**SHRINKING MATTER THEORY**

1) The shrinking matter
theory

2) Example changing to a
reference frame in the past

3) The CMBs and the
Shrinking Matter Theory

4) The Fine-Structure
Constant and the Shrinking Matter Theory

5) The redshift and the time (or
distance) relationship

6) The SN1a distance ladder and the
shrinking matter theory

7) Predictions in the shrinking matter
theory

8) Gravity

9) Conclusion

**1)**

**THE SHRINKING MATTER THEORY**

This theory is not to disprove the big bang theory,
but for those not yet brainwashed by the believers in such theory.

The first step of the Shrinking Matter Theory is a
compact summary, but it contains all basic mathematic to assume the universe as
the reference frame.

The shrinking matter theory and the expansion universe
theory are equivalent. If we make our world as the reference frame, the
universe should expand. If we make the universe as the reference frame, the
matter should shrink. The laws of physics work to both theories.

The main difference of the expansion universe and the
shrinking matter theory is what causes the longer wavelength observed of the
deep space objects.

The Doppler shift (redshift) is well known in the
expansion theory.

In the shrinking matter theory, the universe is the
reference frame, so there is not expansion to cause redshift (except in the
systemic local movements like rotation, orbits, binary systems, turbulence,
ejection, gravitational effect and gravitational falling), so, the longer wavelengths
observed are actually longer emission lines due the bigger size of the atoms in
the past.

If we assume the speed of the light is constant along
the time, the Planck constant “h” should grow by the factor of (1+Z)

^{1/3}in the past. This means the Planck constant decreases along the time.
h

_{f }= h_{(o)}(1+Z)^{1/3}
To simplify, we could call (1+Z)

^{1/3}=K_{h}, so, h_{(f)}=K_{h}x h_{(o).}
Z : (observed redshift)

h

_{(f)}: Planck constant in the observed frame.
h(o) : Planck constant of our local frame.

Constant dependence:

We must apply the constant K

_{h}for all formulae and constants used in physics were the Planck constant “h” is used.
So that simplify the work, we can apply the constant K

_{h}directly over the used values of our local frame, observing the right exponential use of the Planck constant as follow;
h

_{f }=K_{h}h_{o}“Planck constant”
λ

_{f }= λ_{0}(K_{h})³ “wavelength emission lines”
r

_{f}= (K_{h})² r_{o}“Bohr radius”
E

_{f }= E_{0}/ (K_{h})² “energy of the emission line”
σ

_{w}_{(f) }= (K_{h}) σ_{w}_{(0)}“Wien Displacement Constant”
R

_{∞(f) }= R_{∞(0)}/ (K_{h})³ “Rydberg constant”
T

_{(f)}= T_{(0)}/ (K_{h})² “Temperature of emission lines (Wien)”_{(f)}Observed frame in the past.

_{(0)}our local frame at present

**2**

**) Example changing to a reference frame in the past**

Suppose we search a galaxy and we
detect the Lyα emission being three times greater than the Lyα in our world.
The observed wavelength is exactly 3647,01 Â.

The H Lyα in our frame is 1215,67 Â.

So, the redshift Z is Lyα

_{(f)}/ Lyα_{(o)}-1 = 2
The constant K

_{h}is (1+Z)^{1/3}= (1+2)^{1/3}=1,44224957
So, K

_{h}=1,44224957
Now we can determine the main
constants of the reference frame in the past;

cst/vle formula* local frame(o) past frame(f)

h

_{(f)}h(o) (K_{h}) 6,62607015E-34 Js^{[1]}9.5564468E-34 Js
Lyα

_{(f)}Lyα(o) (K_{h})³ 1215.67 Â 3647.01 Â
r

_{f}“Bohr” r_{0}(K_{h})² 0.529 Â 1.1007 Â
E

_{(f)}E_{(o)}/**(K**_{h})² 10.204 eV 4.906 eV_{ }σ

_{w}

_{(f)}σ

_{w}

_{(0)}x (K

_{h}) 0.0028978 mK 0,0041796 mK

R∞

_{(f)}R∞_{(0)}/ (K_{h})³ 10 973 730.68 m^{-1}3 657910.22 m^{-1}
T

_{(f)}T_{(o)}/ (K_{h})² 23836 °K 11459 °K_{(f)}observed frame in the past

_{(0)}local frame at the present

* simplified formula

If we consider H

_{0 }= 71 km/s/mpc and assume it is enough to determine the distance, we have:
1 mpc =
3,261563777116330 Mly

c = light speed = 299 792 458 m/s

Distance = 3380,3 mpc = 11,02 Gly

Time (past) = 11,02 Gyr

H

_{0 }= Hubble constant**3) The CMBs and the Shrinking Matter Theory**

The lack of peak
emissions pattern, avoids us to determine exactly what actually the CMBs are.
This could let us to various scenarios.

Wavelength:
______________1.063214 mm

Energy:
__________________0.024039 eV

σ

_{w}_{(f)}____________________0.059703 mK
Z:
_______________________8744.89

3.2) the other
scenario is to assume that CMBs could be hyperfine
transitions of neutral hydrogen, known
as 21 cm line. In this case, the redshift is negative (blue shift), and the radiation
could be the remaining of the collapsed universe, which provided the energy to
the emergence of the universe we know. In this case we have:

Wavelength:
______________1.063214 mm

Energy:
__________________2 (10)

^{-4}eV
σ

_{w}_{(f)}__________________4.967462 (10)^{-4 }mK
Z (blue
shift):_____________-0.99496253

The
shrinking matter theory states that the Planck constant “h” varies along the
time, so the energy of the photon also varies with the time. In this scenario,
there is a systematic error in our researches assuming that the observed waves,
emitted in the past and detected in our devices have the same energy as the
waves produced in our local frame. We shouldn’t forget that the waves with the
same frequency can be added and give the impression that they are more
energetic. The amount of energy of each wave could be determined by the
receptor, but it may not represent the real emitted energy of the wave.

The peak of CMBs
are the most populous microwaves in the universe, as well the hydrogen is the
most abundant element in nature, so, for now we should suppose (and state),
CMBs are hyperfine
transitions of neutral hydrogen, which
provided the energy to the emergence of the universe we know. I know it is a
hard exercise for minds which are indoctrinated in assuming the BB as a fact,
but I hope you can. We know the CMBs are the most distant emissions detected,
among the unresolved CXRBs, so, in this scenario, the wavelength of the CMB,
compared with the be hyperfine
transition of neutral hydrogen in our reference frame (21
cm), result negative redshift (blue shift). This could only be attributed to
the remaining hyperfine
transition of neutral hydrogen, in its collapsed last
phase of the cyclic universe.

In this
scenario, as issued later, the redshift is negative (blue shift), and can be calculated
as follow:

K

_{h}= (1+Z)^{1/3 }= ( 1 – 0.99496253)^{1/3 }=>
K

_{h}= 0.171 423 675
The Planck
constant h

_{(0)}is 6.026 070 15 (10)^{-34 [1]}Js or J Hz
The Planck
constant h

_{(f)}in this scenario would be: h_{(f)}= K_{h}x h_{(0)}=>
h

_{(f)}= (0.171 423 675) ( 6.626 070 15) (10)^{-34 }=>
h

_{(f)}= 1,135 865 298 (10)^{-34}Js
1,135865297636080E-34

When we
replace the h(o) by the h(f) in the formulae, we have:

r

_{f}= 1,555 pm (Bohr radius)
Lyα

_{(f)}= 6,123975 Â
E (Lyα(f)) =347,248 eV

E (n=1) =
-463 eV

T (Lyα(f))=
811 150,06 K

σ

_{w}_{(f)}= 4,967462 x 10^-4 mK
In this
transition, (Lyα

_{(f)}), the hyperfine transitions of neutral hydrogen can happen in the ground state and would be:
Temperature:_______________0.46721 K

Wavelength:_______________1.063214
mm

Energy:___________________2.00
(10)

^{-4}eV
σ

_{w}_{(f)}____________________4.967462 x 10^{-4}mK
The unexpected
and most important result in this scenario is that the Lyα(f) falls surprisingly
in the lower end band of the unresolved CXRB (Cosmic X-Ray Background). So, the
shrinking matter theory (in this scenario) could solve the origin of the CMB
and the unresolved CXRB as being remnants of the past collapsed universe, and
the future of this universe. Of course, this needs further resources, but it is
a strong evidence of the consistence of this theory.

**4) The Fine-Structure Constant and the Shrinking Matter Theory**

The fine-structure
constant “α” is a dimensionless value, but it reflects the relationship between
the electromagnetic coupling constant ‘e” and ”Ԑₒ”, “h”, and “c”.

e = (2 α
Ԑₒ h

*c*)^{1/2}or e² = 2 α Ԑₒ h*c*
As

*c*is constant, result Ԑₒ is also constant, then α should vary with the inverse of the rate of h.
Rewriting
the expression we have:

α = e² / (2 Ԑₒ

*c*h), and
α

_{(o)}= e² / (2 Ԑₒ*c*h_{(o)}) =>
α

_{(f)}= e² / (2 Ԑₒ*c*h_{(f)}) =>
α

_{(f)}= e² / (2 Ԑₒ*c*h_{(o)}(K_{h}))
Then α(f) = α

_{(o)}/ K_{h}
Or α

_{(f)}= α_{(o)}/ (1+Z)^{1/3}
α

_{(o)}= 0.007 297 352 5698(24)_{(o)}:our local frame

_{(f)}: distant reference frame

Z : redshift

K

_{h}: scaling factor of the Planck constant h as a function of Z
“However, if multiple coupling constants
are allowed to vary simultaneously, not just

*α*, then in fact almost all combinations of values support a form of stellar fusion."^{[3]}
“Specifically, the values of α, G,
and/or C can change by more than two orders of magnitude in any direction (and by
larger factors in some directions) and still allow for stars to function."

^{[6]}**5)**

_{ }The redshift and the time (or distance) relationship
Since in the
Shrinking Matter Theory there is not receding speed, there is no reason to
determine the distance based in the standard model (expanding universe), which
is necessary determine the apparent receding speed to infer the distance based
in the Hubble constant.

In the
Shrinking Matter Theory, the size of the atom decreases along the time, so the
time should be defined by the rule of lost in volume per unit of time (LVL).
The LVL can be mathematically defined as d

_{VL}/dt.. The LVL should vary along the time, according to the size of the atoms, and this variance could be proportional to the surface or to the volume of the atoms along the time.
This would
let us to two hypotheses, A, and B.

The
hypothesis A proposes the LVL variance could be proportional to the surface of
the atoms.

The
hypothesis B proposes the LVL variance could be proportional to the volume of
the atoms.

Now we can
develop the two hypotheses to analyze the possibility of choose the one which
best fit to the observations.

**5.1) Hypothesis A:**

This
hypothesis proposes the LVL (d

_{VL}/dt) varies proportionally to the surface S_{f}of the atom.
The LVL is
defined as the vary of the volume “d

._{VL}” by the vary of time “d_{t}” ie LVL = d_{VL}/d_{t}, so, we can write:.

The volume of the atom

*VL*can be defined by the function:

.

.

.

.

*S*= 4 π

_{f}*r*=>

_{f }^{2}*S*= 4 π (

_{f}*r*(1+

_{o}*Z*)

^{2/3})

^{2}=>

*S*= 4 π

_{f}*r*

_{o}^{2}(1+

*Z*)

^{4/3}=>

Replacing
(1+

*Z*) by*x,*we have:*S*= 4 π

_{f}*r*

_{o}^{2}

*x*

^{4/3}(III)

Applying (II) and (III) in (I), we have

..

.

But

*r*

_{o }

*x*

^{2/3 }=

*r*, so, the time is directly proportional to the radius of the atoms. This case is similar to a spherical block of ice defrosting in an isothermal medium. The release of liquid water decreases along the time, because it is proportional to the surface of the block, but the decreasing in the diameter is constant per unit of time.

_{f }
But, (

For *r*_{o }*/**K**) is constant and we can replace it by*_{s}*K*so,_{A},*Z*= 0 =>

*x*=1 and

*t =*0

So, for

*Z*= 0 we have:
.

We usually
use the time in Gyr (giga years) or Myr (mega years), for astronomical units,
because it can be directly converted in distance Gly (giga light years) or Mly
(mega light years).

So, we can
say:

*x = (1+Z)*

*D*= Distance (Gly)

*t*= Time (Gyr)

*K*= Stretching factor of the function so that fitting it to the measured observations at low redshifts.

_{A}**5.1.2)**The redshift

*Z*can now be expressed in function of the time

*t*as follow:

.

.

.

*t*: (Gyr)

**5.1.3)**Now we can determine the relationship of the evolution of the Planck constant “h

_{f}” in any time, for hypothesis A.

We know h

_{f }= h

_{0}(1+Z)

^{1/3}, so,

**5.1.4)**The constant

*K*

_{A}
The farthest bodies newly observed
present redshift of about

*Z*=10.4, so we should limit our researches in the range of*Z*from 0 to 10.4_{}
The distance

*D*in the standard model for Z= 10.4 is 13.562 Gly,^{[4]}
The Bohr
radius in the shrinking model

*r*and_{o}*r*are:_{f}*r*= 5.291773 x 10

_{o}^{-11}m (for Z=0)

*r*= 2.368305 x 10

_{f}^{-9}m (for Z=10.4)

*r*

*= Bohr radius of the hydrogen in the ground state at the present, in our local frame (o).*

_{o }*r*

*= Bohr radius of the hydrogen in the ground state in the past frame (f).*

_{f }
For the
hypothesis A, the above equation (IV), is the basic to define all relationships
in the Shrinking Matter Theory.

Now we can
determine the best value for the constant

*K*so that calibrating the equation to observed distances. This calibration must be done at low redshift, where we can determine distances by parallax. This mean the above function should give us the same value when the redshift is null (zero), and at low redshifts give us neglected differences when compared within the standard model. This mean the tangent of the above function (IV), at_{A},*Z*= 0, should be the same as the tangent in the function of the standard model (expanding universe).
In the
standard model, (expanding universe), the equation to define the distance can
be expressed as follow:

*c*= light speed = 299792458 m/s

*H*= Hubble constant = 71 km/s/mpc

_{0}
To take the
result in Gly, the equation becomes:

*(1+Z)*by

*x*

*,*then,

.

.

.

The function
to determine the distance in the shrinking model is:

.

*x = (1+Z)*

For Z = 0,
=>

*x*= 1
To force the
tangency of the two functions (IV) and (VI) at

*x*= 1, implies (VII) = (VIII) at*x*=1, so, matching (VII) and (VI), we have:.

.

*K*= 20.657 582 147 862 (best value for

_{A}*K*for hypothesis A, for H

_{A},_{o}= 71)

c = light
speed = 299792458 m/s

*H*= Hubble constant = 71 km/s/mpc

_{0}**5.1.5) Shrinking speed**

*SHV*along the time in function of the redshift
The
shrinking speed

*SHV*of the Bohr radius can be defined as*dr/dt*_{.}_{}
The Bohr
radius in the past is defined by the function:

.

..

.

.

*SHV*= 8.117335 (10)

^{-29}m/s = constant (for hypothesis A)

The
Shrinking speed is constant along the time.

This speed
refers to Bohr radius.

**5.1.6) Specific shrinking speed (SPV)**

The specific
shrinking speed is defined as

*V*_{f }/*r*._{f}*Vf*: Shrinking speed in a reference frame

*SHV*(IX).

*r*

_{f}*: Bohr radius in a reference frame.*

*r*=

_{f}*r*

_{o}*x*

^{2/3}

So,

.

.

*x=1+Z*

.

*Z*= 0 =>

*x*= 1 =>

*SPV*= 1.534 (10)

^{-18}m/s /m or 47,333 km/s /mpc

The
equatorial radius of the Earth is 6 378 136.3 m.

The
shrinking speed of the Earth would be:

SHV =
(6378136,3) (1.534) (10)

^{-18}=>
SHV = 9.7839
(10)

^{-12}m/s
1 year = 31 557 600 seconds, so,

SHV = (31 557 600) (9.7839)(10)

^{-12}m/year =>
SHV = 3.0875
(10)

^{ -4 }m / yr
SHV =
0.30875 mm / yr

SHV =
308.75 m / Myr

**5.2) Hypothesis B:**

This
hypothesis proposes the

*LVL (d*variance is proportional to the volume_{VL}/dt)*VL*of the atom, so we can write:_{f}.

.

The volume
of the atom, “

.*VL”,*can be defined by the function:.

.

We can call

.*x*= (1+*Z*), so,.

.

.

_{ }But, (2/K

_{v}) is constant, so we can call:

.

.

.

For

*Z*= 0 =>

*x*=1 and

*t =*0

So, for Z=0,
we have:

*x = (1+Z)*

.

.

.

.

*e*= 2.718 281 828 459 05

*t*: (Gyr)

*K*= see the below solution

_{B}**5.2.1)**Now we can determine the best value to the constant

*K*so that calibrating the equation to observed distances. This calibration must be done at low redshift, where we can determine distances by parallax. This mean the above function should give us the same value when the redshift is null (zero), and at low redshifts give us neglected differences.

_{B},
This mean the
tangent of the above function,(XIII), at

*Z*= 0, should be the same as the tangent in the respective function of the standard model (expansion universe).
In the
standard model, (expanding universe), the equation to define the distance can
be expressed as follow:

*x = (1+Z)*

*and:*

.

For Z = 0,
=>

*x*= 1
To force the
same tangency in the two functions (XIII) and (VI) at

*x*= 1, implies (XII) = (VII), at*x*=1, so, matching (XII) and (VII), we have:.

.

c = light speed = 299792458 m/s

*H*= Hubble constant = 71 km/s/mpc

_{0}*K*= 13.771 721 431 908 (best value for

_{B}*Kz*in the function (XIII), hypothesis B, for H

_{o}= 71)

**5.2.2) The Shrinking speed**

*SHV*along the time in function of the redshift
The
shrinking speed

*SHV*of the Bohr radius can be defined as*dr/dt*_{.}_{}
The Bohr
radius in the past is defined by the function:

.

*x = (1+Z)*

.

.

### m/s (XIV)

*x = (1+Z)*

This speed
refers to Bohr radius.

For Z=0, x=1
and SHV = 8.1173 (10)

^{-29 }m/s**5.2.3) Specific shrinking speed (**

*SPV*)
The specific
shrinking speed

*SPV*is defined as*V*_{f }/*r*._{f}*V*: Shrinking speed in a reference frame

_{f }*SHV*(XIV).

*r*: Bohr radius in a reference frame.

_{f}.

.

SPV = 1,534
(10)

^{-18 }m/s /m
.

*SPV*constant = 1.534 (10)

^{-18}m/s /m or 47,333 km/s /mpc, (for hypothesis B)

^{ }

**5.2.4) The Shrinking acceleration (SHA) along the time in function of the redshift**

The
shrinking acceleration

*SHA*is defined as the variation of the speed in function of the time, so, it can be defined mathematically as:
V = SHV (XIV) and

*d*= (VII)_{t}*x = (1+Z)*

^{}

.

.

.

.

^{ }

*x = (1+Z)*

This
acceleration refers to Bohr radius.

For Z=0,
x=1 and SHA = 3.9295 (10)

^{-30}m/s /Gyr
Or 3.9295
(10)

^{-33}m/s /Myr
This
acceleration refers to Bohr radius.

For Z=0,
x=1 and SHA = 1.24517 (10)

^{-46}m/s^{2}^{ }

**5.2.5) Specific shrinking acceleration (SPA) along the time in function of the redshift**

The specific acceleration

*SPA*is defined as the shrinking acceleration*SHA*per unit of length.
This means as bigger the length of a body, as bigger the

*SHA*.
The

*SPA*can be defined as:
.

.

For hypothesis B,

*SPA*= Constant = 7.4257 (10)^{-23}m/s /m /Myr
For hypothesis B,

*SPA*= Constant = 2.2913 (10)^{-3 }km/s /mpc /Myr**5.3)**The Graphic 01 presents the comparative evolution of the distance (Gly) or time (Gyr), for the ACDM_SN1A distance ladder “ACDM_SN1A_dist”, the shrinking Model hypothesis A “ shrM_A_dist”, the shrinking Model hypothesis B “shrM_Bdist”, and the Hubble law distance “Time stdM”, were:

**5.3.1)**For “ACDM _SN1A_ dist”:

μ

^{[2]}: Betoule et al 2014, Table F1, page 30, “http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4064v2.pdf “.1 pc = 3.261 563 777 116 330 (10)

^{-9}Gly

**5..3.2)**For “shrM_A_dist”:

*K*= 20.657 562 147 862

_{A}
Z = Redshift

**5.3.3)**For “shrM_B_dist”:

*K*13.771 721 431 908

_{B}=
Z = Redshift

**5.3.4)**For “Hubble_law_dist”:

1 mpc = 3.26156377711633 Mly = 0.00326156377711633
Gly

Ho= Hubble constant = 71 km/s /mpc

Z = Redshift

**5.3.5) Graphic 01**

**6) The SN1A distance ladder and the shrinking matter theory**

The Shrinking
Matter Theory is characterized by the possibility of vary the Planck constant
along the time as the factor of the redshift of the emissions in the past.

This justifies
the bigger size of the atoms and bodies in the past, as well the longer
wavelength emissions and smaller energy and temperature.

The main
relationship relative to the proprieties of the matter and the redshift is
listed below.

.

.

.

.

.

The SN1a
distance ladder is a system used to calculate the distances based in the
hypothesis which their luminosity peak is constant, so, as fainter the flux
received in our telescopies, as longer the distance from the Earth. The
relationship between the distances and the flux is:

F

_{1}and D_{1 }are flux and distance of a near and known SN1A, which distance can be determined by parallax, used as standard reference.
F

_{2 }is the measured flux of a more distant SN1A, and D_{2 }is the unknown distance to be calculated.
The “distance
modulus” “μ” is a logarithm scale where:

But,.

So,

The adopted
standard distance

.(*D*_{1 }is 10 pc, so that simplify the equation, since log10 = 1. The equation so becomes:*D*

_{2}: pc)

This equation works well for low redshifts, but in the Shrinking Matter Theory the flux F

_{2 }is affected by the redshift. In the past, the energy of the emissions was smaller, and such energies were spread onto a bigger surface.

The energy
of the emissions in the past is defined by the function

*E*_{f}=*E*_{o}(1+*Z*)^{ }^{-}^{2/3}, and the surface by the function*S*_{f}= 4 π*r*_{f}^{ 2}.
To nullify
the effects of the redshift in flux

*F*_{2, }we should replace it by corrected flux*F*_{2c}
The

*F*_{2c}is defined by the function:.

.

.

.

Then, the
relationship between the fluxes and the distances becomes:

The distance
modulus function for the Shrinking Matter Theory becomes:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

**6.2) The graphic 02 presents the comparative evolution of the distance modulus μ**

**6.2.1)**The observed evolution of the distance modulus μ is represented by square blue points, which were extracted from Betoule et al 2014, Table F1, page 30, “http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4064v2.pdf “.

**6.2.2)**The evolution of the expected μ to the Shrinking Matter Theory, hypothesis A is in red color.

It is
defined by the equation:

.D: pc

1 pc = 3,261563777116330E-09 Gly

*K*= 20.657582147862

_{A}
Z = Redshift

**6.2.3)**The evolution of the expected μ to the Shrinking Matter Theory, hypothesis B is in green color.

It is
defined by the equation:

.

.1 pc = 3,261563777116330E-09 Gly

*K*

_{B}= 13.771 721 421 908

Z = Redshift

**6.2.4)**The evolution of the expected μ to the Standard Model (Hubble law) is in black color.

It is
defined by the equation:

.

(

*D*_{2}: pc)
Z = Redshift

c = light
speed = 299792458 m/s

Ho= Hubble
constant = 71 km/s /mpc

1 pc = 3,261563777116330E-09 Gly

**6.2.5)**Graphic 02:

The curve
which best fit to the observational data is the hypothesis A of the Shrinking
Matter Theory “shrM_ A_dist_mod”.

No need for
dark energy.

Although,
both hypothesis A and B could be possible, since the distance modulus is unnecessary
to define distances in the shrinking matter theory.

**7) Predictions in the SHRINKING MATTER THEORY**

**7.1) The Effects of the shrinking matter in the local frame**

The
expansion universe considers that the local frame is not affected by the
expansion due the gravitational bond of the bodies. This statement is
contradictory because the limit of the gravitational bond is very difficult to
define, maybe there is not such limit.

In the
shrinking matter theory, the shrinking effect happens everywhere, so the orbit
of the Earth and the planets should present an apparent growing along the time.

The distance
between the Earth and the Sun is very difficult to determine precisely. The
apparent expansion should be about 7.24 m/year. For one this could be a great
variation, for others small. The true is that we cannot use a stick to measure
it. The fact is that such distance varies every time, since the orbit is
elliptical, but the eccentricity of the orbit also varies due the tide effect
of the planets of the solar system. Here we have a great challenge to measuring
this distance with enough accuracy to detect this variance.

The only way
to measure it precisely should be launching two space telescopies, positioned
in the L4 and L5 Sun-Earth Lagrangian points. If we measure precisely the
distances between these two points whole the year, we could determine
accurately the average distance, and compare the variation year by year.

**7.2) The remaining emissions from the last collapsed universe**

In the third
chapter, we have two possible scenarios concerning to the origin of the CMBs.

If we adopt
the second scenario (3.2), we can make an interesting prediction.

When we can
get more accurate measurements of CXRBs, probably, we can distinguish two peaks
at the end of the lower energetic band. These peaks should be 2025.67 eV and
2400.80 eV detected in our devices, corresponding to the Lyα and Lyβ emissions respectively.

When
corrected by the appropriated Planck constant of the reference frame, the
energies and the wavelength of these emissions should be:

Lyα: E = 347.25
eV λ
= 6.1240 Â

Lyβ E = 411.55 eV λ
= 5.1671 Â

**7.2) The faint blue galaxies problem.**

In the
shrinking matter theory as cyclic universe, we propose the faint blue galaxies
are not dwarfs, but normal galaxies in the last universe cycle. Their distances
are very bigger than thought. That is why we watch them in small angular sizes
and great surface brightness.

If we leave
the Andromeda galaxy in the redshift of 0.5 in the last universe cycle, its
angular size would be 0.41 arc seconds. The distance would be 111 Gly. This
angular size is compatible with measured sizes

^{[5]}.**8)**

**Gravity**

**8.1)**

**The origin of the gravity defies the physicists since its discovery by Isaac Newton.**

Despite
the technological advancement and huge investments in research, nothing has
been discovered to definitively determine why and how gravity exists. Actually,
if we take the wrong way, we never reach the destination.

If
we assume matter shrinks, everything becomes clear.

The
motion of the electron towards the atom nucleus could produce the necessary
field for the emergence of gravity. One may say that this would result a
magnetic dipole, and magnetic dipole is neutral, meaning the magnetic fields
generated in the poles cancel out. But the electron bonded to the nucleus is
not a point like particle, the duality of the electron is the fundamental
propriety for the existence and stability of the atom. The electron becomes a
cloud and wraps the nucleus.

If
we take an infinitely small area on the surface of the atom, this area would
produce a magnetic field tangent to the surface of the atom, at inward
direction. The equivalent surface in the nucleus, smaller due the small radius,
would produce an equivalent magnetic field, but at outward direction. If these
two infinitely small points like charges were isolated in the space, they would
be an infinitely small magnetic dipole, but these magnetic fields work in different
mediums.

The
magnetic field produced inside the nucleus work in a medium with extremely high
magnetic permeability. The closeness of the fields and the high magnetic
permeability could nullify the fields produced inside the nucleus. They should nullify
themselves because they point in different directions and the atom would become
a magnetic monopole.

Finally
the so sought magnetic monopole is found. Actually all atoms are magnetic
monopoles. We are magnetic monopoles. The Earth is a magnetic monopole.

Magnetic
monopoles have the intrinsic propriety of attract each other, if their magnetic
fields are in the same direction, inward or outward. As electrons are in the
outer side of the atoms, they are negative magnetic monopoles, i.e. the
gravitational magnetic field is in the inward direction.

The
strength of the gravitational magnetic field of each atom is directly
proportional to its mass.

Each
atom is gravitationally bonded to all atoms of the universe. This means the
gravitational magnetic field lines are emitted all around the atoms. Each
gravitational magnetic field line of one atom has one correspondent parallel
gravitational magnetic field line in all atoms of the universe.

Parallel
magnetic field lines have the propriety of attract each other when they flow in
the same direction. That’s why gravity exists.

The
shrinking behavior is the price matter pays to have gravity, but without
gravity, the universe would be just dispersed gas.

**9)**

**Conclusions**

The
cyclic universe would be the best solution to the present cosmologic blunders.

If
we adopt the hypothesis A, the total cycle of each phase happens between Z~=10.5
to Z=-0.99496253

In this
scenario, the
beginning of the current cycle took place 84.6 billion years ago and there are
still 20 billion years left to the end.

The
total time of each cycle of the universe would be 104.6 Gyr

The
graphic 03 presents the evolution of time in function of redshift in a cyclic
universe.

References:

3- Richard L.
Amoroso https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7468/9eb67121a47ac6ebdb3d9940215d53b99b3c.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/31433858/G%C3%B6delizng_Fine_Structure_Gateway_to_Comprehending_the_Penultimate_Nature_of_Reality

https://www.academia.edu/31433858/G%C3%B6delizng_Fine_Structure_Gateway_to_Comprehending_the_Penultimate_Nature_of_Reality

5- Roche,
N., Ratnatunga, K., Griffiths, R. E., & Im, M. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1997MNRAS.288..200R/0000212.000.html

6- Fred C. Adams

Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

arXiv:0807.3697v1 [astro-ph] 23 Jul 2008

6- Fred C. Adams

Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

arXiv:0807.3697v1 [astro-ph] 23 Jul 2008