0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the only reason the 'ley person' BELIEVES the universe to be expanding,
The Schwarzchild radius is not an event horizon.
Quote from: timey on 13/02/2018 15:26:09the only reason the 'ley person' BELIEVES the universe to be expanding,is because distant objects are red shifted. Nothing to do with any theory.
@Colin2BYes I will have to make the paper very clear, so in going through this here with you, it is my intention that this should result in my being able to make a clearer explanation, hopefully inclusive of mathematical equations.No the historically slower rate of dynamic time that increases at the same rate of acceleration, will not have any mathematical effect on the acceleration.This being b/c the dynamical time increasing is what is 'causing' the acceleration, and therefore in re-described that acceleration as time being 50% slower 13.8 billion years ago, I then calculate what distance of 50% of R my variable light speeds will cover. (variable light speeds b/c c held relative to a slower second than ours will not cover as much distance as c held relative to our second, which is how we calculated distance R. This being the correction I seek to make)
Quote from: alancalverd on 13/02/2018 20:10:08The Schwarzchild radius is not an event horizon.It is the radius of the horizon. If I am wrong then please explain.
B/c current theory states the gravitational fields between galaxy clusters as negligable,
But - light is also redshifted by changes in g.
Edit: In reply to your edit. So there isn't any anomoly to be explained here, right?
Quote from: timey on 13/02/2018 18:49:46@Colin2BYes I will have to make the paper very clear, so in going through this here with you, it is my intention that this should result in my being able to make a clearer explanation, hopefully inclusive of mathematical equations.No the historically slower rate of dynamic time that increases at the same rate of acceleration, will not have any mathematical effect on the acceleration.This being b/c the dynamical time increasing is what is 'causing' the acceleration, and therefore in re-described that acceleration as time being 50% slower 13.8 billion years ago, I then calculate what distance of 50% of R my variable light speeds will cover. (variable light speeds b/c c held relative to a slower second than ours will not cover as much distance as c held relative to our second, which is how we calculated distance R. This being the correction I seek to make)Anyway - to finish the equation I'm going to say that the estimated age of the universe is based on CMB data, and that I now need to minus the 8% difference observed of galaxy cluster redshifts, from this distance that we are working with which is now potentially 25%, leaving me with a distance that is 17% of R=c(t=age of universe as per our rate of time). This would be the distance that the entire universe has shrunk by, but in how many years held relative to our rate of time did that 17% shrinkage occur in?Now I want to go backwards from present time where our years are held relative to our clock, back to 13.8billion years ago where time was 50% slower, and I can say that there is half again as many of our years from 13.8 billion years ago until present time measurement. This amounts to a total of 20.7 billion of our years. (this is useful for describing cosmologic development in too many ways to mention)Then I can say let's look into the future. In 13.8 billion of our years an acceleration of c^2 will shrink our universe by how much?This time the seconds get shorter as we go into the future, and more distance will be covered than c times t in our present time reference frame. I will have to add potentially* 25% to 50% for this equation. However the recessional velocity of objects contracting towards each other in the universe will be greater than they are now, and will constitute a larger percentage than 8% (that is the tricky bit) which I must minus from 75% in order to find the pecentage of R=c(t=13.8 billion years of our rate of time). The entire universe will have contracted by that percentage in half of 13.8 billion of our years, ie: 6.9 billion years.(*I say potentially b/c that is the part of the equation that we were at when you didn't understand how I had transferred the acceleration into dynamical time that is the cause of the acceleration.I hope that the explanation of intended direction has cleared that up, and we can go back to hopefully notate it)
Yes, the light will be blueshifted if it passes by a gravitational mass, but this will not result in a blueshifted observation. It just minuses the redshift, but only very slightly.
I hope that the explanation of intended direction has cleared that up, and we can go back to hopefully notate it
Light will be blueshifted as it approaches a mass, but equally redshifted as it departs, so the net effect is zero for light passing through a stationary universe, and only dependent on the relative gravitational potentials of the source and detector.In the case of a contracting universe, all "incoming" light from distant objects must be blueshifted by both the motion of the source and the fact that g increases with time at the detector.
Light will be blueshifted as it approaches a mass, but equally redshifted as it departs, so the net effect is zero for light passing through a stationary universe, and only dependent on the relative gravitational potentials of the source and detector
Light cannot be observed passing through any gravitational field.
Yes - we can observe that the direction that light takes in space can be changed by an intense gravitational field, but this says nothing about what the gravitational field is doing to the light with regards to shifts.
If time was faster in the past and is slower now, then my contraction would be decelerating as mass further clumps.
(Please remember that these changes in time that I am stating as affecting everything universally are not 'the' changes in time we observe of clocks in the gravity potential, although all rates of time of 'everything' will be affected b/c 'everywhere' is)
one can observe light that has travelled through the gravitational field of a mass, but one only observes that light when it arrives in the reference frame one is observing from. (that being my point)