[timey (OP)]

Evan posted the red shift observation mapping of the universe picture on my 'LIGO - what are the probabilities thread'...
...Under the remit of my model's interpretation of red shift observation, deep space will not be as deep as this picture of the mapping of the universe presents.  The distances between galaxies, under the remit of my models interpretation of red shift observation, will not be as far flung apart, and emerging luminosity anomalies regarding far flung light sources support this suggestion.
(In fact my model asks you to consider that these spaces in between galaxies, and the physical space taken up by galaxies, were previously taken up by a uniform sea of individual particles that have pulled together resulting in galaxies and tracts of open space in-between.)

Gravity in open space reduces in strength by the inverse square law, so while these deep space areas will have extremely weak fields, there will be nowhere in the universe that has a 0 field.

A vector is a direction.  Under this remit there can only be 2 directions, (I think, scratches head)...  One being moving into a stronger gravity field, and the other being moving into a weaker gravity field.

[Colin2B]

0.9 of a mark?

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. It can be very useful in maths and physics to consider fractions of things you might normally think of as integers. Let me give an example:

We will use 3 cars running simultaneously in Lane 1.
Car 1 – the original car for lane 1
Car 1.1 – modified to make a mark when lane 2 car (a) makes a mark
Car 2(a) – the lane 2 car modified to make 100 marks at 1m at 10 marks/s₂, that is per lane 2 second.

So they all start together and the lane 1 timer starts.
Lane 2 car(a) travelling in Lane 2 makes marks at 10 marks/s₂, 1s₂=1.1s₁ so when travelling in Lane 1 seconds the Lane 2 car(a) will make 9.09 marks/s₁ or 0.909 marks at 0.1s₁ – the same time that Car 1 has made it's first mark at 1m. You would say that at 0.1s₁ car 2(a) had made 0 marks, but if we use 0.909 marks at 0.1s₁ we can work out that it will make its first mark at 0.11s₁
However, at 0.11s₁ Car 1 and Car 1.1 have travelled 1.1m and Car 1.1 has made its first mark, so how far has Car 2(a) travelled?
Car 2(a) in Lane 2 travels at 10m/s₂, which in Lane 1 seconds is 9.09m/s₁, so after 0.11s₁ it will have travelled 1m in lane 1.

So we can say that:
Car 1 is travelling at 10m/s₁ making marks at 1m
Car 1.1 is travelling at 10m/s₁ making marks at 1.1m
Car 2(a) is travelling at 9.09m/s₁ making marks at 1m

So when the timer for Lane 1 lights up the stop light in each car after 10s₁:
Car 1 has travelled 100m making 100marks at 1m
Car 1.1  has travelled 100m making 90(.9)marks at 1.1m
Car 2(a) has travelled 90.9m making 90(.9)marks at 1m

It is now obvious that running car 2(a) in Lane 1 is not the same as running Car 1.1 in Lane 1.
It is also obvious that Car 2(a) is measurably (by any Lane 1 observer) slower than Car 1 or Car 1.1.
The only reason that car 1.1 was making marks at 1.1m was that it was pulling ahead of car 2(a).

PS

there will be nowhere in the universe that has a 0 field.

Not true, we've mentioned this before.

[timey (OP)]

Firstly Colin, you are using different speeds to describe the scenario, so it's no wonder that you are confusing yourself.  Using a fraction of a mark to calculate is highly illogical and totally irrelevant.

Keeping the speed constant, the lane 1 car in lane 1 makes 100 marks at 10 marks per standard second that are 1 metre apart, in a duration between start and stop light that is 10 standard seconds long.

10 marks per second is our constant speed throughout.  It is only the length of the second that changes.

The lane 1 car is making marks at 10 marks per standard second, and in the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer duration of time than 10 standard seconds, will make 110 marks that are 1 metre apart.  True or false?

The lane 2 car(a) making marks at 10 marks per lane 2 second, within the duration of 10 standard seconds, as measured from lane 1, will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart.  True or false?

The lane 2 car(a) making marks every time it see's the lane 1 car make a mark in lane 1, as measured from lane 2, will make 100 marks that are 0.9 of a metre apart.  True or false?

*

Yes you have said that before that it is not true that there will be nowhere in the universe that has a 0 gravity field, but you fail to explain why...
I think that you will find that your statement is only valid regarding an expanding universe, and that a 0 gravity field will indeed be nowhere to be found in a contracting universe.  A contracting universe being what my model describes...

[alancalverd]

(In fact my model asks you to consider that these spaces in between galaxies, and the physical space taken up by galaxies, were previously taken up by a uniform sea of individual particles that have pulled together resulting in galaxies and tracts of open space in-between.)

Gravity in open space reduces in strength by the inverse square law, so while these deep space areas will have extremely weak fields, there will be nowhere in the universe that has a 0 field.

In other words, "open space" is meaningless, and gravitational fields are always associated with mass. Nothing new here, then.   

A vector is a direction.

No, it's an ordered set which can be represented by a magnitude and a direction.

Under this remit there can only be 2 directions, (I think, scratches head)...  One being moving into a stronger gravity field, and the other being moving into a weaker gravity field.

And nothing new here either.  So how (or why) can you hypothesise that time dilatation is other than as predicted by GR and found experimentally?

[timey (OP)]

From what I've read about the occurrence of new theories superseding the older theories, is that the new theory must incorporate all that works of the old theory.

So no, nothing really new, except for the fact that current physics has the universe developing into what we see today on an outward trajectory, and my model has the universe develop into what we see today on an inward trajectory.

Also, my model does not predict this contra directional time dilation as a replacement for GR gravitational time dilation.  It predicts this contra directional time dilation as an additional time dilation for space surrounding mass that gives cause for the acceleration of gravity.  This being the how I can hypothesise an additional time dilation...

Why I can hypothesise this additional time dilation is because the standard model and quantum physics cannot be united with gravity, and under the remit of this addition, and my addition to the equivalence principle, my model 'potentially' can.

So - the term vector is not used in the way that I used it, (ie: a vector is not a direction) - however what I described as a choice of 2 directions, 1 being moving into a stronger gravity field, and the other being moving into a weaker gravity field, and the fact that a gravity field of either description will have a magnitude, what I am describing 'is' a vector set?

[jeffreyH]

As Alan has pointed out you can't get around symmetry. Symmetry and conservation laws are intimately connected. You are trying to introduce an asymmetry which would upset the laws of physics. The fact that symmetries are a key feature of the universe can be seen in quantum mechanics on the very small scale involving group theory to the cosmological scale and black holes. You need to demonstrate very concretely why this asymmetry is required and how it fits in with conservation laws.

[timey (OP)]

There is nothing in my model that breaks the conservation law.
In fact my model, unlike current physics holds to 'all' physical laws while introducing nothing that is not already observed.
GR requires dark energy and dark matter to obtain symmetry, my model does not.

Alan did not point out asymmetry as far as I am aware, (it is unclear to me your context), he pointed out that in deep space, in a 0 gravity field, a vector would be directionless...
I showed him why, in a contracting universe, there wouldn't be a 0 gravity field, and that a vector set therefore is possible in the spaces between galaxies.

So what is this asymmetry problem that you have identified please Jeff?  Because adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation 'does' create a symmetry... So could you please explain why you think it doesn't?

[jeffreyH]

In what sense does your idea introduce symmetry?

You might also need to explain this since it is in the interstellar medium.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_cation

[Colin2B]

Firstly Colin, you are using different speeds to describe the scenario, so it's no wonder that you are confusing yourself. 

No, I am not confusing myself. The speed change is due to the way you defined car2(a), the maths just describes the consequences.

Using a fraction of a mark to calculate is highly illogical and totally irrelevant.

No, totally logical, totally relevant.
You are using marks/second in the same way as frequency where parts of a cycle (or indeed wavelength) are important to define frequency and phase relationships. If you don't take it into account you get the wrong answer.

Keeping the speed constant, the lane 1 car in lane 1 makes 100 marks at 10 marks per standard second that are 1 metre apart, in a duration between start and stop light that is 10 standard seconds long.

10 marks per second is our constant speed throughout.  It is only the length of the second that changes.

That's what I used in the maths. The result is a consequence of the above assumptions. Go through the maths and try to understand it.

The real problem is you have something in your mind that cannot be described by the car experiment. I've made progress on looking at a different way of modeling it which moves in the right direction, but given your response on fractions of a mark I don't think you will be open to the way it works. Pity, it was getting interesting.

[timey (OP)]

It does not matter if a car makes a whole mark, or a fraction of a mark.  What is relevant is how far apart these marks are when a constant speed is measured via a longer or shorter second relative to the length of second in the lane.  The mark itself does not have a relevant value.  Why can you not understand this?

Ok Colin, make the constant speed the speed of light, and it will be light making 299 792 458 marks per second.

In lane 1 light is making marks at 299 792 458 marks per standard second.

In lane 2 light is making marks at 299 792 458 marks per second that is 10% longer than a standard second.

Measuring the light in lane 2 from lane 1, lane 1's standard second will make the lane 2 light appear as if it has made 10% fewer marks, and that these marks will be 10% longer in length.

Measuring the lane 1 light from lane 2, the lane 1 light will have made 299 792 458 marks, but the marks will be 10% shorter in length.

All this is doing is illustrating how distances appear to change when measuring a constant speed travelling in a rate of time differing from the rate of time being used to measure with.

Now I double, triple dare you to come back to me with variable speeds for light, and sincerely hope you have ditched this ridiculous notion that a mark should be fractionalised!

On the other hand, if you are all good then we can return to the cars travelling at 10 metres per variable seconds in lanes operating at variable seconds in order to add GR and SR to this contra directional time dilation picture...

I do not need to think about these maths Colin.  These maths are simplicity itself.  Adding GR and SR to the picture are much more complex though, where I do need help to check the dimensions against current physics.  For one instance, it is complexities such as the gamma function in relation to the Laplace transformation that I have in mind when I am asking for mathematical help.