Hi, my name is Vikki Ramsay and I thank you in advance for taking the time to read my thread.

This thread is about a model of the universe that I have been developing for the last 5 years, having been inspired by Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics".

This alternative hypothesis relies on a theory of inverted time dilation for "coordinate time". (Please note this inversion theory is not applied for time dilation due to motion. ie: "proper time").

To summarise:

My model of the universe relies only on "confirmed" observed data and negates the necessity for Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. This model also gives cause for the Big Bang and the Big Crunch.

This model depicts the universe as a cyclic phenomenon in a closed system - inside of which the considerable energy to both end and begin the cycle is found within the system.

This model recognises all "confirmed" physics post Big Bang and contradicts no "confirmed" working hypothesis apart from several aspects of SR and GR for which it attempts to make alternative explanation.

On the basis that the maths for GR break down in black holes and that there is yet to be discovered a unifying theory of gravity concerning GR and Quantum Theory, I feel justified in my exploring alternatives.

Due to the fact that I am juggling concepts that are so closely related with SR and GR, a reader may be tempted to conclude that I am the victim of a series of misconceptions. Please note that all deviations from current thinking are intentionally derived for the purpose of my model and not because I have not understood SR or GR. If you bear with me - the logic holds. (It is appreciated that this does not mean my model is viable

)

I will get straight into the nitty gritty of how this model differs from SR and GR and how I envisage, as far as I am able, the mathematical considerations associated being equivalent or symmetrical to existing space time mathematics before going on to explain how inverting time dilation affects certain perceptions of the universe.

My model differs from SR and GR on three counts:

1) Time dilation due to gravity field is inverted.

2) Light has no relativistic mass

3) Without the notion of relativistic mass, the concept of the speed of light as a "universal" constant is redefined and relocated exclusively under the remit of the equivalence principle.

It is an observed fact that clocks tick faster in elevation - it is thought that they do so because they are ticking in a weaker gravity field. My theory of inverted time dilation looks at the possibility that clocks are observed ticking faster in elevation for an alternative reason. We'll come back to that.

Whereas current theory sets the theoretical "fastest" rate in the change in time due to gravity field at 0 gravity field, my model sets the theoretical "slowest" rate in the change of time to a 0 gravity field. The concept of time dilation for coordinate time is inverted, so coordinate time now runs fast in a black hole and slow out in space.

It occurs to me that the Lorentz Transformations can be used to calculate this theory. The inverse transformations of velocities or "the metric" "may" perhaps be directly transferrable for calculating inverted time dilation.

Looking at the Pound Rebka experiment and light travelling with a lower frequency as it moves away from a gravity field and a higher frequency as it moves towards a gravity field. Without the concept of relativistic mass attached to light, I introduce the notion that light travels at lower frequencies when moving away from a greater gravity field, through progressively weakening gravity fields - not because it has relativistic mass that is being gravitationally affected - but because it is moving through reference frames that are experiencing slower rates of coordinate time. Travelling into a gravity field, light is moving into reference frames that are experiencing faster rates of time and the lights frequency is escalated.

Taking this notion through logical progression, the concept of a speed of light that is constant is now compromised. We know that the speed of light is constant when measured in a given reference frame, therefore we "may" now consider the possibility that the speed of light must only be a constant to its own ratio in relation to the length of a moment. The speed of light then being variable over reference frames of variable lengths of moment.

Now before you fall off your chair to ROTFL... let's just take these concepts to the event horizon of a black hole and consider them. With gravitational time dilation inverted, the trajectory of mass or a rocket falling into a black hole will not slow to infinity never to reach the event horizon, (not in coordinate time at least). It will be the opposite, as we do rather "observe" mass to behave near black holes from our reference frame. The person in the rocket that is falling into the black hole "will" experience from the rockets reference frame a slowing of its time, but this being due to time dilation due to motion under the terminology of "proper time".

The equivalence principle now states that as the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, the speed of light is only a constant to its own ratio relative to the length of a moment. Time is going very fast in the black hole. We now have a greatly escalated speed of light to plug into e=mc2 that "may" explain the energy of a black hole more comprehensively. I will come back to the black hole phenomenon in more detail later on.

Returning to the Lorentz Transformations and the inverse transformation of velocities that I conceptually adapted to calculate inverted time dilation. These equations produce distances that increase between coordinates with distance from mass. I suspect that these distances can be equated with the lengths of variable reference frames moments expanding in weaker gravity fields. The measure of this distance "may" perhaps be (inversely cubed?) to create 3 dimensions of a geometric space and a consequent curvature of these spaces. However these measures of distance are not actual distances, they are distances in "coordinate time" and we will call them "coordinate distances".

The concept of there being an "actual distance" and an "actual time" in relation to a "coordinate distance" in a "coordinate time" being relevant.

"Coordinate time" being the time "at" the coordinates of a reference frame. "Actual time" being the time one experiences "in" a reference frame dependent on that reference frames circumstances. Actual time will include considerations of coordinate time, "changes" in gravitational relationships between mass in close proximity and time dilation due to motion, this being "proper time"

"Coordinate distance" being a distance that is "experienced" by a reference frame in coordinate time. "Actual distance" being the "real" and "actual" distance between coordinates in space. (It is appreciated in view of GR's complicated tensor maths that a case of inversely cubing distances that are progressively increasing to create curvature may be somewhat of an oversimplification

The physical dimensions and curvature of space are now "filled out" with reference frames of progressively slower "coordinate times" producing progressively longer "coordinate distances".

To analogise: Taking 2 ball bearings and placing them on a rubber sheet a distance apart, we can see that the "actual distance" between the ball bearings is one length, and the "coordinate distance" of the curve in the rubber between the ball bearings is another longer length. The "actual distance" of space is shorter than the "coordinate distance" of space, we will come back to this.

Having calculated that a greater radius from mass produces a longer length of moment and having determined by how much moments are lengthened progressively over reference frames of progressively greater radius to each other, we are now in a position to create a scale of the ratio of the speed of light to the lengths of these variable lengths of moment.

Clearly having a scale of the variable speeds of light would be useful but to create a tensor equation on the basis of variable speeds of light would be of greater use. I have no idea how to do this

but I can see that it "is" possible and that it "would" be a simplifying factor in certain types of mathematics.

Now we shall return to clocks ticking faster in elevation:

We have explored the possibilities of an inverted time dilation theory and how light slows when traveling into weaker gravity fields when we do not attribute light a relativistic mass. The light is not slowed by the gravitational field but by the longer lengths of moment that are caused by the weakening gravitational field.

A clock in elevation and its associated mass "is" located in a weaker gravity field, but it "is" also in a gravitational relationship with and affected by the mass of the earth. The gravitational effects of each body of mass upon each other, the mass associated with the clock and the mass of the earth, in respect to the gravity field induced effects of local coordinate time dilation will equally and oppositely cancel each other out...leaving the observed faster time difference of the elevated clock entirely due to the "change" in gravitational relationship caused by the distance between these bodies of mass.

If observing the reference frame of the elevated clock and the reference frame of the earth from another separate reference frame, we "might" observe that it is in fact earths clock that has started running slower because it is feeling less of a gravitational field due to the mass associated with the clock now being positioned at a distance in a weaker gravity field relative to the mass of the earth, than it did when this mass associated with the clock was positioned on the earth.

The gravity field for the mass associated with the clock being upheld as more uniform to the collective mass of itself and the mass of the earth because it is the smaller body and is more greatly affected by the bigger body.

In other words, although the clock is ticking in a reference frame of a weaker gravity field, it's mass is not "experiencing" a lesser force of gravity field.

Ground level experiments with clocks also observe the more elevated clock ticking faster. A clock on a mountain, a tall building or a clock placed on a shelf at a metre above another clock "may" all tick faster due to an increase in gravity field, not a decrease.

I'm not sure what tests have been carried out in this sphere other than those that have been reported. It would be telling to place an atomic clock on an area of the earth that is not in an elevated position but that we know to be of a very dense consistency.

Ok...despite the fact that of course no observations of our universe are actually changed in any respect, inverting time dilation for coordinate time and having a variable speed of light does make for a "very" different universe in some respects. The observations that we observe require alternative explanations.

Firstly let us consider the beginning and the end of the universe. The Big Bang and the Big Crunch.

We are looking at a universe that is filled with reference frames of variable lengths of "coordinate distance", in variable lengths of "coordinate time." Time goes fast in the black hole and slow in space.

It is a popular theory that there were no black holes in the early universe. Black holes being the product of stars reaching critical mass and imploding. Therefore it follows that the universes mass has clumped together from small to large.

Looking around my model of the universe for a phenomenon that has enough energy to end and begin the cycle of my model, the black hole phenomenon has now become the most likely candidate.

Every galaxy is considered as having a black hole at its centre, but there are a few rogues that are less certain in their trajectories!

Considering that black holes are "observed" (loosely speaking) as consuming mass, jetting particles and merging with each other into one bigger black hole, we "may" consider that as the progression of the black hole phenomenon takes it course throughout the universe, it is conceivable that black holes "may" start consuming more condensed/clumped mass than can be produced by star formations.

To analogise: The black hole phenomenon in relation to the phenomenon of mass, being a predator prey scenario... As the black holes take over the universe, meeting each other too closely they will merge and as this process progresses we "may" end up with a singular massive black hole - with all the mass of the universe inside it. Coordinate distance will be at its shortest and coordinate time will be running at its fastest.

Taking the speed of light in relation to this uppermost fastest length of moment and plugging this uppermost fastest speed of light into the equation e=mc2, we now have enough energy for the Big Bang.

The singular massive black hole jets out the mass of the universe across distance in particle form. A gravitational equilibrium is achieved and the black hole winks out of existence leaving a sea of particle plasma strewn across distance in space.

During the Big Crunch/Big Bang scenario, inside the black hole coordinate time is at its upper limit and coordinate distance is at its lower limit.

I have made a table (loosely speaking

) of the balance between coordinate time, coordinate distance and actual distance below in relation to the extremes.

(Please note that "actual time" has "not" been represented here. Actual time can only be determined from the perspective of an observer "in" the reference frame when the gravitational relationship of the associated mass of an observer and any motion related time dilation aspects of "proper time" are considered - or when determining how a reference frame of mass moves in relation to a reference frame of coordinate time.

"Actual distance" on the other hand, although relevant to an observer in the reference frame, "is" actually a physicality in the absence of an observer status!!!)

BIG CRUNCH/BIG BANG BLACK HOLE

Coordinate time - fastest

Coordinate distance - shortest

Actual time - ?

Actual distance - shortest

SEA OF PARTICLES

Coordinate time - balanced - slower

Coordinate distance - balanced - longer

Actual time - ?

Actual distance - longest

SPACE REGION - ABSENCE OF MASS IN DISTANCE

Coordinate time - slowest

Coordinate distance - longest

Actual time - ?

Actual distance - balanced - lower scale shorter

REGION OF ORDINARY MASS

Coordinate time - balanced - faster

Coordinate distance - balanced - shorter

Actual time - ?

Actual distance - balanced - upper scale longer

Looking at the sea of particles, imagine a pile of logs and then imagine that pile of logs put through a wood chipper with regards to how much space each will take up in relation to each other. Now imagine all the mass in the universe reduced to particle form. I put it to you that the distance in space "may" be nothing more than the areas that have been vacated by these particles clumping together. Could the perceived vast distances of space be partly a product of "coordinate distances"?

If coordinate distances can be thought of as an "ether type" scenario, and "actual distances" as constant, then bodies of mass in the universe "may" be closer together than we think.

Let's look at what is involved when viewing events that are occurring in reference frames that are of a faster time or slower time than the reference frame we are them observing from.

To analogise, a camera's shutter speed in relation to a motion shot. The faster the shutter speed the less light in the picture. ie: Observing a black hole from earth.

For the purpose of creating a visual picture we can say the same of a black hole that is running a slow time or a fast time... Now take into account the fact of time running either slow or fast in the vast distances of the space we are viewing the black hole through. How we are viewing what we are viewing "may" be analogised, in the case of fast time in space, to a light cone type structure that has coordinates comprised of shutter speed filters that let less light into the picture. In the case of slow time in space this will be an inverted light cone structure, to the same effect...

In respect to gravity lensing, light moving over faster time frames near large bodies of mass will appear to bend because the ratios of moments between the light bending and the observational reference frame of earth become more closely aligned with each other and the picture is letting in more light.

So... we "may" have the possibility that light sources in outer space are closer than we believe.

But hang on! We are an expanding universe aren't we? Let's look at this. My model has already stated the metric expansion as time related not distance related. We have established "coordinate distances" and we have re- established redshift as variable speeds of light over coordinate distances...

The gravitational coordinate time relationship between two bodies of mass in space is such that each body of mass is travelling into the future faster than the space in-between them is. Our universe "may" only be expanding in "coordinate time" and "coordinate distance", not in "actual distance".

I will quickly end with the concept that in a 0 gravity field time does not happen at all, it comes to a halt and without time existence cannot exist.

Also I suspect that my inverted time dilation theory "may" allow us to behold what lies behind the cloud of the "uncertainty principle".

I have, for the purposes of my model, more detailed explanations for quantum, gravity lensing, galaxy rotation, and for the Bullet cluster amongst other considerations, (you'll notice that I haven't mentioned Lorentz contractions

) ...these considerations include a theory on how the universe may have transpired from zero into the cyclic phenomenon that I have described above... but I reckon this post is probably long enough already

.

If I was a mathematician I would have attempted to calculate my model before "sharing" it. However, I'm not a mathematician! I understand what is going on when these types of maths are explained on a white board. Maybe if I keep on watching The Theoretical Minimum, I might just get it together one day. In the mean time, if you are a mathematician or have a computer program that you can plug these parameters into that would calculate this theory and you are interested, I'd dearly love to "know" if my model is viable..!

I thank you for reading this alternative hypothesis through to the end and wish you well.

Vikki