[Colin2B]

Was it something I said? 

Yes.
Your last post. Still thinking about it.

[alancalverd]

Never mind what Timey thinks Hubble might have said, fact is that we know that red shift results from gravitational potential difference and relative speed, and these are precisely predicted by general and special relativity respectively. If there is another cause, we need an experimental measurement that cannot be ascribed to known SR or GR red shift.

[jeffreyH]

As Doctor Who is want to say. It's bigger on the inside.

[timey (OP)]

OK -well the good thing about what I am suggesting is that is doesn't really change the GR or the SR maths significantly, it just shuffles things around a little for most part.  But to explain this first I need you to visualise the context...

So - Let me take you back to the the uniformity of the gravity field that would be associated with a sea of particles...
GR is predicting gravitational time dilation.  SR is predicting relative motion time dilation.  But in a universe comprised only of particles that are individualities making up a sea, what is time doing then?
There is no 0 gravity for time to be running fast in, and there is no significant motion for time to be running slow in.

This is the only place that my model adds something to the universe.  The thing it adds is not something that needs to be discovered.  Its already observably there and only requires that we change our perspective on how we interpret observation, and related maths.

Looking at the uniformity of the gravity field of a sea that contains every particle in the universe, one starts to realise that any time dilation considerations must be pretty uniform as well.  One also starts to realise that as concentrations and weaknesses develop in this uniformity of gravitational time dilation, that time will be getting slower than it was in some areas and faster than it was in other areas.  Current physics will tell you that the concentrations of gravity are running slower time, and the weaknesses are running faster time...
There are several illogicalities here in the face of GR gravitational time dilation that I can outline in detail later...
For now:

My model looks at the phenomenon of a uniform gravity field developing into concentrations and weaknesses of gravity, and the possibility of the existence of an additional gravitational time dilation where time runs slower in the weaker gravity of spaces in between masses.

My model adds a contra directional gravitational time dilation in addition to GR gravitational time dilation, and GR gravitational time dilation then becomes an m near M phenomenon.

This alters the value of g, and G...  I have talked about this here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68863.0

However, this means that the use of g or G in relativity maths already incorporates this concept, therefore it does not alter the maths as such, only the interpretation...
What it does do though is alter the mathematics of red shift and blue shift...

My models development in the contraction direction has no place for Hubble's red shift velocities.   But this does not mean that the dimensions of them are meaningless!
Because the speed of light is constant, it can be regarded as a speed, a distance, and a time... and velocity is a speed.  So via the speed, distance, time formula, one can give the red shift/distance correlations a 'time' value instead of a speed value.  I did post details of how one might go about this previously, (much to all your amusements), but long and short is that the length of a second in the reference frame of space that light travels through is inversely proportional to the energy of the light itself, and a wave'length' is just a case of how much 'time' it took the light travelling at 299 792 458 metres per variable second of that reference frame of space.  The light that we observe is the frequency that it is because the gravity fields it has travelled through have stretched them with their speed of seconds.

Red shift velocities have been redefined for the contracting model and - this upholds the equivalence principle as does the m near M interpretation of GR gravitational time dilation...

BUT...now one has to look to how SR is calculated and redress the kinetic energy, relativistic mass concepts.
(this really does get very interesting indeed, especially when considering how a rocket moves through space)

All good so far?

[alancalverd]

My model adds a contra directional gravitational time dilation in addition to GR gravitational time dilation,

and the evidence is?

and GR gravitational time dilation then becomes an m near M phenomenon.

which it is anyway since it depends on the gravitational potential difference between the clocks.

Because the speed of light is constant, it can be regarded as a speed, a distance, and a time... and velocity is a speed.

none of which is true. Time and distance are different dimensions, speed is a scalar, and velocity is a vector. I will however grant you that c is constant in vacuo.

The light that we observe is the frequency that it is because the gravity fields it has travelled through have stretched them with their speed of seconds.

Isn't this just a clumsy way of saying that gravitational red shift is caused by gravitational potential difference, as has been measured?

[timey (OP)]

There isn't any evidence that there is, but there isn't any evidence that there isn't either...  The description simply is another way of describing the acceleration of gravity and gives cause.  And... the end result is that GR no longer required dark energy or dark matter to be dimensionally viable.

The speed of light is calculated in terms of the distance 299 792 458 metres in relation to the duration of a standard second.  In any calculation that is concerning light, multiples of 299 792 458 metres can be held relative against multiples of a standard second.  I think this could be a useful approach when transposing a red shift velocity into a red shifted length of second.

[Colin2B]

I think this could be a useful approach when transposing a red shift velocity into a red shifted length of second.

So you are saying that the speed of light is variable in your theory?

You said earlier that GR and SR maths would not be affected, but you also say you do not do maths, so who has confirmed this for you. Constant speed of light is a fundamental assumption in both GR and SR.

[alancalverd]

The speed of light is calculated in terms of the distance 299 792 458 metres in relation to the duration of a standard second. 

No. The speed of light is not calculated. It is presumed (and found) constant in vacuo and the metre is defined as the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 seconds.

[timey (OP)]

Colin - As per the equivalence principle, the speed of light traveling through reference frames of variably lengthed seconds, will always travel at 299 792 458 metres per the second of that reference frame - and therefore the 'speed' of light remains constant.
(Please note: this also renders distance as a constant.)

I did not say that GR and SR maths would not be changed, I said that they would be reshuffled and that the values that are already being calculated will remain proportional under the new remit...
No I do not know how to write maths as notation, but juggling mechanics and architecture is just a case of matching moving shapes and lines.

[Colin2B]

Colin - As per the equivalence principle, the speed of light ....

Not equivalence principle, Maxwell's equations

No I do not know how to write maths as notation, but juggling mechanics and architecture is just a case of matching moving shapes and lines.

OK, we can do ST diagrams.

[timey (OP)]

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm

I just do everything in my head Colin.  ...But I did make a diagram that equalises the standard second in relation to distance in a Newtonian setting, that does describe my additional time dilation, (amongst other things).  I could send it to you via pm if you like.

[Colin2B]

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm

Thanks, we know that, but it is still Maxwell not equivalence principle.

I just do  I did make a diagram that equalises the standard second in relation to distance in a Newtonian setting, that does describe my additional time dilation, (amongst other things).  I could send it to you via pm if you like.

OK, or post it here.
Does it show your relationship of frequency vs height?

[timey (OP)]

Colin - did you read and take on board this bit of the link?

""In his encyclopedia article on “Attraction” Maxwell did suggest one possible representation of the gravitational force in terms of a dynamical field that he hadn’t mentioned in 1864. After explaining how forces (such as electricity and magnetism) that are repulsive between “like” bodies may be represented in terms of a medium in a state of stress “consisting of tension along the lines of force and pressure in all directions at right angles to the lines of force”, he turns again to the vexing problem of gravity.
 
"To account for such a force [of attraction between like bodies] by means of stress in an intervening medium, on the plan adopted for electric and magnetic forces, we must assume a stress of an opposite kind from that already mentioned. We must suppose that there is a pressure in the direction of the lines of force, combined with a tension in all directions at right angles to the lines of force. Such a state of stress would, no doubt, account for the observed effects of gravitation. We have not, however, been able hitherto to imagine any physical cause for such a state of stress. "

""
(Not my italics btw)

... Why would I need to give frequencies and heights?  GR is giving them for me.
And...  I do not wish to publicly post my diagram.

[Colin2B]

Colin - did you read and take on board this bit of the link?

Yes, and it is irrelevant to the comment I was making which was about this statement:

As per the equivalence principle, the speed of light traveling ........ and therefore the 'speed' of light remains constant.

The constancy of the speed of light for an observer comes from Maxwell's equations for emr . Equivalence principle is to do with similarity between inertial and gravitational mass. (although it does give a reason why a distant observer might measure the speed of light to differ in an accelerating frame.)

... Why would I need to give frequencies and heights?  GR is giving them for me.

So everyone can see how you are deriving them?
GR doesn't give them, unless you are agreeing that they are all relative and frequency of say Cs is same when measured at all heights?

[timey (OP)]

Colin - a red shift frequency is not derived, it is observed.
A red shift velocity is derived.

I am simply ditching the notion attached to the 'length' of a wavelength being velocity related and attributing this 'length' as being time related.

Calculation:
e of wavelength is inversely proportional to length of second.
By taking the distance to light source, calculating the gravity field of the space in between and working out what wavelength the light had when it was emitted, one can then calculate how the gravitational field medium of this 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' that I have added to the universe has changed the frequency of the light as it has been stretched by its journey through the slower time in the empty space between source and observation.

I do not really think it relevant that Maxwell did not derive the equivalence principle.  I think it is relevant that under the remit of my suggestion the equivalence principle is upheld.
Clearly the equivalence principle will also be upheld when I say that an atom with rest mass will experience an increase in energy at elevation due to an increase in gravity potential energy where:

Calculation: the value of m does not affect the value of gravity potential that m experiences near M, and that height in relation to M is the deriving factor.

And - under this remit, the quote from Maxwell is indeed highly relevant...

[alancalverd]

Maxwell's "stress in a medium" reeks of aether. If you are going to pursue his analogy for gravitation, you had better be prpared to demonstrate the properties of the medium.

[timey (OP)]

The gravity field associated with open space surrounding M that decreases via the inverse square law with distance from M is the medium, and the contra directional gravitational time dilation, (that I have added), caused by this medium is the stress factor.

[Colin2B]

I do not really think it relevant that Maxwell did not derive the equivalence principle.

I think you've misunderstood the point I was making, so let's forget it OK.

I am simply ditching the notion attached to the 'length' of a wavelength being velocity related and attributing this 'length' as being time related.

This really is not ditchable. You cannot say it is not velocity related just as you cannot say it is not time related (via frequency) but time cancels out of the calculation leaving only distance.

Calculation:
e of wavelength is inversely proportional to length of second.

Not unless you have discovered a whole new theory of wave propagation.

By taking the distance to light source, calculating the gravity field of the space in between and working out what wavelength the light had when it was emitted, one can then calculate how the gravitational field medium of this 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' that I have added to the universe has changed the frequency of the light as it has been stretched by its journey through the slower time in the empty space between source and observation.

So unlike GR, the passage through the intervening space affects the final KE?
What is the justification for the 'contradirectional gravitational time dilation'?

Without seeing example calculations it is very difficult to see what you are actually doing and how any of this makes sense.

[timey (OP)]

Colin - if you cannot understand that there is no place for Hubble's red shift velocities in a model of a cyclic universe that makes all of its development in the contraction direction, as I explained in the first stage of the explanation of this model, then anything else that follows will be incomprehensible to you...

You do understand that it is due to Hubble's red shift velocities that the current model of an expanding universe exists?

[Colin2B]

Colin - if you cannot understand that there is no place for Hubble's red shift velocities in a model of a cyclic universe

Yes I do understand that in the context of your model. However, my questions and comments are not directed at that assumption, but are related to your methodology for demonstrating it.
Without details of your calculations and methodology it is impossible to see how you are deriving your conclusions.