravitational field can exist without something actually accelerating. I’m sitting in a gravitational field of 9.81 metres/second^2 and I’m not being accelerated downward, because there’s a normal reaction force from the chair that stopping me.

It’s exactly the same with the cosmological acceleration:

1. The most distant receding galaxies, supernovae and gamma ray bursters etc have an inward-directed gravity-caused acceleration towards us observers on the order 10^{-10} metres/second^2. (This effect is similar in nature to the gravitational slowing down of a bullet fired vertically upward.)

2. Such distant receding matter also has an outward-directed ‘dark energy’ (spin-1 graviton, I argue) caused acceleration away from us on the order of 10^{-10} metres/second^2.

The outward cosmological ‘dark energy’ acceleration cancels out the inward gravitational acceleration, so there is no net acceleration.

This is what Philip Anderson meant when he wrote:

‘… the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating …’

In my case, I’m not being accelerated downward by gravity because that acceleration is being cancelled out by an equal upward acceleration due to electromagnetic repulsion of the electrons in me and the electrons in my chair.

In the case of the universe, the cosmological acceleration of the universe is being cancelled out by gravitational attraction.


“In the standard big bang cosmology of yore, its growth was supposed to be decelerating due to the gravitational pull between galaxies. If you believe the current concordance model, it is actually growing faster as time goes by.” – SomeRandomGuy

The Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric of general relativity up to 1998 predicted that the expansion rate is slowing down, and that this should be observable at extreme redshifts.

Perlmutter simply found that the expansion rate isn’t slowing down in his observations in 1998.  The mainstream interpreted the lack of gravitational (inward-directed) deceleration to imply that gravity is being cancelled out by an outward-directed cosmological acceleration due to some unknown dark energy.

The universe isn’t actually accelerating; there is an acceleration field which isn’t causing matter to accelerate because gravitational attraction is cancelling out that outward acceleration (see Nobel Laureate Phil Anderson’s criticism of “acceleration” on mainstream cosmologist Professor Sean Carroll’s blog as I quoted it in the previous comment; Sean didn’t repudiate this point!).

The cosmological acceleration is a small but universal repulsion between masses.  Gravitation is a universal attraction between masses.  On cosmological distance scales these two opposite accelerations cancel one another out, so there is no net acceleration of matter.



The Lambda-CDM model, which is the mainstream model now (the Cold Dark Matter model with a small positive cosmological constant lambda worked out from the data), involves a repulsive force that increases as a function of distance.

The gravitational deceleration effect decreases with increasing distance.

Therefore at small distances, gravitation predominates, then at a larger distance (on the order 5*10^9 light years) the acceleration of the universe cancels out gravitational deceleration on receding matter, and at still greater distances the cosmological acceleration exceeds gravitation.

The observations of red-shifts made so far from Type Ia supernovae and gamma ray bursters are concentrated in the region where cosmological acceleration (repulsion) is cancelling out gravitational acceleration which is trying to slow the expansion of the universe.

For bigger distances than have currently been well observed, the mainstream Lambda-CDM model suggests an overall net acceleration outward. Whether the model is right is another matter (see the evidence from gamma ray bursters which suggests that the value of Lambda isn’t a constant: ).

This acceleration as an extrapolation from the Lambda-CDM model isn’t a fact or even a scientific prediction, because it’s not really a falsifiable prediction because the small positive Lambda/cosmological constant value is already an ad hoc modification, not a piece of genuine scientific prediction. You can endlessly introduce ad hoc ‘epicycle’ type corrections into a model to make it fit unpredicted effects. Whatever new data comes, they can just find a formula to fit Lambda’s variation (if any) as a function of redshift/distance. But this isn’t real physics.

The real physics concerns the nature of the dark energy. It’s spin-1 gravitons, causing universal repulsion between similar gravitational charge; this causes the cosmological acceleration and also pushes relatively small masses towards one another because they exchange gravitons more forcefully with the large masses in the distant universe than with one another. Both are checkable predictions.

Spin-2 gravitons don’t lead to any checkable predictions. Firstly spin-2 gravitons are based on the bizarre idea that mass A and mass B are solely exchanging gravitons with one another, and not exchanging gravitons with every other mass in the universe, including the immense masses at great distances. Secondly, spin-2 gravitons seem to need some incredibly ugly and extravagant theoretical framework such as string theory with 10 dimensions. (String theory is inherently vague because 6 dimensions are supposed to be too small to probe experimentally, so nobody knows their moduli if they are compactified in a Planck scale Calabi-Yau manifold. Without knowing all the parameters of these extra dimensions, you can’t make falsifiable predictions.)



Thanks for that up to date reference. Normally blog posts are updated or have trackbacks from new posts when updates are made, which makes them more dynamic than the usual literature not less so, but as you point out this is not so for Cosmic Variance. (I’ll avoid linking to posts at Sean’s blog from now on in case they become obsolete and are not updated by a trackback.)

It’s interesting that the latest gamma ray burster data is compatible with an unchanging cosmological constant!


“As an aside, your use of the term “acceleration outward” suggests that you do not yet understand FRW. You really seem to be using a mental image of an ordinary explosion in 3-dimensional space.”


We’re seeing earlier epochs with increasing distances, which is quite different from a purely 3-dimensional Euclidean space. As I explained there, flat spacetime is Minkowski spacetime, where you time changes with distance. This is why the variation in recession velocity with “distance” that Hubble reported is also a variation of velocity with time (conventionally referred to as acceleration).

“Your claim of repulsive “spin-1 gravitons” is of course completely unsubstantiated.”

There is scientific evidence to back it up:

The cosmological acceleration is a univeral repulsion of masses suggesting a spin-1 mediator, and differentiating Hubble’s law, a = dv/dt = d(Hr)/dt gives you a way of making solid predictions of forces, which predicts that the same spin-1 mediators that cause cosmological acceleration also produce gravitation. This is simple physical calculations using long-established empirical laws and observations. It predicted the cosmological acceleration of the universe in a publication in 1996, two years before observational discovery by Perlmutter!

The same calculation predicts gravity parameter G accurately. It doesn’t contain any speculations, unlike string theory. It’s already made falsifiable predictions and been vindicated. So it does seem scientifically accurate, although string theorists have censored it out!



No, I’ve never mentioned a balloon analogy!

Your statement that ‘the whole effect is caused by the expansion of space’ is vague enough to be compatible not only with what you’re thinking (the idea that the vacuum is powering cosmological expansion) but is also compatible with the physics I’ve stated: spin-1 gauge boson exchange between masses in the vacuum causes a repulsive force, giving rise to expansion of the universe (recession of masses) over large distances and pushing matter together on small scales.

Cosmologists don’t know what dark energy is so they don’t mean anything by accelerated expansion, apart from what I explained.

I.e., the cosmological acceleration is an outward radial acceleration (acceleration is a vector so it has direction and can be either outward or inward towards us when it is ascertained from redshifts). It’s needed – as far as cosmologists are concerned – to make the observed redshift data compatible with the predicted gravitational deceleration of the universe which is based on the density of the universe.

If the universe had a high enough density, the gravitational deceleration would not merely slow down the expansion but would cause the universe to begin contracting at some point in the future. I think it’s important to understand that the gravitational deceleration is always a vector, represented by arrows pointed radially inwards towards the observer. The acceleration of the universe by ‘dark energy’ is an acceleration outward, a vector represented by arrow pointed radially away from the observer. Hence the two accelerations oppose each other.

This physical explanation makes clear what is going on. Ideally the quantitative magnitude of the acceleration needs to be explained to people, on the order of 10^{-10} metres/second^2. If all this had been done when the acceleration was discovered in 1998, then there would be less confusion today. E.g., differentiate the Hubble law (v = Hr) and you get

a = dv/dt = d(Hr)/dt = H*dr/dt + r*dH/dt = Hv + 0 = rH^2.

This predicts the acceleration of the universe quantitatively. Mainstream cosmologists can’t predict this, so they don’t really ‘mean’ anything about acceleration. This was predicted in 1996, two years before being confirmed, while I was doing a cosmology course at university. Further calculations predicted gravity accurately. This model is observationally confirmed and predicts not only cosmological acceleration but also gravity accurately, using spin-1 gauge bosons. It debunks spin-2 graviton speculations, which are physically vacuous.

To restate briefly Dr Oakley’s problem:

Hubble law: v/r = H

where H = 1/t,

Chris Oakley argument: v/r = H = 1/t,

hence: v/r = 1/t

where Dr Oakley suggests that r is proportional to t, so v doesn’t vary: “(so it is Hubble’s “constant”, not the speed of the galaxy that is changing)” comment #3.

This is wrong since, as you look to bigger distances (r) you are seeing smaller times (t) after the big bang.

So r definitely is not proportional to age of universe t. In fact, if the age of the universe is that of the observer’s frame of reference, t is fixed at 13,700 million years. Hubble’s point was that v/r = constant = H, regardless of how far away (back in time) you look. This is why I feel that Dr Oakley’s comments (comments #2 and #3) above are in error.

If an Oxford PhD/D.Phil in quantum field theory can make such an error in looking at the very basics of cosmology, and then come back with personal comments ignoring the science, you can see the problem in communicating the fact that there is an acceleration inherent in the Hubble law!


“I can see why people don’t like to get into arguments with you … Hubble’s law is a fit. The velocity of galaxies being proportional to their distance roughly fits the observational data.” – Chris Oakley

You haven’t mentioned the scientific facts at all, you’ve “argued” with me by making personal comments which miss the scientific facts. You’ve ignored entirely everything that I wrote in comment 24.

Look, saying “Hubble’s law is a fit” which we all know doesn’t tell us anything new, because that’s been known since Hubble did it in 1929. I’ve done cosmology and quantum mechanics courses, and I’m studying quantum field theory as time permits.

Hubble’s law: v/r = H. Rearrange: v = rH. Differentiate it and you get an acceleration, from the calculus


= d[Hr]/dt

= H(dr/dt) + r(dH/dt)

= H(dr/dt)

= Hv

= H(Hr)

= rH^2

~ 6*10^(-10) ms^(-2) at extreme redshifts approaching the horizon radius.

This was predicted in 1996, and confirmed in 1998. The calculation above was published before confirmation. I’m very well aware (not just from hostility I receive) that it is not in the textbooks, because if it was well known, I wouldn’t need to point it out to people. I’m not pointing this out because I think it’s well known, but because it isn’t well known. It’s counter intuitive which is why it’s not mainstream thinking. If it was totally obvious, someone else would have predicted the acceleration of the universe this way before me. Yet it’s been borne out by factual evidence. It also leads to a simple prediction of the strength of gravitation, which again turns out to be accurate!



Thirteen years ago I did a cosmology course that included finding solutions such as the Friedman-Walker-Robertson metric and everything else. General relativity doesn’t predict the small positive cosmological constant to fit te observed expansion of the universe. This approach does.

See my calculation in comment 29 above and note it was done in 1996 two years before Perlmutter’s observations of distant supernovae confirmed it. It’s a different calculation from the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric. I work from empirical laws towards falsifiable predictions. This isn’t mainstream fundamental physics, which involves starting with a mathematical speculation like general relativity (or even string theory) that can model just about any universe, and fitting the model to the results of observations <i>ad hoc</i>. That’s one reason why I dropped physics and don’t want a degree in physics. Another reason is the general hostility, prejudice, etc., you receive when trying to have a scientific discussion. It’s not particularly healthy. I’m not claiming to be a paid-up member of the orthodoxy, I’m just pointing out facts that made falsifiable predictions which were confirmed.



I did a course in general relativity. Let me explain this to you and also to Chris Oakley very clearly.

Hubble noticed that the ratio v/r = constant = H.

In other words, the velocity of recession increases linearly with distance in spacetime.  Hence, when observing the universe by looking out in space (and back in time) in observable spacetime, dH/dt = 0, but if we <i>don’t</i> do that but instead wait around for H to change and then look again in the telescope, we’ll find that H is varying!

In the context of looking out to bigger distances and earlier times after BB, H is a constant, but when we wait around, we’ll find that H is varying as a function of the age of the universe for the observer (not for the observed).

When I did cosmology, the horizon radius of the universe was supposed (from the FRW metric) to be increasing in proportion not to t but to t^(2/3).  This slower than linear increase was predicted from the gravitational deceleration on the expansion which was predicted by GR without a CC, i.e. a curved universe of critical density.

This implied that the age of the universe was t = (3/2)/H or H = (2/3)/t.

After it was discovered by Perlmutter in 1998 that the mainstream model was wrong and the universe wasn’t decelerating (because the gravitational deceleration was being cancelled by a repulsive-force type acceleration), the flat geometry of the universe meant that the horizon radius wasn’t expanding as t^(2/3) but merely as t, so the age of the universe in flat geometry is simply

t = 1/H.

This has nothing to do with the Hubble constant varying as we look back in time.  It doesn’t!  There is no contradiction between dH/dt = 0 for spacetime where t represents earlier epochs in the universe (because as Hubble observed, H <i>is constant when we look back in time because recession velocities vary in proportion to distances or to times past</i>), and H = 1/t.

dH/dt = 0 applies to looking to greater distances in spacetime where the variation of v with r (or time past) means that v/r = constant = H, so dH/dt = 0.  When you differentiate such a constant you get zero.

But H = 1/t does not apply to looking to greater distances, because t here is the observer’s time, not the time after the big bang for the object being observed.

The only variation of H you get from H = 1/t is when the age of the universe in our frame of reference varies.

E.g., if you wait for a time of 13,700 million years and then re-measured Hubble’s “constant”, H would have halved.

<i>When you look to greater distances, however, H doesn’t appear to vary!</i> That’s because H when observed in spacetime is a ratio of two things which are both varying in sync: v and r. Because recession velocities increase as you look to greater distances (earlier times), you can’t observe any variation in H with distance. This is so simple, it’s depressing that I have to really keep spelling it out. Again, dH/dt = 0 involves spacetime t for the observed galaxy, while H = 1/t involves observer time t.

“But you are quite wrong to call GR “a mathematical speculation”.”

I’ve gone into the details of the speculations in general relativity here:

1. The successful predictions of “general relativity” result directly from the inclusion of mass-energy conservation into the gravitational model.

2. General relativity speculatively assumes that the source of gravity is a continuous distribution, not a quantized one consisting of fundamental particles. So the stress-energy tensor has to be supplied by an unrealistically smoothed distribution of matter like a mathematically “perfect fluid”, instead of discrete particles, to act as the source of smooth curvature.

3. General relativity speculatively and implicitly assumes that acceleration is due to spacetime being smoothly curved, instead of there being a quantum field with a series of discrete interactions with gravitons.

4. General relativity’s Ricci curvature tensor is rank-2, so it’s been argued by Pauli and Fietz in the 1930s that gravity is due to spin-2 gravitons, not spin-1 particles like electromagnetism. Spin-1 particle exchange between similar sign gravitational charges (e.g. two masses) would cause repulsion, whereas since attraction occurs, so you need spin-2 to make gravity attractive between two masses.  The flaw here is that – while the surrounding universe is electrically neutral for electromagnetism charges (equal positive and negative charges) – it definitely can’t be ignored this way for gravity.  Basically you have an immense amount of mass surrounding your apple and Earth, which should be exchanging gravitons with them both.  This can lead to spin-1 gravitons producing gravity by pushing together masses that are small compared the mass of the surrounding universe.  (Feynman points out in “The Feynman Lectures on Gravitation”, page 30, that gravitons are not necessarily spin-2). This is what I find to be the case, resulting in falsifiable predictions that are checked:

5. General relativity can result in a wide range of metrics depending on what assumptions you make in order to derive those metrics: it’s an endlessly adjustable speculative cosmological model that can model flat and curved universes, and in fact with appropriate ad hoc amounts of dark energy and dark matter it can model anything from endless expansion to collapse.

6. The speculative aspect of general relativity was explained even better by Einstein himself, who stated:

‘I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the [smooth geometric] field principle, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air …’ – Albert Einstein in a letter to friend Michel Besso, 1954.


The anonymous commenter then followed Dr Chris Oakley’s approach by ignoring the physics in my comment and writing personal abuse, to which I replied (probably my final reply, since it’s not much use when my comments are ignored and personal abuse is made instead):

No, you are both 1) and 2), because you are confused about the “definition” of the Hubble constant.

(a) Age of universe t = 1/H implies H = 1/t, so the rate of change of H is:

dH/dt = d(1/t)/dt = – 1/t^2

(b) But in spacetime T:

dH/dT = 0

So it’s fundamentally dishonest of you to muddle up the two times!

No amount of confusion and insults against me will make dH/dt = dH/dT. They are not the same. There is not only one possible definition to the Hubble parameter: if you’re dealing with Friedmann’s obsolete law then you have varying H, but if you’re dealing with real physics in real spacetime, you have constant H.

This is because Hubble’s observation was that there is an unvarying ratio v/r = H, it follows H is defined as constant where r = cT, T being time past (if we use capital T for time past to distinguish it from time after big bang). Hubble’s law states:

v/r = v/(cT) = H

= constant regardless of value of T, because v increases in direct proportion to T, keeping observed H in spacetime constant! You still can’t grasp this, and you try to confuse it with Friedmann’s irrelevant (non-spacetime) absolute time since big bang, where H does vary.

Differentiate and you will find that dH/dT = 0 because H is constant as observed in spacetime!

So you’re confusing time after big bang from your obsolete cosmology notes, with spacetime in the Hubble law. The time after big bang is not what we can observe. Please read again what I quoted (maybe on the original blog thread here) from Minkowski wrote in 1908: we have to base physics on spacetime, where distance is proportional to time past because of the speed of light.

Really, for you and others to ignore this and make personal comments based on ignorance about my background or claims that I am being dishonest, is not helpful to the physics! Please understand that the time used in the Friedmann et al metric is not directly observed! Physics calculations in this case needs to be based on observables! Spacetime (i.e. where distance r is related to time past T by r = cT) is observed, and in spacetime the Hubble parameter H is constant because it is the ratio of (velocity)/(radial distance from us, or time past). You seem to be completely confused about this.

Physics needs to build upon facts, not speculative theories. The non-zero dH/dt you get for the Hubble constant varying with absolute time after big bang doesn’t come into what I’m calculating at all, because in spacetime the further the distance, the earlier after the big bang you are seeing. All effects such as light and gravitons will travel to us at velocity c, so in calculating effects we need to treat the physical universe as we observe it, i.e. with time past varying with observable distance. This gives us an effective acceleration for predicting physical facts. The dishonesty and confusion come from the mainstream, I fear.

What your comments – which contain no relevant physics and are just personal attacks based on ignorance – do is to detract attention from the important quantitative success in which the acceleration of the universe was accurately predicted in 1996, years before observation! The kind of confusion you have is not helpful to physics. It’s dishonest to make such comments if you are so confused about the basics. That said, there is a lot of confusion around!



Instead of apologising for your insults, and admitting that you are totally confused and got it wrong, you again just ignore my message and ask a question.

The graph shows that observable distance (double the distance and you’re seeing twice as far back in time) and recession velocity are linearly correlated, i.e. that H = (velocity)/(distance) or H = (velocity)/[(time past)*c] = constant.

Hence, H doesn’t vary because the velocity increases in proportion to distance or to time past. This variation of velocity with time is an effective acceleration.

In my original 1996 8-pages paper predicting the acceleration of the universe, I pointed out Minkowski’s statement that when looking to greater distances we’re seeing the past, and explained that if Hubble in 1929 had tried that he would have predicted the acceleration of the universe.

“The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.”

– Hermann Minkowski, 1908.

Hubble found (velocity)/(distance) = constant (H) with units of 1/(time). If he had noted that in spacetime (distance) = c*(time past), he would have had the option of finding that (velocity)/(time past) = constant with units of acceleration!

If you want to make the expansion rate of the flat universe absolutely clear in terms of time, it is

v = Hr

= (1/t)*(cT)

= cT/t

where T is time past (which VARIES with observed distance), and t is time after big bang in our frame of reference (so it does NOT vary with distance).

The confusion of youself and Chris is centred on confusing the two times. It’s pretty obvious that you don’t have any real interest in physics, just quoting irrelevant obsolete speculations from your textbook, trying to confuse things, and then handing out insults instead of apologies when your errors are explained to you. But this behaviour is pretty typical in mainstream physics, which is religion.

I remember a fruitless discussion with fellow Electronics World features writer Mike Renardson in 1996. His dismissed it for a different reason to you, because the predicted acceleration of the universe, on the order of 10^{-10} ms^(-2), was extremely small. This prediction and the related prediction of the gravity parameter G was rejected by journals which believed in a large or a zero cosmological constant on the basis of string theory. When it was discovered to be a correct prediction in 1998, people still tried to ignore it and claimed that the small cosmological acceleration of the universe is a “mystery”!

I remember correspondence in which I answered all kinds of concerns Renardson had with the physics in 1996, and then he sent a reply stating “do you really expect me to start believing an unorthodox theory?” I think that this says it all: mainstream physics is a belief-based system, and people need more than factual discussions to convince them of anything new. They need authority as in the stamp of officialdom. Science is supposed to be a matter of facts, but in reality it’s a matter of politics: fame, money, popularity and groupthink. As Chris Oakley wrote above, innovations in physics need sponsorship. Facts don’t speak for themselves. Or people refuse to listen to them unless they come from authority figures, the orthodoxy of religion.


“Right – so if I see a car travelling at 30 kph 30 meters away from me, and one travelling 60 kph 60 metres away from me then it must mean that the nearer one is accelerating and will be travelling at 60 kph when it is 60 meters away – ? I suppose that it is possible … but a much simpler “explanation” is that neither of them is accelerating, but started at the same place (where I am standing) and set off at different speeds. AFAIK we cannot measure galactic acceleration directly so I don’t know how I would prove you wrong. But it certainly is not the most natural explanation.” – Chris comment #37

You’re neglecting the time delay in light coming from more distant objects, which is the whole point for the case of cosmology. For cars, the distances are small enough that the delay time in information coming to you is trivial.
For galaxies billions of light years away, you’re seeing them as they were in the past. In this case, as Minkowski states, you have to accept that seeing an object at distance r is the same thing as looking back in time r/c seconds ago.

Two things are varying as you look to greater distances: distance and time. The car analogy ignores the variation in time, which is trivial. But in cosmology this variation in time past is not trivial, and if we differentiate the Hubble velocity correctly we get acceleration

a = dv/dt = d(Hr)/dt = rH^2

which is an accurate prediction made in 1996. It was confirmed. There is no speculation involved in spacetime, the plot of recession velocity versus distance r (or time past T = r/c), or the rules of differentiation. There is also no speculation involved in dH/dt = 0 for the case of looking to greater distances, because the Hubble constant is a constant when we look to bigger distances: v/r is constant because top and bottom are proportional. The Hubble constant is only not a constant when you get away from spacetime and just consider a variation in absolute time. So there is no speculation in predicting the acceleration.

It’s simple physics and mathematics all the way!


“a = a_0 t^k, H = k t^(k-2), so k = 2/3 implies H ~ 1/t^(4/3).” – SomeRandomGuy

If the universe’s horizon radius increases as

R ~ t^(2/3), [Equation 1]


v = dR/dt = (2/3)t^(-1/3) [Equation 2]

Now, since H = v/R, using Equations 1 and 2 we get:

H = v/R = [(2/3)t^(-1/3)]/[t^(2/3)]

= (2/3)/t

This is my result, H = (2/3)/t. Your result H ~ 1/t^(4/3) is just plain wrong, and I’ve no interest in trying to help you find out why since you are rude and ignorant of physics.


“You do realize, of course, that this means the observed expansion would be geometrically like any explosion in 3D, with a central point where it all started? And that since we observe the same rate of expansion in all directions, we would have to be located at that point, i.e. at the center of the universe, for your picture to work?” – SomeRandomGuy

What I realise is that science is not about prejudice, it’s about facts and making predictions that are subsequently confirmed by observations. If you have a theory based entirely on observed facts that has made checkable unique predictions that have been confirmed, that theory may be correct.

Regarding our place in the universe, I refer you to the largest anisotropy (the cosine variation in the sky) in the microwave background radiation.

In the May 1978 issue of Scientific American (vol. 238, p. 64-74), R. A. Muller of the University of California, Berkeley, published an article about this, titled “The cosmic background radiation and the new aether drift”, stating:

“U-2 observations have revealed anisotropy in the 3 K blackbody radiation which bathes the universe. The radiation is a few millidegrees hotter in the direction of Leo, and cooler in the direction of Aquarius. The spread around the mean describes a cosine curve. Such observations have far reaching implications for both the history of the early universe and in predictions of its future development. Based on the measurements of anisotropy, the entire Milky Way is calculated to move through the intergalactic medium at approximately 600 km/s.”

Most of this 600 km/s velocity is due to our galaxy, the Milky Way, being locally attracted to the larger galaxy Andromeda, so it may be an upper limit on the average speed of the Milky Way mass motion. Now suppose the universe was more like Dr Chris Oakley’s explosion than the curved boundless geometry of mainstream general relativity: since the universe is flat and in any case curvature appears to be a classical approximation to a lot of graviton interactions, if quantum gravity is correct.

Distance is the product of velocity and time, and if we multiply 600 km/s by the age of the universe, we find that the matter in the Milky Way would have moved only 0.3% of the horizon radius of the universe in 13,700 million years.

If the average speed was less than 600 km/s, it would be even closer to the centre of the universe. So it doesn’t pay you to be biased either way. There are lots of problems with multiplying the 600 km/s speed deduced from the major anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background by the age of the universe to obtain our distance from the “centre” or “origin” of the universe. But they can probably all be overcome. Muller’s argument that this is a “new aether drift” in 1978 didn’t catch on, because of relativity. I don’t want to argue about speculations.

I’m mentioning this just as a counter argument to you. I made a fact based prediction that was subsequently confirmed. You then make a comment saying that if it is right it implies we’re at the middle of the universe. Well, I don’t care where we are, only that the prediction works. Copernicus is referred to as a defender of science for arguing that we’re not at the centre of the universe. I think science is quite different to any sort of prejudice: science is not about defending speculations that we are or are not here or there. It’s about establishing facts!


Further support for the result of my calculation in comment #42 above can be found in Marc Lachièze-Rey’s textbook, “Theoretical and Observational Cosmology”, 1999, p 384, available online at:

For horizon radius expansion proportional to t^(2/3), you get H = (2/3)/t.

The same also occurs in Lars Bergström and Ariel Goobar, “Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics”, Springer, 2004, p. 202:

“For a flat, matter dominated FLRW [Friedmann-Leimatre-Robertson-Walker] model, a(t) ~ t^(2/3), (da/dt)/a [this (da/dt)/a = H, since a is radius here] = 2/(3t) …”

I’m very busy now and I hope that no more insulting rubbish from the totally ignorant pseudo physicist SomeRandomGuy will appear.  I won’t have time to respond to it any more.  He doesn’t read anything I write anyway, so what’s the point in trying to explain physics to someone like that?


Before disappearing back to SQL database ASP programming for good, just one more comment about Chris Oakley’s point in comment 37, that we may be seeing stars with different velocities at different distances because stars started from one point and moved with different speeds.  This is something I responded to earlier in comment 4 (unfortunately I didn’t turn off italics at one point, so the while section is in italics as a result).  Eddington discussed that idea in his book “The Expanding Universe”, referring to papers in Nature which discredited it.  The distribution of speeds you need turns out to be contrary to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for a gas like the hydrogen cloud that the universe was soon after the big bang. But let’s assume that is one possibility.  That predicts no cosmological acceleration!  My argument, a = dv/dt = d(Hr)/dt, does predict cosmological acceleration of the right size, which I think is evidence that it might be right.  I then went on to predict the strength of gravity and other things, again using simple facts.

“As an aside, why are your “spin 1 gravitons” causing repulsion only over cosmological distance, and attraction on all scales at least up to galactic? How does that work, exactly, given that exchange of spin 1 bosons is repulsive for equal charges, and you are using mass as charge? Is the mass of the moon of opposite sign to that of Earth?” – SomeRandomGuy

See for the answer.  All masses repel one another by exchanging gravitons.  The more mass, the more repulsive charge.  If you have two small masses, two planets or nearby galaxies, they will repel each other slightly, but they’re being pushed together harder by gravitons exchanged with the surrounding universe, involving bigger masses and a convergence of gravitons.

The outward radial acceleration from us of mass m is a = dv/dt = rH^2.  The second law of motion gives outward force for that mass of F = mrH^2.  The third law of motion suggests that there is an equal reaction force, F = mrH^2, directed radially towards us.  This quantifies spin-1 graviton predictions for low energy, where only the simplest Feynman diagram contributes significantly to the result, so the path integral becomes very simple and can be evaluated geometrically as Feynman did for QED (see for a discussion of how this works).

Now the graviton force F = mrH^2 contains mass m and distance r, so it is trivial for relatively small masses and relatively small distances, but is significant for marge masses and/or larger distances.

Two nearby masses get pushed together because they exchange gravitons more forcefully with the surrounding universe than with each other.  So the fundamental particles in the Moon are pushed towards the Earth repulsion of immense distant masses more than by graviton impacts from gravitons exchanged between the Earth and the Moon. This is very slightly like LeSage’s pictorial gravity from the Newtonian era (it was said to have been first proposed by Newton’s friend Fatio but Newton didn’t like it because at that time it couldn’t be made to work and make checkable predictions), which was generally discredited because:

1. It couldn’t usefully predict anything checkable like G
2. It wasn’t a gauge theory of virtual radiation (graviton) exchange, so the real radiation it postulated as the exchange radiation would cause drag on moving bodies, heat up bodies until they glowed red how, and would also diffuse into geometric “shadows” to make gravity fall off much faster than the inverse-square law.’s_theory_of_gravitation

(I also have a discussion of the errors somewhere on my blog.)

The fact-based calculations you’re talking of differs from the LeSage model in that it’s a gauge theory of quantum gravity, which does make predictions of cosmological acceleration, G, and other things, and which does not have the defects of LeSage’s theory.



I don’t have much time for discussions. If you knew cosmology, you’d have known the fact that t^(2/3) expansion leads to H = (2/3)/t.  You don’t know anything about it. Your calculations are irrelevant and wrong.

“The main points are of course unaffected: you are saying that metric theories of gravity in general and GR in particular are wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary, and should not be used to do cosmology, that spacetime is static and we are located at the center of the universe, and that gravity is mediated by “spin 1 gravitons”, which would make it repulsive between masses of equal sign.”

No, I’m not saying that.  You’re saying that.  What I am saying is a sequence of facts:

Fact 1: the universe is accelerating, confirmed by Perlmutter and others since 1998.

Fact 2: the acceleration was predicted by a = dv/dt = d(rH)/dt = rH^2 back in 1996.

Fact 3: the spin-2 graviton idea relies on a path integral including only two masses: so it forces the exchange of gravitons to have the right spin to cause attraction when exchanged.  It makes no falsifiable predictions (string theory of gravitons has a landscape of 10^500 vacua, which can’t be checked).

Fact 4: If you correct the path integral for gravitons so that you include graviton exchange between all mass-energy(gravitational charge) in the universe, instead of just two masses as Pauli and Fietz did in the 1930s when arguing that gravitons have spin-2, you find that gravitons have spin-1 and the basic graviton interaction is the Feynman diagram of virtual radiation being exchanged by analogy to radiation scattering off charge.

Fact 5: This predicts the strength of gravity, and other things.

Your statement that I’m saying that all metric theories of gravity are wrong is in error.  I’m saying are facts. (Quite a few metrics of general relativity are useful under certain conditions, where they approximate the underlying quantum gravity dynamics very well.) I’ve no interest in arguing with time-wasting bigots about whether approximate metrics are wrong or right.  Life is short and what matters are facts, not uncheckable controversies.


On the speculative nature of conjectures concerning spin-2 (attractive or ’suck’) gravitons, Richard P. Feynman points out in The Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, page 30, that gravitons do not have to be spin-2, which has not been observed.


“My solution (simple version): Yes, Hubble’s Law implies that distant galaxies are accelerating away from one another. However, this has nothing to do with the so-called acceleration of the universe. The latter term refers to the observation that the universe expansion has recently speeded up (an acceleration of the universe acceleration above if you like.)” – Dr Cormac O’Raifeartaigh

Thanks for putting the mainstream official case so eloquently. I think that this is wrong for two reasons: first, the universe isn’t “recently” speeding up.  The acceleration is observed at the greatest distances, i.e. the earliest times after the big bang.  Second, there is no evidence that the “dark energy” causing the acceleration of the universe is evolving with time.  Whatever is causing the cosmological acceleration, it is only a very small acceleration, 6*10^{-10} m/s^2 over immense distances, and you need to look to immense distances to detect it’s effect on recession rates.

Maybe you have Smolin’s book, “The Trouble with Physics”, where Smolin finds that the acceleration of the universe is quantitatively equal to approximately 6*10^{-10} m/s^2.  Smolin found it a coincidence that a = cH or RH^2. Presumably you do too, despite my derivation in 1996 of this acceleration from the Hubble expansion law, v = HR.  a = dR/dt = d(HR)/dt = RH^2.

If you look at Hubble’s law, H = 1/t where t is time since big bang in the observer’s frame of reference in flat spacetime with cosmological acceleration cancelling out gravitational attraction over large distances, and R = cT, where T is time past.

So v = HR = [1/t]*[cT] = cT/t

The whole point of Hubble’s law is that when you look to greater distances R in spacetime, the increase in v is matched by the proportionate increase in R, so v/R = constant = H.  If H = 1/t, when looking out in spacetime, the fact that H is constant makes also t constant.

So t is not a variable in spacetime!  Two variables in the equation v = cT/t are v and T.  Hence, in spacetime, a = dv/dT = d(cT/t)/dT = c/t = cH = 6*10^{-10} ms^{-2}.

This is physically and mathematically legitimate, and makes an accurate prediction.  The only objections I’ve ever received have been based on errors, misunderstandings, or the idea that physics is mainstream orthodoxy and the obnoxious but prevalent idea any new developments based on deeper understanding of the basics must be dismissed as wrong automatically.

This is a very tiny acceleration and is therefore only observable over immense distances.  Perlmutter’s group back in 1999 came up with a computer program to detect the supernova signatures automatically from CCD equipped telescopes, which was an innovation.

The acceleration is only observable over vast distances, corresponding to relatively short times after the big bang.  Therefore I don’t think that you can claim that this acceleration is “recent”.

In spacetime you are looking back to earlier times with bigger distances.  In the time taken for light to travel from a distant star to you, the star will presumably have receded a further distance.  One way to get around the two distance scales is through spacetime, using the travel time of light to measure how far away things are.  If you stop thinking about distances and think about times past instead, then the velocity-distance relationship of Hubble becomes a velocity-time relationship.  The funny thing is that the maths predicts the correctly observed cosmological acceleration.

“My solution (more sophisticated version): … Relativity tells us that that the expansion of the universe is an expansion of space-time (or space expanding as time unfolds). Hence, the common ‘explosion-picture’ of galaxies rushing away from one fixed point is simply wrong. Instead, space itself is expanding and this expansion has a scale factor. The recent evidence of ’acceleration’ simply suggests that the scale factor has increased in the last few million years. (This is a surprise because most cosmologists expected the expansion to slow down, if anything, due to gravitational effects)….” – Dr Cormac O’Raifeartaigh

Your sentence:

“The recent evidence of ’acceleration’ simply suggests that the scale factor has increased in the last few million years.”

I’m worried that your “few million years” timescale is not consistent with Perlmutter’s 1998 discovery of cosmological acceleration, using specifically supernovae at half the age of the universe, i.e. 7,000 million years.

Also, there has been quite a lot of criticism of the concept you mention of “expanding space”:

“Popular accounts, and even astronomers, talk about expanding space. But how is it possible for space, which is utterly empty, to expand? How can ‘nothing’ expand?

” ‘Good question,’ says Weinberg. ‘The answer is: space does not expand. Cosmologists sometimes talk about expanding space – but they should know better.’

“Rees agrees wholeheartedly. ‘Expanding space is a very unhelpful concept,’ he says. ‘Think of the Universe in a Newtonian way – that is simply, in terms of galaxies exploding away from each other.’ ” –—-everyweek-questions-about-the-big-bang-flood-into-the-new-scientist-officesowe-thought-it-was-about-time-to-let-some-experts-loose-on-the-subject-.html

I don’t think that Dr Chris Oakley, SomeRandomGuy, or yourself really grasp this problem.  I think I do after twelve years of battling against ignorance everywhere, although there is always room to improve the communication of facts (although the more forcefully the facts are presented, the more angry the opposition to progress!).

7 thoughts on “Cosmology at Dr Cormac O’Raifeartaigh’s blog

  1. I’ve seen something like this argument before and it’s very interesting. My own kneejerk reaction is that I suspect the relation v/r = H is quite misleading, and should not be taken literally for a particular galaxy. All that the graph really suggests is that v1/r1 = v2/r2 = H etc – in other words, it is a relation between galaxies.
    After all, a strict interpretation of v/r = const for a single galaxy would imply that it must accelerate, since the distance is changing!
    Or is this a dumb argument?
    Regards, Cormac

  2. Hi Professor Cormac O’Raifeartaigh,

    Thank you very much for your interesting reaction:

    “My own kneejerk reaction is that I suspect the relation v/r = H is quite misleading, and should not be taken literally for a particular galaxy. … After all, a strict interpretation of v/r = const for a single galaxy would imply that it must accelerate, since the distance is changing!” [Emphasis added.]

    That’s a very nice argument. Isn’t it interesting in this context that the universe is accelerating, after all! I investigated the basic idea in 1996 (without putting it as concisely as you have just done), finding that it made predictions about cosmology and gravity, and Martin Eccles (editor of Electronics World) kindly published it via the October 1996 issue (it was also printed in Science World, ISSN 1367-6172, February 1997 issue).

    The prediction is that the Hubble expansion predicts an acceleration: a = rH^2 = (r/t)H = cH, if r is the horizon radius of the universe. Two years later, this correct amount of acceleration was observed by Perlmutter and published in Nature, with no reference to and probably no knowledge of my prediction. (I didn’t bribe him to check it, honestly!)

    H is a small number, H = 1/(age of universe) for the observed flat cosmology, so H^2 is very small, and the cosmological acceleration is very small too; on the order 10^{-10} metres per second squared. But that’s enough to cancel out gravitational curvature over immense distances, and to be observed with computerized supernova signature detection via CCD telescopes.

    Hence it clearly was a checkable prediction. In 1998, it was observed by Saul Perlmutter and colleagues, and published in Nature!

    So there’s a theoretical prediction of acceleration, and then an experimental observation of acceleration. What’s the problem? Isn’t that supposed to be what physics is all about?

    “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” – Hermann Minkowski, 1908

    The key thing is that, as Minkowski grasped, we’re not just seeing increasing distances with bigger telescopes, but earlier times and any velocity variation with distance is therefore automatically equivalent to a velocity variation with time past, i.e. an acceleration.

    The acceleration has been observed, it has the predicted magnitude. It’s a scientific fact, not a debatable speculation! The only really debatable question here is why so many mainstream people are still puzzling over the acceleration of the universe and what the dark energy is.

    (I just love the section in the 2006 edition of Professor Lee Smolin’s book, The Trouble with Physics, where Smolin uses numerology to point out that the observed amount of cosmological acceleration in the universe is numerically similar to a = cH, but he can give no theoretical reason for this “coincidence”. He doesn’t work out that Hubble’s recession law gives a = cH, let alone other implications such as applying Newton’s 2nd and 3rd laws to it to make quantum gravity predictions that are also checkable!)

  3. Hi Steve,

    Newton followed in the tradition of Archimedes proofs of the laws of buoyancy: he proved things based on observational facts, not hypotheses, then he checked them. This is what I’ve tried to do!

    Newton wrote: “hypotheses non fingo” (I feign no hypotheses) in his General Scholium of the second (1713) edition of the Principia:

    “I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.”

    You can see what he would have said about today’s extra dimensional uncheckable string theory and spin-2 gravitons.

    Newtonian gravity law F = mMG/r^2 is based on empirical evidence:

    (1) The inverse square law is based on Kepler’s empirical laws, which were obtained by Brahe’s detailed observations of motion of the planet Mars.

    (2) The mass dependence was more of a guess by Newton, since he didn’t actually calculate gravitational forces (he did not know or even write the symbol for G, which arrived long after from the pen of Laplace). However, Newton’s other empirical law, F = ma, was strong evidence for a linear dependence of force on mass.

    (3) There was direct evidence from the observation of the Moon’s orbit.

    The Moon was known to be about 250,000 miles away and to take about 30 days to orbit the earth, so it’s centripetal acceleration could be calculated from Newton’s law, a = (v^2)/r. Since 250,000 miles is about 60 times the radius of the Earth, the acceleration due to gravity from the Earth should, from the inverse-square law, be 60^2 or 3600 times weaker at the Moon than it is at the Earth’s surface where it is 9.8 m/s^2. Hence it was possible to check the inverse-square law in Newton’s day, by taking Galileo’s measurement of the ggravitational acceleration at the Earth’s surface and dividing it by 3600 to get Earth’s gravitational acceleration at the Moon, and comparing that to the centripetal acceleration of the Moon’s orbit a = (v^2)/r. Since both figures agreed, the inverse square law was checked.

    Professor Cormac O’Raifeartaigh makes the suggestion above that an individual galaxy may not be accelerating, even though that is what is suggested by the observation-based Hubble law.

    Clearly, masses must have accelerated in the big bang in order to gain outward velocity when originating from a singularity.

    At early times in the big bang, the universe was a compressed ionized cloud of mainly hydrogen, expanding due to the collisions of particles (like gas pressure inflating a balloon). But soon the expansion reduced the material pressure to effectively zero.

    There are strong reasons why spin-1 graviton exchange between masses will cause the universe to continue accelerating today.

    Masses are gravitational charges, and all known gravitational charges (masses) have the same sign (nothing that falls upward due to gravity has ever been found). Therefore, if the graviton has spin-1, the exchange of gravitons is a repulsive force (like the exchange of photons between similar sign electric charges, causing repulsion).

    So the universe is continuing to expand at an accelerating rate because all masses repel one another. Gravity occurs because nearby masses don’t repel one another as strongly on facing sides as they repel the immense flux of converging gravitons from tremendous receding masses on the other side. The asymmetry in the graviton exchange force pushes relatively small, nearby masses together:

    We take Hubble’s law v = Hr, giving a = rH^2, and then apply Newton’s 2nd and 3rd laws, which tells us that mass m receding at distance r from us, fires towards us a force (presumably mediated by spin-1 gravitons) of F = ma = mrH^2.

    This force is directly proportional to the distance r of the galaxy from us. It’s obvious that this equation has the form it does due to asymmetry in graviton exchange.

    A non-receding mass is still exchanging gravitons with the rest of the masses in the universe, but there is little effect (beyond the radius contraction by (1/3)mG/c^2 = 1.5 mm in the case of the Earth, as calculated by Feynman from G.R.): the graviton exchange is in equilibrium, so the mass is not being accelerated relative to you, the observer.

    If the mass is receding from you, however, the graviton exchange process is subject to an asymmetry, as observed from your frame of reference.

    For example, gravitons exchanged between an apple and the Earth are emitted at the same time after the big bang for all practical purposes: t = 1/H.

    But gravitons exchanged between an apple and a distant galaxy above it are not both emitted at the same time. The apple emits a graviton towards the distant galaxy at time t = 1/H after the big bang, but at the same time the apple receives gravitons from the distant galaxy above which were emitted at a time of only t = (1/H) – (r/c) after the big bang, where r is the distance to the galaxy calculated from the redshift in the usual way.

    So the exchange of gravitons with the distant universe causes interesting effects. When the universe was small (early times), gravitons took less time (at light velocity) travelling between masses, so they interacted more frequently with masses.

    E.g., when the age of the universe was half it’s current age, the universe was half as big, so gravitons on average took only half the time to travel between masses. Hence, gravitons interacted with masses twice as often!

    So the graviton flux per solid angle coming from a distant galaxy at half the age of the universe may be twice that coming from a nearby mass. This spacetime effect (the effect of the age of the universe when gravitons were emitted by different masses) causes an asymmetry in graviton exchange interactions.

    There are other factors too that have to be taken into account, such as redshifts, density increase as we look back in time to very early (distant) eras of the big bang, and geometric effects. The reasons why this can be done geometrically can be gleaned from the explanation of path integrals in Feynman’s book “QED”: you can evaluate path integrals geometrically by summing all possible interactions to find the net (observed) consequence for low-energy quantum interactions such as the classical limit for gravitation:

    As Feynman shows, provided you are dealing with low-energy interactions, the chaos due to looped Feynman diagrams don’t occur (loops in Feynman diagrams are pair production phenomena which require strong fields, as Schwinger showed). So at low energy, the path integral is very simple and can be solved geometrically. The infinite series of terms in the perturbative expansion to the path integral only occurs if there are loops, with each successive term in the expansion representing a more complex looped Feynman diagram. If you don’t have any loops, the path integral becomes simple to understand and can be easily evaluated by geometrical summing of radiation paths to find the net force.

  4. I notice that Lubos Motl has, in a comment at the Not Even Wrong blog, attacked string theorist Urs Schreiber’s standing in the theoretical physics community:

    Motl’s attack is completely opinionated drivel: “… people who don’t really mean anything in physics, such as Urs Schreiber, A.J., or someone like that, can be ambiguous …”

    I think this sort of comment is typical of the behind-the-scenes sneering officialdom of physics. I’m glad to have escaped mainstream physics academia, a vile mixture of political thuggery and religious orthodoxy, and have written in my post about the problem of dictatorial censorship presenting a barrier to genuine new (i.e. initially unorthodox) ideas (holding them up on non-scientific grounds that sound scientific or authoritive to most people). :

    ‘An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

    ‘It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.’

    For more about Urs Schreiber’s recent string theory comments at Not Even Wrong which Motl apparently objected to, see my post:

  5. cosmo estruturante and desintegrante
    Author – Ancelmo Graceli Luiz.
    Tel. 27- 32167566 Street Itabira, nº 5, Itapemirim Set, Rose of the
    Penha, Cariacica, -269, E.S. cep.29143 Brazilian, professor,
    graduation in philosophy and theoretical researcher. Published books

    Collaborator – Marcio Piter Rangel.

    Presented work the SECT- Spirit Brazil Saint. E the Brazilian Society
    of Physics. Introduction published in the WEB for the Vestibule Brazil
    Factor – Channel Profile. In day 30.01.2008. If other theories with
    beddings and you formulate had had acceptance, why these will not
    have? Therefore, it possesss all the beddings and all the forms of
    calculations, and that the reality and the comment until today reached
    are confirmed with. With more than one hundred and ten formulas, the
    most varied forms of if calculating one same phenomenon, with more
    than two hundred beddings in all the areas of the modern physics.
    Also, with new forecasts inside of cosmology and astronomy.

    Presented the Magazine of Education of the SBFISICA. Soced. Bras. de
    Física. Brazilian Journal of Physics – SBFISICA

    In cosmology the universe is defended that if structure as a stream of
    production and destruction of astros. In astronomy it is defended that
    the movement is produced by the proper energy of astro. INTRODUCTION.



    This theory goes of meeting to the harmony and cosmic eternity in
    detriment to the chaos and the finitude of the universe considered for
    the theory of the great explosion. While one enters in stream of
    disintegration and reintegration with little energy, others are born
    more distant from the aglutinação of the dense space.


    Graceliano Model. The universe is constant and infinite stream.

    First part.


    While in the theory of the great explosion the universe if expands
    from a point of the space and a small amount of energy, and is the one
    only – OF OUTSIDE FOR INSIDE – In the theory of the bubble universe if
    it contracts from the dense space to produce the substance and the
    energy of some points of the infinite of the space, in a constant
    production of new universes in some points of cosmo. Or either, it
    contracts itself to produce the substance stops later forming the
    astros and if expanding for the maser. E is some universes in infinite
    points of cosmo in infinite phases.

    Of birth in the phase bubble of dense space – phase estruturante-Na
    energy phase, In the phase of substance and the phase of
    disintegration, unfastening and removal in the space for the proper
    maser of the density of the substance. E reintegration forming
    secondary from the material radiated for the elementary school.


    Thus, the dense space if contracts until to be filamentoso – the
    diffuse substance arrives – dense substance – energy – diffuse cores –
    astros – nuclear fusing – chemical elements – of light elements in
    weighed – maser – reengrupamentos in new astros, secondary – it comes
    back if to disintegrate – and the process continues until if becoming
    diffuse substance.


    We do not feel the action of the dense space because we are in a
    universe in a phase that

    already it was changedded into substance.


    The dense space if contracts and diminishes of size to produce the
    substance, and if it gives in a contraction and infinite reduction,
    that can be calculated with formulates of the infinitesimal limit. But
    one it has all left, divided for all, thus infinitely.

    Dense space ED – total part p dense space if structuralizing. Thus,
    infinitely, until changedding into energy and substance.

    ED – P/ED… until arriving to be energy and substance.

    Thus, we have the formula for formation of the substance, energy and
    for origin of the universe.



    It was always looked by the philosophers and Greek chemistries, later
    for the modern physics an explanation for the origin, nature and
    essence of the substance, where the world at times was divided in form
    and structure, spirit, mind and substance, therefore I show the first
    theory of that the substance can appear and of that it is formed, that
    here is of filaments of dense space, always looked to the substance
    for the substance and dividiz it infinitely of the atom of the Greeks
    until the hundred of particles that they are catalogued today. Comment
    – no theory displayed until today obtained to give a recital from that
    it originated the substance. All leave soon of the estimated one of


    To be able of contraction of the dense space = amount of dense
    space/cosmological time = estruturante substance and cosmo and phases.


    To be able of disintegration = amount of substance, temperature,
    fusing core to estelar, maser and energy/cosmological time.

    Pd*[qm ]/t c.


    Universe not formed from great explosion, but yes of space dense,
    space dense is all space that in it surrounds them, that we have the
    notion that it is a great emptiness, but is not, it possesss density,
    and of it the substance and the energy if they had originated to form
    the first astros, galaxies and accumulations.


    The expansion is false, is in the truth a translation and rotation and
    a minimum of removal.

    What we have the notion of a great expansion of the universe is in the
    truth the translation and rotation of exactly. Therefore, if it is
    infinitely old and had started if to expand at the moment of supposed
    a great explosion, the astros would be so distant ones of the others
    that nor its light would be capable to be picked-up by any type of


    The disposal of the galaxies in disks with the systems of stars also
    in disk test that the universe is a estruturação process and passes
    for streams, therefore had appeared at one alone moment in a great
    explosion the format of the universe would be spherical, or either
    with all the astros in one same distancia of a center, and as also
    with the same translation and rotation.

    Comment. Already we have here a recital of the origin and of that
    material cosmo if formed. Beddings not displayed until today for other


    It has yes a minimum removal proceeding from the action of the maser
    and high temperatures, removal produced for the processed energy for
    nuclear fusing in the inward of the astros.


    The universe passes for two processes – first of the formation of the
    substance and the energy for the contraction of the filaments of the
    dense space.

    As of the formation of the astros, its processes of energy and
    production of temperature to the ratio that the substance if
    agglutinates, with the agglutinated substance are produced great
    amount of energy and temperature, giving sprouting the maser and the
    consequent disintegration of astro in the space. For that the universe
    is a stream of estruturante energy, where first if it contracts stops
    later if disintegrating and if moving away ones from the others,
    always in lesser portions.


    The same process passes particles and atoms.


    Part of the maser if also transforms into atmosphere, that always goes
    to direct for the equator, where goes to form cinturões of gases as
    it is the Jupiter case, or in a more advanced period of training the
    cinturões go to form rings that is the Saturn case and Uranus, of
    these rings go to form small accumulations of gases, that always more
    will go to agglutinate themselves more and, where will appear the
    first rarefied cores, and the aglutinação process continues, where
    the secondary ones start to appear exactly before if forming, as gases
    they already possess translation and rotation and if they move away
    from the elementary schools. Or either, before existing as astro the
    secondary one already develops its translation.


    This can be confirmed with the Land, where its atmosphere already less
    concentrates more in the equator and in the polar regions, proceeding
    from the magnetism of the Land and centrifuga action of the rotation,
    and that the atmosphere possesss proper dynamics. That it will be
    filamentará until arriving to give beginning to a new satellite.
    However this is not for today. The MAGNETISM Of the ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

    If it was not the magnetism and the centrifuga action of the rotation
    of the astros, its secondary ones would delay time not to form
    themselves. Therefore the magnetism and action centrifugam act in the
    production of the filaments of gases for the equator and in the
    production of these filaments in the esferificação process, where
    rarefied cores will appear, until forming new astros.

    E the stream continues of disintegration of the elementary school for
    maser proceeding from the energy production, for the production of
    atmosphere and aglutinação in filaments for the magnetism and
    centrifuga action of the rotation of proper astro until arriving the
    esferificação, also through the magnetism of the gases.


    1 – with the contraction of the filaments of the dense space to form
    the substance and after the produced substance if form in astros. With
    the formed astros they pass if to disintegrate as form of maser and

    2- the material of the disintegration comes back if to contract and to
    produce astros lesser, and of these other minors the process
    continues. This if confirms where the astros possess the spherical
    format. Therefore the rounding sample that had a slow process of
    formation through materials that had appeared of are for inside, where
    slowly for aglutinação astro was if structuralizing. They confirm
    because the cores are denser and the Land is formed by layers and

    In the case of the production of the planets for the Sun, the
    atmosphere nor arrived if to form, and the maser was soon if
    filamentando to esferificar and to appear the planets.


    The esferificação test that astro was produced by layers of material
    of maser for juxtaposition – one on the other, for that the cores are
    denser, that were already proven in the physics of the atom. E the
    rounding test that took much more time this circular formation, then
    the universe is a much more slow and constant process that if can
    imagine. Thus, the rounding of the universe proves the theory of the
    stream and that all the universe of today did not appear at one alone
    moment, they are some universes in some phases if processing and if
    structuralizing, while some age for lose and energy processing, others
    they appear for the dense space. These phases if confirm for the
    current comment, thus the universe are infinite in the origin and the
    end, the space and its processing.


    1- Origin – universe bubble of dense space and bubble of energy. 2-
    Type – estruturante fluxonário, if contracts to produce the substance
    from the bubble of the dense space. Later if it after expands the
    contraction and production of energy, temperature and maser. 3- Form
    to exist – production processes energy. 4- Amount – some types in some
    phases, of the bubble until astro almost without energy. 5- Size –
    infinite in the production of new universes, the infinite in the space
    and the time. 6- Form – infinite and varied forms, of bubbles, gases,
    diffuse energy, dense and less dense substance, astros, rings, maser,
    atmosphere, etc. 7- estruturante of the substance and cosmo.


    Before if speaking of the creation of the universe, it must be spoken
    of the creation of the energy and the substance, therefore it was from
    the substance that appeared the astros.


    The esferificação of astros the test that,

    1- It was formed for a slow process to have the spherical format, of
    the the opposite it would not be.

    2- It was formed of minimum parts that had been if joust locating to
    form astro, of the the opposite would not have the round formation.
    One sees that while Saturn and Uranus possesss rings of gases in the
    route of the equator, Jupiter it possesss an atmosphere stack that is
    in movement in the route of the equator, where if confirms the origin
    of the astros for components of the elementary school.

    3- the astros are older of the one than if it thinks. E its core is
    denser of the one than the exterior part, and the planet Land is
    formed by formed layers on.

    4- Fiz a calculation for the age of the Land, however was taken in
    account only the removal, and not it time for the esferificação,
    that probably was very bigger.

    5- Test that the universe has its origin through very small elements,
    that had been if joining to form the astros, as minimum parts of
    maser, gases, light and leftovers of great temperatures.

    6- the universe is had There if forming for minimum parts, as energy
    and substance, of inside for exterior part is with the cores denser
    than the crust -. A much more old, round and infinite universe in the
    end and origin time, the infinite in relation its production, then,
    that it would never appear at one alone moment in a great explosion.


    Thus, with the format of the astros if it has plus a test of the
    theory of the estruturante fluxonário universe. For compression of
    the dense space, and disintegration for the maser and temperature, and
    a new compression of this maser in the space, forming new lesser
    astros, as planets, satellites and comets. E the estruturante and
    desintegrante process continues producing asteroids and others that
    will always be disintegrated producing astros and lesser asteroids.

    Universes alone of dense space, gases, energy, diffuse substance,
    substance exist and astros and gases, light and maser, with this if it
    confirms the theory here supported of that the universe does not have
    age, therefore it is an infinite production and disintegration of
    itself exactly. E while some disintegrate others in other points of
    the infinite of the space starts if to form slowly for the dense

    If cosmo was produced at one alone moment, the astros would not have a
    spherical form so defined, some would be long and flattened others.


    The energy exists in function of the substance, since its production
    until its carrier also for air, therefore the substance contains and
    produze the energy, therefore the energy does not have as to exist
    without the substance, and the substance if originates and is
    densificado dense space.


    It does not have as to speak of a universe that if it originates from
    a small ball in a great explosion, therefore which the origin of this
    ball, and gives where came the energy for explodiz it.

    The great explosion contains varies contradictions and lack of origin
    beddings, cause and effect.


    The interplanetary space is constituted of gas to one [ pressure of
    ten raised to less 19 terrestrial atmospheres ]. That is a route that
    the space is not an emptiness without density, pressure, and is not a

    PLEA. If the gravitation attracted the astros, all the satellites
    would be plumb between the planet and the Sun, therefore the planet
    would hold of a side and the Sun of another one, and would be
    constantly in eclipse. Therefore that the dynamics depends on the
    energy and maser of astro. To see theory of the energeticidade and


    The filamentosa space phase of density. The energy phase space
    filamentosa. The phase of the materiality – chemical atoms, and
    elements. The phase of immense astros, with little density, and little
    maser. The phase of the aglutinação, where the substance was if
    agglutinating, magnifying the internal temperature and the maser. The
    phase of the disintegration for the internal temperature and maser.
    The phase of formation of new astros for the aglutinação of the
    expelled material of the maser of the first astros, thus we see that
    it is a stream and process of integration, disintegration and new


    The material that already became astro after does not come back to be
    dense space the disintegration, but this material if integrates
    forming new lesser astros.

    Thus it has two processes. 1- the process of direct formation for the
    dense space. 2- and the process for the disintegration of astro
    already produced, that it goes to reintegrate themselves and to form
    other minors.

    Thus, the dense space is an immense one all, as an immense jelly
    without definite form. The universe is a process of direct form for
    the dense space, and a cycle process, where some are disintegrated and
    part of its material goes to construct others. With this we see that
    the origin, production and time of the universe are infinite, and the
    system of production of universes is much more old of that if it
    imagines, in trillions of years.

    E that exists some types of universes, ones of dense space, field of
    energy without substance, field of energy with substance, universes of
    atomic cores, gases, substance and astros if disintegrating and
    integrating others.


    Thus, the universe is a constant production and of cosmic evolution,
    direct production and disintegration, and secondary production of
    integration in new astros, while the chemical elements go if
    processing and evolving.

    ON the REMOVAL.

    The universe did not suffer a great explosion to produce its removal,
    but yes, the removal is product of the maser, rotation and of the
    great temperatures, that stimulate the astros for front, modifying its
    orbit. Or either, the nuclear fusing, the production of temperature
    and maser produce the lowermost removal between the astros. For that
    it has a ratio enters the distancias of the planets and satellites.


    If the universe had suffered to a great explosion alone the galaxies
    would be if moving away, and the lesser astros as planets, comets and
    satellites would not be if moving away, and the gradual removal proves
    that all the astros if find in removal ones in relation to the others,
    thus, all the astros if they find in removal proceeding from its
    energy, maser and external temperature.



    The front that the universe does not meet in expansion, but yes in
    minimum removal will be seen more, and what it is detected as
    appearance to the red nor it is this removal. Therefore it is
    insignificant in whom he refers to to the shift in the space, and what
    it gives the appearance to the red in Doppler effect is the shift of
    the translation and rotation of astros and galaxies in the space.


    We see then that, the universe is a constant creation for filaments of
    dense space of new new substances and the cosmos for the aglutinação
    of the casting and reintegrated materials already, while other cosmos
    more evolved if disintegrates for maser and high temperature, other
    lesser astros if they integrate with the material of that already they
    had been disintegrated and that they go to develop a next orbit to
    that gave to origin and initial impulse to it, for the maser and
    intense temperature. Thus one forms a direct production for the dense
    space, and a production for cycle of disintegration and integration
    for the disintegrated material, while the chemical elements evolve. E,
    while the universe if widens for the maser produced for the proper
    astros. E not for supposed a great explosion, therefore the removal is
    a process continues for the action of the maser, therefore that it
    decreases gradually and the initial impulse only tends to lose
    intensity. While the material universe if expands, the universe of
    filaments of the dense space if contracts, or either, it has two
    reverse situations.

    The maser is proceeding mainly from the interactions of nuclear fusing
    in the inward of the astros. Or either, the same phenomenon – the
    maser – that it produces the orbit and the dynamics of the planets and
    satellites, also produces the widening of the universe and produces
    new astros, and is the producer of the structure of them, and of new
    chemical elements. One concludes thus, that cosmo is infinite in its
    origin and will be in its future, as also he is infinite in the space
    and the new production of the cosmos, and new chemical elements. The
    process of slow creation goes against the process of instantaneous
    creation considered by the great explosion. To prove the displayed
    thesis above it is simple, is alone to evidence that the expansion if
    finds in decreasing progression. However as already it was seen, the
    universe if finds in production and removal and not in expansion.
    Thus, while one is disintegrated and gone to produce others in other
    cantos of the universe the dense space if it processes giving to
    origin the galaxies of space gases. Thus, the universe is a process of
    direct birth for the dense space, of already been born, and birth of
    born others from already. Everything occurs for a direct hashing of
    the substance in the origin, is a fluxonária hashing in the
    production of new chemical elements, new astros and new orbits. Second


    M = ED = and/t – substance is equal the solidiquicado dense space,
    that is equal to the energy divided for the time.

    The substance is made solid energy dense space, or either, the
    chemical particles and elements are in the truth the dense space if
    processing energeticamente and producing solidification. E in a more
    advanced evolutivo period of training. Thus, the substance passes for
    a evolutivo process, and the substance – made solid energy dense space
    – always meets in an improvement, and passes for a slow and unified
    process therefore that all the substance and the structure of the atom
    are equal.


    Our universe did not initiate lowermost previous to a great explosion,
    but yes, infinitely great, entering in a contraction to produce the
    substance, passing for made solid energy that is the substance, it
    stops later structuralizing itself in particles, elements chemical,
    and finally astros.

    Or either, the universe did not form astros instantaneamente,
    therefore that the astros and atoms possess cores.

    First it is formed energy, later the substance and finally the astros,
    different of that it defends the great explosion.

    Thus, the universe passes of the contraction. 1- of the space for
    energy and the substance. 2- of the substance for astros.

    After the disintegration through the maser and intense temperatures.
    It passes to the integration, where new astros are formed from the
    material of the maser. Thus, the universe and a stream of production
    cycles and estruturação and evolution, through. 1 – Contraction and
    solidification. 2 – Chemical evolution. 3 – Disintegration, removal
    and dynamics of the universe for the energy and maser. 4 – E
    integration in new astros.

    E that the orbit, the dynamics, the removal and the disintegration of
    the universe are proceeding from the energy and maser, becoming the
    universe of flattened structure, where the astros already are
    structuralized and in gradual removal as he is ours, while others are
    to circulate and in formation through gases, and others with
    tentáculos as great galaxies.



    The universe is an alive and dynamic system of production and
    estruturação, where it produces its proper energy for its
    functioning, estruturação and dynamics, being that the energy
    magnifies to the ratio that goes carrying through its functioning, and
    is a stream system, where the same interaction that produces the
    elements chemical, produces the astros for fusing. E also produces
    fields, maser, high temperatures, dynamics, orbits, structures of the
    astros, and the removal in the universe. Or either, it is a producer
    of itself, its structure and its functioning. Thus, it is a constant
    production of integration and disintegration.


    With this, it can be deduced that the universe does not possess an
    origin determined in the time, much less in some place of the space,
    and it does not possess an origin determined in the estruturação of
    the substance and the astros that compose it. However, it has infinite
    age, therefore the dense space always was there and producing energy,
    substance, until arriving the astros.


    Of contraction for the dense space. Of removal for the maser.
    Of aglutinação for the material of the maser.

    The universe passes for streams while it produces the chemical
    elements in the interactions of nuclear fusing in the center of the
    astros, where produces energy when processing the physical
    interactions and to produce its structure of astros, orbits and


    If the related movement this with the maser, high
    temperatures, and physical interactions in the inward of the astros
    that are untied in the dense space to develop its dynamics. Soon the
    movement is natural and dynamic, and varies as the situations of
    energy production where if it finds astro. E if the dynamics obey a
    stream, then the movement is dynamic, disforme and variable.


    Dense space produces the substance, while the produced substance
    already produces the astros and the chemical elements go being casting
    in the secondary stars and.


    The substance is filaments of the contracted dense space, that
    go to structuralize the chemical universe in substance, astros,
    elements, maser, high temperature, and in the dynamic auto universe.

    ON the COSMO

    The universe is auto dynamic and while it produces the energy
    the physical interactions go being processed, and the maser acting and
    spreading the substance, the astros are in dynamics for the proper
    energy and maser, the chemical elements evolve and if they improve,
    improving the substance and structuralizing the universe, cosmo if
    contracts for the dense space, and if it widens for the action of the
    maser, then the universe is alive and auto dynamic.

    ON the TIME

    The time does not exist, what it exists is the timer of the
    memory marked for the functioning of the brain as conscience form of
    that happens between intervals of events. We can consider the
    secondary time as something, that it exists in function of the
    functioning of the conscience produced for the functioning of the
    brain. The speed of the timer of the man is the speed of functioning
    of the human brain.


    Thus, the dynamics of the universe is proceeding from the constant
    maser, therefore that its widening if finds in decreasing progression.
    E the astros had appeared of the aglutinação of the dense space,
    while the maser and the high temperatures disintegrate the astros.
    Soon in the future and this part and period of training of the
    universe where in we find them the astros will be more cold and

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s