0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
My initial conditions for a contraction are a more or less uniform sea of energy and particles. Spaces in between masses are caused by particles vacating their former positions in this sea to the clumping process called gravitation
Draw a sphere around the edge of this 'sea of particles'. (Edit correction: actually light would not be emitted by a sea of particles, but you can get the idea). In 13.8 billion of our rate of time years we will see that nothing has ended up outside the outer edges of that sphere, and in fact we can now draw a smaller sphere around the outer edges b/c of the contraction.This means that an observation that arrives at us from c times (t=13.8billion years) started off in a universe that was as big as the first sphere we drew, and arrived to be observed by us in a universe that is the size of the second smaller sphere.
My model states that atomic transitions are caused by energy, and that changes in atomic transitions are caused by changes energy.My model also states that changes in energy are occurring with changes in gravity potential, and that changes in time are associated with changes in energy, where +energy=shorter seconds.The bigger mass 'has' more energy, and will have more energy associated with it's gravity potential.That is why my model makes the prediction it does for the given experiment.
So are you saying that the extra distance under the construct I suggest is 50% of R?
No - I specifically have stated that my prediction for a doable experiment states that the clock in the denser location/or on the bigger mass will run faster, and that this is the 'different prediction' that my model makes as per my modification of GR.
Black holes in my model do not have slower time, and in physical reality, are not actually observed to have slower time, or even observed much at-all.Given that a clock could be held in elevation to a black hole, it's time would still run faster than that of the clock placed closer to the black hole, but both the clocks placed in proximity to the black hole would be running faster than a clock on, or near Earth.
No we can't assume any larger R. The observation is of light, and light would not be present as such at the earlier larger R.
Now it must be considered that the rate of time 13.8 billion years ago was a percentage slower then than it is now, as compared to our rate of time on our clock.The rate of time will have increased by the same rate as the universal contraction of the universe accelerating at c^2/R.So how do I get to that equation?
The reason why is associated with adding the separate time phenomenon for open space, and stating that the time phenomenon of clocks ticking faster when placed at elevation is a) part and parcel of a time drift associated with motion as well as position in gravity potentialAndb) has nothing to do with what is occurring for the background space at that gravity potential the clock is occupying.
@Colin2BWe made the calculation for acceleration using the value of c as per our clock rate now.And we made the calculation for, not 'the' extra distance travelled, but a value of distance to work with, using the value of t=age universe on the basis of c as per the rate of our clock, times t.BUT - between 13.8 billion years ago, and now, time was 50% slower and accelerated to the rate it is now. So using c times t needs to be corrected, b/c we have held c relative to the rate of our clock.Where the measurement of a 50% distance of contraction in t=13.8billion years, is our rate of c, times the t=13.8 billion years of our rate of time.So, on the basis that the speed of light is constant in any reference frame, including the reference frames of our history, if the speed of light covers 299 792 458 metres per 50% longer length of second than ours 13.8 billion years ago, then our shorter second in comparison, (13.8 billion years ago) would only cover half of 299 799 458 metres, and at every point in time after would cover a little more than half of 299 799 458 metres, up until present time where the speed of light is held relative to our clock and the full 299 799 458 metres is covered in 1 second.
Ah yes, sorry Colin, I looked at my explanation and my explanation doesn't make it clear enough, b/c I haven't stipulated that only the resulting distance of 50% of R needs correcting.Looking at the equation:I use both c^2 and c to obtain the answer 50% of R.Technically, (in my mind anyway ) I have replaced the use of c^2 with the re-lengthed seconds, that c is held relative to (in the slower rates of time), for the resulting distance of 50% of R, and the re-lengthed seconds mean that I can reduce this 50% of R distance by half.
You have to keep in mind Colin that the point of these equations is based on time being dynamical, and that in all reference frames, current and historic, c is held relative to this dynamical time. So c times t = R is never a fixed value equation, and the purpose here is to use this value (which is our current observation) to ascertain the 'other values'.
Quote from: timey on 10/02/2018 16:59:23The 'observation' is c times t.No. Light travels at c, so the the distance of any object you can see must be cτ where τ is the time it took for the light to travel from there to here. If the universe has a finite age t then the farthest observable object is at R = ct,the Schwarzchild radius. R is important as long as c is the limiting speed for the propagation of gravity, which seems to be the case.Nothing outside of R can affect anything inside. Or can it? Imagine a static universe. If there is a massive body at R + ΔR, it will have a gravitational effect at R such that photons emitted towards us from a body at R will appear to have come from a more massive body and thus be redshifted.Which is what we observe!
The 'observation' is c times t.