[timey (OP)]

My model of a cyclic universe...
This model is a massive project to describe so I'm going to do it in stages...

Einstein, in his belief of a steady state universe, added a cosmological constant to the mathematics of GR to stop the universe contracting...
(He retracted this constant, and the notion of Hubble's red shift velocities took hold for an expanding universe.  We'll get to that)

...hold things there.

We are now looking- without the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities, or Einstein's cosmological constant - at a universe that is contracting.

GR maths will describe a universe that is contracting. There are a few problems, but the remit of my model deals with these problems in the stages that I will go on to describe.

Are we all good so far?

[alancalverd]

Apart from the fact that the most remote objects seem to be moving away from us, yes.

[jeffreyH]

A question. If redshift indicates that remote galaxies are moving away from us how far have they moved since Hubble discovered the effect? That is, how much redder is the light from specific galaxies now compared to what it was then? I assume this data has been examined to verify the hypothesis. If not then how can the conclusion be supported?

[timey (OP)]

Yes - Hubble's assistant  noticed that there was a correlation between observed red shifts and distance.  This correlation between red shifts and distance was then attributed to the velocity that the light source is moving away from the observation point.
It was on this basis that the Big Bang theory became popular.

Before I expand into how my model explains the red shifts correlation to distance I'd like to bring your attention to some problems with Hubble's red shift velocities.

Firstly there is Stefan's quintet.  Historically speaking this has been a source of argument against the red shift distance correlation in that the observation could describe a type of red shift interaction, although the current agreement is that the phenomenon can be explained as a chance superimposition of a closer galaxy over a further galaxy.

But more significantly, here we can see that as telescopes become more and more powerful, a luminosity problem is also emerging:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

So can we agree that a) the basis for an expanding universe rests on Hubble's redshifts velocities, and b) that there is cause to question Hubble's red shift velocities?

[alancalverd]

Increasing redshift would indicate an accelerating expansion. And given that the observed light is several billion  years old, it would be surprising if there was any measurable change on a human timescale. We might expect that some would have moved beyond he Schwarzchild horizon, but since they would have been very faint anyway, it's unlikely that they were ever observed.

But I guess my earlier statement needs qualifying: the universe was expanding a few zillion years ago.It may now be contracting but we have no way of knowing until some blueshifted distant galaxies appear.

[timey (OP)]

Doesn't the fact of increasing redshifts have some bearing on the discovery that the universe, as seen under the remit of Hubble's red shift velocities, is, opposed to the previously held notion, accelerating in its expansion?

It is only under the remit of the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities that a contracting universe would be seen to be blue shifting...  Under an alternative remit a contracting universe could also be seen to be red shifted.  It depends on how one views the contraction of the universe occurring.
I think you are viewing the mechanics of the universe contracting as all matter returning from its current positions to a point.

My model describes the contraction of the universe much differently as a very slow and gentle affair that picks up speed as matter further clumps. 
But can we please agree that the expansion of the universe is based on Hubble's red shift velocities and that there is cause to question these red shift velocities?

[Ethos_]

 
But can we please agree that the expansion of the universe is based on Hubble's red shift velocities and that there is cause to question these red shift velocities?

About the questions surrounding red shift, and our possible misinterpretations of the observations, I will agree that we may not have things sorted out properly as yet.

[alancalverd]

My model describes the contraction of the universe much differently as a very slow and gentle affair that picks up speed as matter further clumps. 

An entirely reasonable model, as I suggested in http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68980.msg502500#msg502500 and two subsequent postings

[timey (OP)]

So on the basis of your finding this type of contraction to be a reasonable model, can I ask you to  make some reference to Hubble's red shift velocities being open to question before I continue?

[alancalverd]

I see no contradiction. If the universe is a lot bigger than the Schwarzchild radius then there will be more stuff outside than inside, so it is more likely that bright objects will be sucked away from us than towards, hence Hubble's observation.

[Ethos_]

I see no contradiction. If the universe is a lot bigger than the Schwarzchild radius then there will be more stuff outside than inside, so it is more likely that bright objects will be sucked away from us than towards, hence Hubble's observation.

I like your thoughts Alan, this scenario could also be hypothesized as the cause for Dark Energy.

[Colin2B]

So on the basis of your finding this type of contraction to be a reasonable model, can I ask you to  make some reference to Hubble's red shift velocities being open to question before I continue?

I am happy to consider your ideas. Just 2 points:

1 There are a number of different ideas out there and Alan's suggestion would be consistent with Hubble observations.

2 When I suggested you post you theory I didn't expect you to start here. Given the importance you placed on the NIST threads I assumed you were going to start showing a consistent theory of standard seconds and variable frequency, so I will watch with interest for this to appear.

3 Whatever you determine for 2 will have to be consistent with the observed frequencies not being blue shifted when moved to height, but only blue shifted when observed from the lower level. So just as SR is a special case of GR, your theory will need to have the correct version of relativity as a subset or special case in your theory.

So I watch with interest until you get there.

[timey (OP)]

OK - Alan.  I am not sure what the meaning of outside a Shwartzchild radius means, so as an aside, could you explain please?

My model takes the uni of universe to mean 1 verse, and there is nothing outside this universe.  Outside of the universe is outside of existence in my model.

But to continue the description of my model - are we all agreed that without Hubble's red shift 'velocities' there is no concept of expansion?

(Colin - thanks, it will get in that area, I'm coming at from the other direction now)

[alancalverd]

The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape velocity from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light.

In effect, it defines the limit of the observable universe within an indefinite medium. Any process occuring beyond that radius would be redshifted to zero before it could affect an observer at the centre.

The observable universe's mass has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 13.7 billion light years

[timey (OP)]

OK - I understand the context you are describing now, but again, this is based on the fact of Hubble's red shift velocities.

Without the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities the mechanics you describe would be null and void.

Without the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities, is there any other observation to support the concept of an expanding universe?

[Ethos_]

Without the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities, is there any other observation to support the concept of an expanding universe?

The law of Entropy suggests that ordered systems trend toward disorder. I believe this might have some relevance when speculating about expansion. Just a thought.........................

[timey (OP)]

There are entropy problems associated with an expanding universe also...  (See Bekenstien Hawking second law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy law regarding black holes.(that my model resolves))

There is a great chapter in Smolin's book 'the trouble with physics', that gives entropy a thorough run through employing various mathematical methods, (the terminology of which I forget, but not the details).  He concludes with a paragraph saying:
"So we can see that while entropy trends to increasing, we must actually state that entropy always increases except when it doesn't"
...(more or less, I doubt I am word for word quoting)

However, these considerations are ahead of topic in this quest to describe my model...  For now I just need any replying posters to be on board that Hubble's red shift velocities are the back bone of practically all considerations regarding cosmology, and without the concept of velocities being attached to red shift frequencies, that the concept of expansion doesn't have any other 'observable' means to support itself...

[alancalverd]

Never mind concepts. If more distant objects have bigger redshifts, either they are receding from us or they are more massive than we think.

The suggestion that there is more mass outside the Schwarzchild radius than inside, could account for increased gravitational redshift of distant objects, but it would also make expansion more likely too.     

[timey (OP)]

I agree with your prognosis for explaining an expanding universe...  As said before, this perfectly reasonable logic relies on Hubble's red shift velocities.

Yes - if redshifts are not velocity related, then one could look at mass sizes being bigger, as you say...

The link I provided earlier this thread spoke of the luminosity of distant stars not being dim enough, which also could be indicative of bigger mass sizes further away...

...and there isn't much explanation for why mass sizes should be bigger further away.

But this 'increased mass size' is not the only other possibility of explaining the red shift/distance correlation as an alternative to Hubble's red shift velocities.

We are all clear that the frequency of a red shift is associated with a length of distance called a wavelength, and that the lower the frequency, the longer the length of the wave...

According to Hubble, the different lengths in wavelength are that length because they are stretched by the velocity that the source is moving away from us at.  This makes perfect logical sense as the deeper red shifts are from sources that are further away... and as everything originated from a point, stuff that is further away will be travelling faster than closer stuff.

However... my model states that all of the development of mass clumping is occurring in the contraction direction.  This development of mass clumping is initiated from the point that my models inflation period, (we will get into details of this later), has resulted in a sea of particles strewn more or less evenly across what will go on to develop into clumped masses with tracts of empty space between.

So - as you can see Hubble's red shift velocities have no place in this arrangement...

My model looks to the tracts of space opening up between the mass clumping development, and observes the gravitational field in these tracts of empty space getting weaker as mass clumping is furthered...
One can view this as a gravity field that was once pretty uniform as a sea of particles, now developing into concentrations and weaknesses of gravity.
My model is looking at red shift as being caused by the development of weaknesses of gravity between the developing concentrations, and blue shift as being caused by the development of an increasing strength in gravity field in the open tract of space between 2 concentrations of mass.
(Please note that a change in the gravity field of tracts of open space can be caused by star/galaxy movements, but when observing light generated in the gravity fields of billions of years ago, can just be due just to the fact of mass further clumping together)

I now wish to move on to discussing how a wavelength does not 'have' to be distance related - but I want to make sure that we are all good so far?

[timey (OP)]

Was it something I said?  ... Have I been factually incorrect?  ...  Have I inadvertently insulted someone?  ... ?