In the past we had:

***** *We can’t be spinning so the heavens rotate about us*.

Now do we have?

***** *I can’t be shrinking so the entire infinite universe must be expanding.*

Does the wavelength of light from distance galaxies look longer than expected because us, our measuring systems and all forms of matter shrank while it was travelling?

This is a simple alternative cosmology that matches red-shifts, luminosities, and angular sizes of distant objects as observed through telescopes. It uses a stricter implementation of the laws of physics than standard cosmology to provide a match to the raw observed data using a single constant to describe exponential decay in the relative size of matter.

While matching the raw data this cosmology describes a very different history to the universe. It describes a static infinity old universe where gigantic ancient forms of matter formed from tiny energy fluctuations then decayed in size, speeding up as they shrank. The large-scale structure and super massive black holes starting to slowly form 640 billion years ago when matter had shrunk to a point where there was enough room in the universe for neutrons the size of footballs to exist.

## The Physics

- Strict adherence to cosmological principles. There is nothing special about us, here or now.
- The known laws of physics & all associated constants are totally unchanging.
- The laws of physics are relative and circular. (Physics describes matter as observed by matter)
- The expansion of space is relative not absolute
- All measurements of distance and time are relative. (No external absolute measurement system)
- Universe is assumed to be an inertial reference frame for Newton’s laws and our local frame of reference is not.

## Different primary assumptions

The implied but unspoken fundamental assumptions of standard cosmology are that the size of matter, atoms and therefore us is absolute and unchanging. It is also assumed that our local existence is a perfect inertial reference frame. Therefore, it is the universe that is expanding and a universe based coordinate system can’t be an inertial reference frame.

None of the above is experimentally provable as the relative expansion of the universe is too slow to observe at human scales. It also in my view goes against the cosmological principle by making us and our local coordinate systems special.

In contrast, this cosmology assumes: The only absolute is the speed of light, and that Newton’s laws are properties of the universe. This makes universe relative coordinate systems inertial reference frames.

Using these assumptions implies we are shrinking relative to an inertial reference frame. To match astronomical observations the rate of shrinkage is less than the width of an atom over the size of a large building per year.

The known laws of physics are applied strictly, but are assumed to be circular. That is everything is relative with no absolute reference for distance or time (as required by GR).

All real observers and real clocks are assumed to be made of matter and are shrinking/speeding up relative to the universe.

The cosmology assumes a single inertial reference frame can be used to describe the universe at all scales (Quantum mechanics, atoms, stars, large-scale structure).

In this ref frame the average distance between distant galaxies is constant but matter is shrinking by about 6% every billion years.

Space is not expanding relative to an inertial reference frame, so photons or moving objects can travel past galaxies that are receding faster than the speed of light in standard cosmology.

The laws of physics (QM/QED etc) define matter and its behaviors in purely relative sizes of lengths and time.

Unchanging constants like the Fine Structure Constant fix the relative size of atoms relative to other forms of matter.

The characteristic wavelength of light emitted by ionised atoms is defined relative to the size of the atoms and all other forms of matter.

The speed of light is absolute and unchanging. It defines the experience of distance relative to time.

In standard cosmology the redshift z is the difference in wavelength between light from the past and light from local objects. In this cosmology it also becomes the difference in size between modern matter and matter in the past.

Size of matter in past (z+1) times larger.

Time dilation is larger matter running (z+1) times slower in the past.

This gives relative SI units in the past:

Time: s’ = (1+z)s

Length: m’ = (1+z)m

Energy: J’ = J/(1+z)

Mass: Kg’ = Kg/(1+z)

Force N’ = N/(1+z)^2

## Distance curves

By assuming the above and graphically matching supernova luminance and angular distance curves to the observed, I get:

z+1 = 1.065^t with t in billions of years.

So absolute / light travel / look back distance = log(1+z) / log(1.065) in billion light years.

With no expansion of space luminosity distance is: (z+1)log(1+z) / log(1.065).

Angular size distance is: 1/ atan2((1+z) log(1+z) / log(1.065))

## The very short version.

Basically matter was redder larger and slower in the past by a factor of (z+1), Where z is the scale difference or red shift.

## Match to supernova data

**In my e-books**:

**The God Kit** describes the universe predicted by this model from the point of view of an alien engineer called Merlin. Of particular interest is the “Gas damped” method for building planetary systems, and supernova outside the ISM.

In **The Brigadier and the Pit** two alien nano-viruses are at war with each other. With all life on Earth due to become collateral damage. Scientists stuck in the middle need to understand who is telling the truth before picking sides.

Helder VelezCongratulations ! you are almost there. You have to read this paper : A self-similar model of the Universe unveils the nature of dark energy @ http://vixra.org/pdf/1107.0016v1.pdf

The atom’s scaling: scale equally mass, charge,length, time . Keep constants c,epsilon,G and all equations of physics hold true. An exponential variation on those units (in space units, instead of atomic units) exp(-H0*t) represents the evolution of the universe. A larger atom in the past explains the redshift.

AlfPlease, contact me to my email: alf.g.oliveira@gmail.com.

Helder Velez told me about your work. I am the author of the paper Helder Velez mentioned above and I believe our colaboration on this matter can be important. By the way, I will be in London next week. Cheers. Alf.