0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(Back on lap top now and can see much better what is going on, the phone is restricting)....I want to say that:distance R = radius of observable universe, travelled at speed c + the acceleration.Then I want to subtract the distance travelled if travelling at c without the acceleration. ie: (ct) (where t is the age of the universe) from this c + the acceleration distance, leaving me with the distance travelled due to the acceleration.Then I divide this distance by the distance (ct) and this will give me a small distance.
(c+a)t=R+distance extra travelled due to acceleration.
The problem is that we don't have an expression for v that stands up to analysis at t=0, so we can't solve the equation theoretically*. So do we have any actual observed value for v(now)? *hence the pigs-ear integral I proposed yesterday!
Why not use something like this from measurements in 2012“expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years).”
Time for some beer and rugby.
You guys are still trying to fit expanding theory to my request for help with an equation for a contracting model.
if placing 2 clocks in different locations at same longitude (to equalise centripetal speed), and same height from centre of earth, (so that both clocks are equal), but the locations are of know significant difference in geological density - that contrary to general relativity my model predicts that the clock in the denser location will tick faster.
There is no consideration here where t=0 has any actual physical meaning with regards to the equation.
The velocity of the contraction of the entire universe starts from 0 at c^2/R.
The extra distance 'could' be used to describe by how much the universe has contracted. But not until it is know (I have figured out) by how much the universal rate of time has increased.
The 'observation' is c times t.
And in each reference frame of gravity potential light is measured as being 299 792 458 metres per 'second'
Mass tells space what it's rates of time are.
The description you put forward hasn't defined what the birth of the universe is, and if you say Big Bang, this is not a defined mechanism in currently held physics theories.
Further more, space seems to be mostly empty, but the description doesn't give the mechanics of 'why' it is empty,