Hi folks, I'm new to your forum, but I'll dispense with coyness and just lay down my alternative theory as succinctly as possible. Any feedback is much appreciated. I am postulating that light doesn't move. What we identify as the motion of a photon is in fact the expansion of space. Yes, this is a substantial re-conception of expanding space- by equating spatial expansion with light's propagation, I am thereby claiming that space expands on local scales, without changing the distance between particular objects. The scaling that we presently associate with expanding space and the Hubble constant is a secondary effect in this hypothesis. The best analogy for this is that space is like a vinyl record, imprinted with light waves instead of sound grooves. An ordinary vinyl record plays because the record spins relative to the playback needle, passing the groove across it. But if the record were to be stretched instead of spun, it would also play back the sound, as the expanding grooves also pass beneath the needle. In this analogy, it is the stretching of space that causes light to appear to travel, and time to flow, while the relative position of a photon on the record hasn't changed. You can easily imagine that playing a vinyl record by stretching it is going to distort the sound, as you are distorting the record itself. The original sound will play back slower and slower as the record stretches, and we can define this slowdown mathematically. Additionally, if we imagine a groove-writing needle on the record in addition to the playback needle we can define a second source of distortion, based on the relative motion of the 2 needles to one another. If the needles are drifting apart in concert with the stretching record, an additional distortion will take place. The slowed audio playback from the 2 factors in this analogy is equivalent to the cosmological redshifting (z) of light. By extension, the Hubble constant actually describes a change of clock time over cosmic time, in units of seconds/seconds^2. The below equation describes the relationship of redshift (z) to lookback time (t), where the present time is 0 and the origin is 1. \( z=\frac{-ln(1-t)}{\sqrt{1-t^2}}\) This equation closely mirrors the relationship of (z) and (t) in the presently parameterized \(\lambda\)CDM cosmology. It yields a comparable evolution of background temperature over cosmic time to the standard model, and luminosity distance to the supernovas in the SCP studies, without the need to input density. The localized effects of General Relativity are compatible with this model as I understand it, but the model is in stark conflict with FLRW definitions of the global metric. I have a formal writeup of this theory including derivations, and more material that I am eager to share, but to start, the things I am hoping to find here are confirmation that a.) this novel redshift equation closely mirrors the standard model, and b.) the vinyl record analogy is at least conceivable and comprehended by the esteemed folks here. Thanks for providing a forum for the strange and rich profusion of outsider theories.

Here's a graph comparing redshift versus lookback time in the Standard Model against the above equation. The two tables were generated with Ned Wright's Cosmocalc and the Light Cone Calculator, with the default density and Ho settings. You can see all 3 lines diverge somewhat in the range of z=10, but are effectively identical for the range that we have useful data- up to around z=2. The lines also converge towards the origin, so that the background temperature evolves very similarly in the early universe, which is important in Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/rqt8bjv9oa

Nobody wants to take a crack at this eh? Here's some more, a complete set of equations giving Hubble parameter (H_o), rest frame proper time \((\tau)\) Co-moving distance (X), luminosity distance (Dl), and the instantaneous radius of the finite universe (r), given the time of the observer (t_o), lookback time (t_lb), relative lookback time (t), speed of light (c) \(H_o=\ddot\tau = 1/t_o\) \(z=\frac{-ln(1-t)}{\sqrt{1-t^2}}\) \(X= ct_{lb}(1+\frac{\int_{0}^{t} (z) dt}{t})\) \(r\approx ct_o(3.9207)\)

No, it is just to silly to even enter into a discussion. Since the speed of light is zero 'r' is zero. But I didn't really read anything past your your first 2 sentences - nor will I. (I must be scared of new ideas. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)

the speed of light as measured by any observer is 299,792,458 m/s. What I'm saying is that light is at rest with respect to expanding space. When we observe light traveling, we are actually observing space expanding. Is this idea really sillier to discuss than others in this section? Here are a few reasons this could make sense: a.) Special Relativity tells us that the speed of light doesn't not change depending on the relative motion of an observer and emitter. This suggests that light's motion is not a regular case. Furthermore special relativity stipulates an infinite dilation of time for anything traveling at c, so from the photon's perspective there is no passage if time- and how do you have motion without the passage of time? b.) Quantum Entanglement and Bell's theorem demonstrate that reality is in some way non-local. If we think of a photon as an "expanded past moment," then it is easier to see how one observer collapsing the waveform of an entangled photon could instantaneously determine the state of the distant entangled photon- the observer is interacting with the past itself, the retro-causal explanation. I am standing where the surface of the sun was eight minutes ago. The point occupied by a solar photon has expanded to come in contact with my eye in the intervening time. You might hate this idea, but you can at least picture it, yes?

Like I said it is just too silly for me. A new record - 6 post and you are on ignore! I do hope you have fun with your idea - good luck.

So it seems I've made Origin throw up in his mouth a little bit, and I've put Exchemist to sleep. Anybody else similarly repulsed? Another way of considering this idea: Assume a finite but expanding universe, or a section of a universe that is finite but expanding. A point particle can specify their distance to the edge of this space. Play time forward, and this edge is necessarily further from the point particle, since space is expanding. Now we could draw an imaginary sphere around the original point, which, from the point's perspective, is the same distance from the edge that the point used to be. This sphere can be thought of as "space that the point used to occupy." The hypothetical sphere radiates away from the point at whatever speed the total cumulative rate of spatial expansion is for the radius. If that cumulative rate is c, then we have a handy analog for the propagation of light. Notice that no direction is specified here- just like the Path Integral formalism of quantum mechanics, the photon radiates out in every possible direction, even though it ultimately appears to interact at a single point.