[GoC]

Steady state could emerge also. We could have a galaxy moving towards us and still be red shifted by GR. In fact we do Andromeda is red shifted. The only way we know its moving towards us is by the arms. The arm moving towards us is moving faster than the one moving away from us. Otherwise we view red shifted light like we do in all the other galaxies. 

[timey (OP)]

Huh? - Thats a new one for me.  Perhaps you have made a more in depth study of the Andromeda observed shift than I, in which case I apologise beforehand, but as far as I am aware, Andromeda is observed to be blue shifted.

In my model this blue shifting would indicate that the gravity field of open space is increasing in strength between Andromeda and our observation point here in the Milky Way Galaxy.
This being synonymous to 2 bodies of mass and a closing distance between them - under the premise of Fgrav being proportional to M1*M2/d squared, where the gravity field of the open space in-between M1 & M2, subject to the inverse square law at h from M, is described as escalating in value via the squaring law in relation to the closing distance between the masses of these 2 galaxies.

I just don't see how a steady state universe can emerge from a GR basis without incorporating a mechanism that balances the phenomenon of clumping...
But you are right, given that an alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation can be employed, the possibility does exist that a steady state could be accomplished via the black hole phenomenon.  Provided that the radiation and superluminal jet action of the black hole phenomenon is equal in value to the mass intake associated with the black hole phenomenon to retain a balance.  This would mean that black holes have always existed in conjunction with stars, otherwise we are looking at a cycle in which neutron stars develop and collapse into black holes which consume other stars to become bigger black holes.
In this scenario of imbalance the black hole phenomenon becomes predominant and all mass will eventually clump into one singular black hole for a Big Bang scenario...

[GoC]

Huh? - Thats a new one for me.  Perhaps you have made a more in depth study of the Andromeda observed shift than I, in which case I apologise beforehand, but as far as I am aware, Andromeda is observed to be blue shifted.

That is the assumption made by many.

In my model this blue shifting would indicate that the gravity field of open space is increasing in strength between Andromeda and our observation point here in the Milky Way Galaxy.

First we have to understand what we mean by a gravity field and what is increasing strength. The gravity field is actually a dilation difference in space. What is being dilated? Since we consider potential energy as decreasing down a gravity well we could consider fundamental energy c is being dilated. This is not kinetic energy but a separate spectrum energy that actually move electrons. So back to the galaxy. 75% of the dilation in a galaxy is in the center where most of the stars and the BH reside. We are 75% out from the center of our galaxy for the observation point. We reside in less dilated energy and observe the more dilated center of a galaxy as red shifted by GR. Depending on the ratio of SR and GR red shift we might not be expanding, be expanding or remaining in a motion of steady state. Using relativity, red shift could be a combination of SR and GR red shift. Between this and the enormous size of BH's a BB is unlikely based on the visual size dating by red shift. It was the allure of expansion as SR to focus on a beginning. Suns create electrons from space fundamental energy to grow and age. Mass from space spectrum not a BB.  [/quote]

This being synonymous to 2 bodies of mass and a closing distance between them - under the premise of Fgrav being proportional to M1*M2/d squared, where the gravity field of the open space in-between M1 & M2, subject to the inverse square law at h from M, is described as escalating in value via the squaring law in relation to the closing distance between the masses of these 2 galaxies. 

The entire galaxy has a halo of dilation with a threshold we can observe. This is like a planet where the dilation inverse square starts at the galaxy boundary halo and the dilation reduces itself to the mass ratio middle between two galaxies. The cause of gravity is the potential energy difference in dilation of space. It is reduced fundamental energy density that mass is always attracted.

I just don't see how a steady state universe can emerge from a GR basis without incorporating a mechanism that balances the phenomenon of clumping...
But you are right, given that an alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation can be employed, the possibility does exist that a steady state could be accomplished via the black hole phenomenon.  Provided that the radiation and superluminal jet action of the black hole phenomenon is equal in value to the mass intake associated with the black hole phenomenon to retain a balance.  This would mean that black holes have always existed in conjunction with stars, otherwise we are looking at a cycle in which neutron stars develop and collapse into black holes which consume other stars to become bigger black holes.

Yes the jet action is because two BH's are spinning around each other. There is nothing to indicate BH; evaporate at all. to cause a cycle.

In this scenario of imbalance the black hole phenomenon becomes predominant and all mass will eventually clump into one singular black hole for a Big Bang scenario...

And what would be the mechanism for a BB? mass has entropy.

[timey (OP)]

In Penrose's "Cycles of Time", he talks about black holes radiating away to extinction via Hawking's radiation, as a solution to the conservation of energy law anomaly surrounding black holes.  He places this scenario as occurring in an ongoing expansion...

If one takes this scenario of black holes forming and radiating away to nothing over time, and places it in a steady state setting, then that which is radiated away from a black hole is then inherent to the open spaces in between masses that are not moving away from one another...
But this Hawking's radiation is a very slow process.

You say that superluminal jet action occurs when 2 black holes are spinning around each other.  As I have understood the subject, superluminal jets from a black hole are thought to occur when a black hole encounters any large body of mass that becomes trapped within its gravitational field and is consumed.

There are theories as to how the superluminal jet actions occur, mostly taking the school of thought that some, or maybe all, of the mass of the consumed object is thrown back out into space without entering the event horizon.  I have yet to read an explanation as to the mechanics of how a star can be transformed into jets of particles by having a close encounter with a black hole.
(My model has a theory)

However, in that clumps of mass can be reduced to particle, or energy, form as such by the black hole phenomenon, this is a plus for a steady state balance between the inherent trend to clumping, giving mechanism for the required anti-clumping mechanics to achieve a balanced steady state.

My cyclic model simply places all the above in a contracting scenario where all mass will eventually clump into one singularity, and the mechanism for a Big Bang is that there will be no equivalent gravitational force acting upon this singular black hole.  It will empty all of the mass of the universe via superluminal jets until its own extinction, leaving a sea of particles to then very slowly develop into clumps.

*

When you ask "What is it that dilates space?"

In my model it is the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M that is responsible for dilating space at h from M, and reciprocally - also contracting space as h reduces closer to M, (where h is height).

[GoC]

In Penrose's "Cycles of Time", he talks about black holes radiating away to extinction via Hawking's radiation, as a solution to the conservation of energy law anomaly surrounding black holes.  He places this scenario as occurring in an ongoing expansion...

If one takes this scenario of black holes forming and radiating away to nothing over time, and places it in a steady state setting, then that which is radiated away from a black hole is then inherent to the open spaces in between masses that are not moving away from one another...
But this Hawking's radiation is a very slow process.

Radiation rides on the spectrum. Two BH's cycling around each other will cause radiation. There is no radiation inside of a black hole because there is no time nor energy inside a black hole. A black hole is completely kinetic energy. No radiation in and of itself. Nothing can get out.

You say that superluminal jet action occurs when 2 black holes are spinning around each other.  As I have understood the subject, superluminal jets from a black hole are thought to occur when a black hole encounters any large body of mass that becomes trapped within its gravitational field and is consumed.

That is also acceptable if the mass is large enough and is spinning around the BH.

There are theories as to how the superluminal jet actions occur, mostly taking the school of thought that some, or maybe all, of the mass of the consumed object is thrown back out into space without entering the event horizon.  I have yet to read an explanation as to the mechanics of how a star can be transformed into jets of particles by having a close encounter with a black hole.
(My model has a theory)

  No mass is thrown out.

However, in that clumps of mass can be reduced to particle, or energy, form as such by the black hole phenomenon, this is a plus for a steady state balance between the inherent trend to clumping, giving mechanism for the required anti-clumping mechanics to achieve a balanced steady state.

There is no real steady state of course. Mass will be created until time energy of the universe is used up. Motion in the universe will stop unless there is a reversal in BH formation. Radiation is not the answer to kinetic matter (a black hole) where there are no electron motion.

My cyclic model simply places all the above in a contracting scenario where all mass will eventually clump into one singularity, and the mechanism for a Big Bang is that there will be no equivalent gravitational force acting upon this singular black hole.  It will empty all of the mass of the universe via superluminal jets until its own extinction, leaving a sea of particles to then very slowly develop into clumps.

Unfortunately when energy in the universe is gone gravity will be gone also.

*

When you ask "What is it that dilates space?"

In my model it is the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M that is responsible for dilating space at h from M, and reciprocally - also contracting space as h reduces closer to M, (where h is height).

Fundamental time energy c is what is dilating. When mass reaches the speed of light attraction in a sun the dilation of energy can no longer keep protons and neutrons apart. So they funnel into the space energy once occupied. All energy is removed and a BH is created. A proton and electron in normal space occupies space in the ratio of a marble to the electrons cycle distance to a football field. A BH is the football field full of marbles. Our suns mass as a BH is about 1.6 to 1.8 miles in diameter.

[timey (OP)]

That is an interesting perspective on events, but have you read this:

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

Because this is the type of radiation that Penrose's is discussing in his book "Cycles of Time".

I have indeed read Stephen Hawking's book "A brief moment in Time", where he speaks in length about the black hole phenomenon.

I'm not sure that you are thinking of superluminal jet action as the same phenomenon that I am.

Please see:

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/jpl/pia20027/infrared-echoes-of-a-black-hole-eating-a-star

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/07/06/health/black-hole-star-radio-telescope/index.html?client=safari

*

I don't see why you would view a sea of particles as being devoid of energy.
...and, by adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation to open space in relation to M, and stating GR gravitational time dilation as an m in relation to M phenomenon experienced only by m - my model's black holes are the 'most' energetic places in the universe where, completely contrary to GR, time is running much faster than any other place in the universe.  This then solving the conservation of energy anomaly concerning black holes, and causing this now altered remit of GR to 'not' mathematically break down inside of the black hole, as current GR does.

[timey (OP)]

Distant objects are generally observed to have large redshifts, so either they are moving away from us or the gravitational field outside the observable universe is stronger than inside, which would, of course, make the distant objects accelerate away from us!

There is indeed an inherent flaw in this school of thought...
It can only really be mechanically viable if:
a) our observation point is exactly in the centre of the universe.
Otherwise more centrally located galaxy clusters, that are larger than our cluster, and therefore 'more' gravitationally attracted towards this greater gravitational force outside the universe, would be observed as blue shifting towards us as the bigger galaxy cluster closed distance on us.

b) our galaxy cluster is not moving through space at-all.
Because firstly we observe red shifts in every direction, and also we would see evidence of galaxy clusters that are smaller than our own being blue shifted as we close distance on them, as we will be more gravitationally attracted towards the outside of the universe than they.

c) all masses of the universe are in inertial free fall towards a greater mass that entirely and uniformly surrounds outside the universe.  Therefore everything is accelerating uniformly away from our presumed central point.
This does actually work as a concept, but requires that one view the universe, to analogise: as being contained in something akin to a pocket that a gas bubble left behind in a pumice stone.  I like this idea a lot but it does beg one to initially wonder, before addressing what a 'pocket in a pumice stone' might involve, why it is that all of the mass of our universe started out in the middle of the pocket, and if our galaxy cluster is also in free fall, which direction outwards is it free falling towards?

This concept clearly raises far more questions than it answers, which is most probably why Guth's inflationary model prevails, and GR requires dark energy to expand space between galaxy clusters in all directions

My model of the universe is comprised only of observable phenomenon.  It unites all observed phenomenon and provides a complete picture of a mechanically viable system.
(That is 'if' my proposed alterations are, albeit for different reasons, proportional to current model)

[timey (OP)]

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...

But conventional GR time dilation is exactly correlated with the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration, with no requirement for any additional corrections.

But it is indeed because conventional GR time dilation is exactly correlated with the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration that it is actually possible to attribute this acceleration to a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, where GR gravitational time dilation is then an m near M phenomenon for m, where any motion of m at h from M is affected by the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M.
Thus giving the phenomenon of the acceleration of gravity a physical cause... a phenomenon which neither conventional GR itself, nor GR gravitational time dilation can give physical cause for!
(note: m in relative motion will also be subject to SR time dilation and my model uses all 3 time dilations to describe m in motion in a non uniform gravity field)

[timey (OP)]

Now I'm going to show:

a) How a contra directional gravitational time dilation picture of open space in relation to M works with regards to light waves. (relativistic mass being redundant in my model)

b) How a contra directional gravitational time dilation picture works when adding GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M.

c) How m in motion in a non uniform gravity field is affected by SR within this picture of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M, when superimposed into the picture of a contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M.

Back soon...

[timey (OP)]

Ok - before I start, I think it relevant to mention that when one considers this addition of a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, that one may view this addition as a means of describing an aether type scenario that all mass is moving through...

This, you will find, is entirely synonymous to the current GR remit of mass affecting the properties of space, and space affecting the motion of mass.

[timey (OP)]

To create a picture of this contra directional gravitational time dilation and how it affects light waves:

In part 1 of this thought experiment we are going to be picturing cars moving at a constant speed, making marks on a track lane at a rate per second.
Each lane will be inherent with a different length of second that is represented by the time period between a start and stop light in that lane, this time period being 10 x seconds of the length of second inherent to that lane.
Each lane will have its own associated car that makes 10 marks per second that is the length of a second inherent to that lane.
All cars will travel at the same constant speed in all lanes.

We will be measuring
a) How many marks will be made in the observed lane, when measured via the length of second of the observation lane.
b) How much distance will appear to occur between the marks in the observed lane, when measured via the length of second of the observation lane

I'm going to use 0 as a number.  This will become useful in part 2 of the thought experiment.

In lane 0 - the length of second is a standard second, and there are 10 x a standard second in the time period between start and stop light in lane 0.  The lane 0 p car is making 10 marks per standard second, and these marks, when measured via a lane 0 second, are 1 metre apart in distance.
(p for 'photon' to distinguish from the lane 0 'mass' car in part 2 of the thought experiment),

In lane 1 - the length of second is 10% longer than a standard second.  There are 10 x '10% longer than a standard second' seconds in the time period between start and stop light in lane 1.
The lane 1 p car is making 10 marks per a second that is 10% longer than a standard second, and the distance between these marks, when measured via a lane 1 second, is 1 metre.

In lane 2 - the length of second is 20% longer than a standard second and there are 10 x '20% longer than a standard second' seconds in the time period between start and stop light in lane 2.
The lane 2 p car is making 10 marks per a second that is 20% longer than a standard second, and the distance between these marks, when measured via a lane 2 second, is 1 metre.

When measuring what the lane 1 p car appears to be doing from lane 0 - lane 0 will observe the lane 1 p car make 90 marks that are a distance of 1.111 metres apart.

When measuring what the lane 2 p car appears to be doing from lane 0 - lane 0 will observe the lane 2 p car making 80 marks that are a distance of 1.25 metres apart.

If we continue this scenario:
A lane 3 p car will make 70 marks at a distance of 1.428 metres apart.
A lane 4 p car will make 60 marks at a distance of 1.666 metres apart.
A lane 5 p car will make 50 marks at a distance of 2 metres apart.
A lane 6 p car will make 40 marks at a distance of 2.5 metres apart.
A lane 7 p car will make 30 marks at a distance of 3.333 metres apart
A lane 8 p car will make 20 marks at a distance of 5 metres apart
A lane 9 p car will make 10 marks at a distance of 10 metres apart.
A lane 10 p car will make 0 marks at 100 metres apart.

Now we can split our lanes into sub- lanes where each lane is now split into 10 sub-lanes, in which the length of a second is becoming longer by 1% per sub-lane instead of 10% per lane.
So... Starting from a base of a standard second, lane 0(sub 1) is a second that is 1% longer than a standard second, and lane 0(sub 2) is a second that is 2% longer than a standard second.
This way, as the lane numbers that are inclusive of these these sub lanes escalate, we have a linear increase in the length of second relative to the length of the standard second in lane 0(sub0).

(As well as the sub-lanes having a length of 100 metres, it would be possible to give a sub-lane a width that could be proportional to actual observation.  I'm not such of a mathematician that I can accurately work out at what h from M a 1% increase in a length of a second would occur, but it's the same h from M that a 1% decrease in the length of a second occurs under current GR remit.)

Now we will travel our lane 0 p car across the width of these sub-lanes from 0 to 10 at constant speed, but we will reset the car to make marks as per the length of the second of the sub-lane it is crossing as it crosses it.

What we are looking at now is marks that are being made at a slightly longer distance apart as the car travels across each sub-lane, and that these distance increases between the marks will be linear.

This is a description of how my model travels light through the non uniform gravity fields of open space in relation to M.

State the constant speed as being the speed of light, where the car makes marks at 299 792 458 marks per variable second - and from the perspective of a standard second, the sub-lanes of lane 0 through to lane 10 are describing redshift.
Reciprocally, the sub-lanes of lane 10 through to lane 0 are describing blue shift.
(Clearly this is an analogised description, using crude maths that are many orders too large)

I will add my model's interpretation of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M, and how this fits into the contra directional gravitational time dilation picture outlined above in part 2 of the thought experiment next post.

[GoC]

I don't see why you would view a sea of particles as being devoid of energy.

Mass and energy are two separate conditions. Mass has nothing but kinetic energy while energy is the motion of c. The motion of c gives electrons flow in what we call the electron cloud. While we cannot measure the speed and position we can postulate the electron motion is c (angular forward momentum) forced by space time energy (Or dark mass energy if you like).

So Black Holes have no space time energy inside same as electrons have no space energy inside. You are confusing gravity greater than the speed of light attraction to other mass as energy and it is not. Actually there is no kinetic energy with a BH. It just eats the other mass by consuming. There is no time in a BH it is a uniform gravity particle similar to an electron except in size of course. We measure time with the distance the electron moves in our frame as to the cycle time. Cycle times vary by distance due to differences in dilation with GR. Extra linear distance through space has to be added to cycle time of the electron. So it becomes a ratio with c.   

...and, by adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation to open space in relation to M, and stating GR gravitational time dilation as an m in relation to M phenomenon experienced only by m - my model's black holes are the 'most' energetic places in the universe where, completely contrary to GR, time is running much faster than any other place in the universe.

We can follow relativity right up to a BH. Mass reduces cycle time of the electron so the event horizon would suck in the electron with no cycle time. No cycle time no energy. The dilation of energy would be to the point normal mass could not exist as an element. The BH being an electron in another fractal universe. If you were sitting on an electron as a planet could you view the Earth?

It is not the gravity field that has the slowest tick rate in a clock. Considering the earth the slowest tick rate would be found in the center of the earth where attraction of gravity does not exist in the exact gravitational center. A BH does not have a gradient to the center like normal mass. A BH is completely separate from time energy ratio to c which follows relativity. BH's interior does not follow relativity. Energy dilation which cause an attraction greater than the speed of light cannot keep normal atoms apart and they accumulate side by side. The ratio of normal mass in space is a marble to a football field. A BH is a football field full of marbles. All the mass of our sun would contract to ~ +/- 1.7 miles in diameter.

There is an aura to all mass where the threshold of dilation changes. The inverse square of the distance within the planet's mass and then the entire planet to another celestial body inverse square of the distance by the entire planet. That would be a different attraction of size where the dilation between points in space is much less then in the connected mass. Follow the energy c in relativity for a better perspective.

[timey (OP)]

Thank you GoC.
I have read Einstein's own papers on GR, and SR as well as at least 5 different books by prominent physicists dedicated to the subject, while the dozens of other physics books I've read also make perfectly adequate description.  The Susskind lectures on GR are also very informative.

Yes it is a well known fact that GR breaks down in a black hole directly because of the supposed lack of energy and time associated with a black hole under the remit of GR.
(Which is why my model is 'purposefully' different and replaces dark energy with the contra directional gravitational time dilation that my model then attributes as the physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.)

If I wanted a lesson in Relativity, I would have asked for one.
What I'm asking for is some help to create mathematical notation for the 'alternative' maths I am laying out in the thought experiment my posts are outlining.  These maths being for this description of an 'alternative' cyclic model, posted here in New Theories...
(ie: Please 'do' expect this model to differ from GR, rather than be expecting to apply a conventional Relativity remit to its proposed dimensions)

If you do actually care to continue discussing the phenomenon of superluminal jets and the phenomenon of Hawking's radiation, as per the links I provided in post 25, and explore the possibilities of a balanced steady state versus an unbalanced cyclic model as I am describing, and this alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation that I put forward, or any other alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, I'd be delighted!

[timey (OP)]

To create a picture of this contra directional gravitational time dilation and how it affects light waves:

In part 1 of this thought experiment we are going to be picturing cars moving at a constant speed, making marks on a track lane at a rate per second.
Each lane will be inherent with a different length of second that is represented by the time period between a start and stop light in that lane, this time period being 10 x seconds of the length of second inherent to that lane.
Each lane will have its own associated car that makes 10 marks per second that is the length of a second inherent to that lane.
All cars will travel at the same constant speed in all lanes.

We will be measuring
a) How many marks will be made in the observed lane, when measured via the length of second of the observation lane.
b) How much distance will appear to occur between the marks in the observed lane, when measured via the length of second of the observation lane

I'm going to use 0 as a number as it will prove useful within the thought experiment.

In lane 0 - the length of second is a standard second, and there are 10 x a standard second in the time period between start and stop light in lane 0.  The lane 0 p car is making 10 marks per standard second, and these marks, when measured via a lane 0 second, are 1 metre apart in distance.
(p for 'photon' to distinguish from the lane 0 'mass' car in part 2 of the thought experiment),

In lane 1 - the length of second is 10% longer than a standard second.  There are 10 x '10% longer than a standard second' seconds in the time period between start and stop light in lane 1.
The lane 1 p car is making 10 marks per a second that is 10% longer than a standard second, and the distance between these marks, when measured via a lane 1 second, is 1 metre.

In lane 2 - the length of second is 20% longer than a standard second and there are 10 x '20% longer than a standard second' seconds in the time period between start and stop light in lane 2.
The lane 2 p car is making 10 marks per a second that is 20% longer than a standard second, and the distance between these marks, when measured via a lane 2 second, is 1 metre.

When measuring what the lane 1 p car appears to be doing from lane 0 - lane 0 will observe the lane 1 p car make 90 marks that are a distance of 1.111 metres apart.

When measuring what the lane 2 p car appears to be doing from lane 0 - lane 0 will observe the lane 2 p car making 80 marks that are a distance of 1.25 metres apart.

If we continue this scenario:
A lane 3 p car will make 70 marks at a distance of 1.428 metres apart.
A lane 4 p car will make 60 marks at a distance of 1.666 metres apart.
A lane 5 p car will make 50 marks at a distance of 2 metres apart.
A lane 6 p car will make 40 marks at a distance of 2.5 metres apart.
A lane 7 p car will make 30 marks at a distance of 3.333 metres apart
A lane 8 p car will make 20 marks at a distance of 5 metres apart
A lane 9 p car will make 10 marks at a distance of 10 metres apart.
A lane 10 p car will make 0 marks at 100 metres apart.

Now we can split our lanes into sub- lanes where each lane is now split into 10 sub-lanes, in which the length of a second is becoming longer by 1% per sub-lane instead of 10% per lane.
So... Starting from a base of a standard second, lane 0(sub 1) is a second that is 1% longer than a standard second, and lane 0(sub 2) is a second that is 2% longer than a standard second.
This way, as the lane numbers that are inclusive of these these sub lanes escalate, we have a linear increase in the length of second relative to the length of the standard second in lane 0(sub0).

(As well as the sub-lanes having a length of 100 metres, it would be possible to give a sub-lane a width that could be proportional to actual observation.  I'm not such of a mathematician that I can accurately work out at what h from M a 1% increase in a length of a second would occur, but it's the same h from M that a 1% decrease in the length of a second occurs under current GR remit.)

Now we will travel our lane 0 p car across the width of these sub-lanes from 0 to 10 at constant speed, but we will reset the car to make marks as per the length of the second of the sub-lane it is crossing as it crosses it.

What we are looking at now is marks that are being made at a slightly longer distance apart as the car travels across each sub-lane, and that these distance increases between the marks will be linear.

This is a description of how my model travels light through the non uniform gravity fields of open space in relation to M.

State the constant speed as being the speed of light, where the car makes marks at 299 792 458 marks per variable second - and from the perspective of a standard second, the sub-lanes of lane 0 through to lane 10 are describing redshift.
Reciprocally, the sub-lanes of lane 10 through to lane 0 are describing blue shift.
(Clearly this is an analogised description, using crude maths that are many orders too large)

I will add my model's interpretation of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M, and how this fits into the contra directional gravitational time dilation picture outlined above in part 2 of the thought experiment next post.

To add GR gravitational time dilation to the contra directional gravitational time dilation picture outlined above:

In part 2 of this thought experiment we will be considering cars moving in lanes as per in part 1, but we will be introducing the lane 'm' (for mass) car that will be experiencing a decreased length of second as the lane numbers escalate.
The decrease of the decreased length of second is equal in proportion to the increase of the increased length of second inherent to the lane of that escalated number.

In lane 0, both the lane and the lane 0 m car are using a standard second, as in part 1 of the thought experiment,

Lane 1 is inherent with a 10% longer second than a standard second, and the lane 1 m car is making x 10 marks per second that is a 10% shorter second than a standard second.

Lane 2 is inherent with a 20% longer second than a standard second, and the lane 2 m car is making x 10 marks per second that is a 20% shorter second than a standard second

Lane 3, etc...

Looking at how a lane 1 m car will appear to an observer in lane 0, the lane 1 m car will, according to the rate the car is making marks at, be making 110 marks that are a distance of 0.909 metres apart...

If we continue the scenario:
Lane 2 m car will be making 120 marks, that are a distance of 0.883 metres apart.
Lane 3 m car will be making 130 marks, that are a distance of 0.769 apart.
Lane 4 m car will be making 140 marks, that are a distance of 0.714 metres apart.
Lane 5 m car will be making 150 marks, that are a distance of 0.666 metres apart.
Lane 6 m car will be making 160 marks, that are a distance of 0.625 apart.
Lane 7 m car will be making 170 marks, that are a distance of 0.588 metres apart
Lane 8 m car will be making 180 marks, that are a distance of 0.555 apart
Lane 9 m car will be making 190 marks, that are 0.526 apart
Lane 10 m car will be making 200 marks at a distance of 0.5 metres apart.

... But the lane m cars will also be moving through the contra directional time dilation of the lanes which are inherent with longer seconds relative to lane 0's standard second.

(Here we may allude back to the remit of current physics.  If lane 0 and the lane m cars do not realise that there is a contra directional gravitational time dilation that causes the cars to take that much extra time to cover a distance, then lane 0, and the lane m cars might be forgiven for believing that the length of a metre in space is a variable)

But within this contra directional gravitational time dilation picture, a metre 'should' remain a constant, as it is the length of the second in open space relative to M that is getting longer.

By overlaying the maths of the lane p cars on top of the maths of the lane m cars we can build the picture:

From the observation point of lane 0, via the remit of the standard second that is inherent to lane 0...

A lane 1 p car will make 90 marks at 1.111 metres apart.
A lane 1 m car will make 110 marks at 0.909 metres apart.
By adding 100/90 + 100/110 = 2.020/2 journeys = 1.010 metres

A lane 2 p car will make 80 marks at 1.25 metres apart.
A lane 2 m car will make 120 marks at  0.833 metres apart.
By adding 100/80 + 100/120 = 2.083/2 journeys = 1.041 metres.

A lane 3 p car will make 70 marks that are 1.42 metres apart.
A lane 3 m car will make 130 marks that are 0.769 metres apart
By adding 100/70 + 100/130 = 2.197/2 journeys = 1.098 metres

A lane 4 p car makes 60 marks at 1.666 metres apart.
A lane 4 m car makes 140 marks at 0.714 metres apart.
By adding 100/60 + 100/140 = 2.38/2 journeys = 1.190 metres

A lane 5 p car will make 50 marks that are 2 metres apart.
A lane 5 m car will make 150 marks that are 0.666 metres apart.
By adding 100/50 + 100/150 = 2.666/2 journeys = 1.333 metres

A lane 6 p car will make 40 marks that are 2.5 metres apart.
A lane 6 m car will make 160 marks that are 0.625 metres apart.
By adding 100/40 + 100/160 = 3.125/2 journeys = 1.562 metres.

A lane 7 p car will make 30 marks that are 3.333 metres apart.
A lane 7 m car will make 170 marks that are 0.588 metres apart.
By adding 100/30 + 100/170 = 3.921/2 journeys = 1.960

A lane 8 p car will be making 20 marks that are 5 metres apart.
A lane 8 m car will be making 180 marks that are 0.555 metres apart.
By adding 100/20 + 100/180 = 5.555/2 journeys = 2.777 metres.

A lane 9 p car is making 10 marks that are 10 marks that are 10 metres apart.
A lane 9 m car is making 190 marks that are 0.526 metres apart.
By adding 100/10 + 100/190 = 10.926/2 journeys = 5.263 metres

A lane 10 p car is making 0 marks at 100 metres apart.
A lane 10 m car is making 200 marks that are 2 metres apart.
By adding 100/0 + 100/200 = 100.5/2 journeys = 50.25 metres.

What becomes apparent is that a lane m car, travelling at constant speed, is travelling a distance that is longer than the speed its travelling at allows for, when measuring a speed as per metres per standard second.
The 2 time dilations in conjunction with each other are causing the lane m car to cover more distance than it would, at that speed in lane 0.

(We can now allude back to current physics remit...
Let's explore the notion that perhaps lane 0 and the lane m cars, as well as not being aware that the length of a second is getting longer relative to the standard second as the lane numbers escalate, are also unaware of the fact that the lane m cars themselves are experiencing seconds that are getting an amount that is 'equal in value' shorter as lane numbers escalate.
Perhaps current physics is looking at the maths as per the the results of the combination of these 2 time dilations occurring in relation to each other...)

Looking at the results of the combination, by deducting the value of 1 metre, which is the true distance that the car is making marks at, we can see that:
Lane 1:  1.010-1 = 0.010
Lane 2:  1.041-1 = 0.041
Lane 3:  1.098-1 = 0.098
Lane 4:  1.190-1 = 0.190
Lane 5:  1.333-1 = 0.333
Lane 6:  1.562-1 = 0.562
Lane 7:  1.960-1 = 0.960
Lane 8:  2.777-1 = 1.777
Lane 9:  5.263-1 = 4.263
Lane 10: 50.25-1 = 49.25

Again - by splitting the lanes into being comprised of 10 sub-lanes each (we could split then into 100 sub-lanes, or 1000 sun-lanes), we can observe a more linear increase in these distances.
Again - it would be possible to give these sub-lanes a width and travel a lane m car across these sub lanes from 1 through to 10, or 10 through to 1.

Taking these distances and subjecting them to the speed distance time formula, where the speed is our constant of 10 metres per standard second, we can obtain a time period from this 'extra' distance which we 'may' then attribute to time running faster at h from M, and that more distance is covered by the lane m cars in the lanes, as the lane numbers escalate, because more distance will be covered in the quicker time...
Please note that my model anticipates that this value of difference, (according to a lane 0 observation), between the distances travelled in the escalating lane numbers will be inclusive of both the current GR and SR considerations.

However, my model places this value of increase in the distance travelled in these escalating lane numbers, (according to a lane 0 observation), as being due to the combination of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M,  when travelling through the contra directional time dilation of open space in relation to M.
And the effects of SR time dilation complete the picture.

I will add SR to the picture in part 3 of the thought experiment next post...

[timey (OP)]

To add SR to this picture of a combination of my model's addition of a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, and my model's interpretation of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M:

In part 3 of this thought experiment we are going to be observing the lane 1 m car from the observation point of lane 0 via the standard second of lane 0.
In part 2 of the thought experiment we considered that:

"A lane 1 p car will make 90 marks at 1.111 metres apart.
A lane 1 m car will make 110 marks at 0.909 metres apart.
By adding 100/90 + 100/110 = 2.020/2 journeys = 1.010 metres"

In this consideration I was using a rate or 'speed' of 10 marks per variable seconds...
If I were to state the speed as 20 marks per second that are 1 metre apart, will we get different results?

In lane 0, both the lane 0 p car and the lane 0 m car will be making 20 marks per standard second, within a 10 standard second time period.

In lane 1, the lane 1 p car is making 20 marks per second that is 10% longer than a standard second.
In lane 1, the lane 1 m car will be making 20 marks per second that is 10% shorter than a standard second.

From the observation of lane 0, via the lane 0 standard second, within the time period of 10 x lane 0 standard seconds:
The lane 1 p car will be observed as making 180 marks that are 1.111 metres apart.
The lane 1 m car will be observed as making 220 marks that are 0.909 metres apart.
By adding 200/180 + 200/220 = 2.020/2 journeys = 1.010

So we can see that the speed of the cars can be altered and that the maths will remain the same because they are the result of the variable length of seconds under this remit of these opposing directions of 2 separate gravitational time dilations.

Adding the sub-lanes, it is clear to see that a 1% increase in length of second, relative to the standard second of lane 0(sub0), for the lane 0(sub1) p car, and a 1% decrease in length of second, relative to the standard second of lane 0(sub0), for the lane 0(sub1) m car will result in the lane 0(sub1) m car appearing to travel 1.001 metres.
(I am aware this is a mathematically crude representation, and that if lane 2 is travelling metres that are 0.041 of a metre longer, then one cannot split the 0.010 of a metre traveled in lane 1, split them into 10 parts and then spread them evenly over 10 sub-lanes.)

Taking the 0.001 (or thereabouts) of a metre and the speed of 20 marks per standard second, we can establish the time period, and by associating this time period to the length of a standard second, this is by how much of a 'faster' time the lane 0(sub1) m car is travelling by in lane 0(sub1) relative to how it would travel in lane 0(sub0).
Not because time goes faster at that h from M, but because of the relationship between these opposing directions of two gravitational time dilations, one inherent to open space in relation to M, and the other due to an m in relation to M relationship, inherent to m...

But... before adding SR lets just for a moment consider the fact that this time period that we derived above for a distance of 0.001 metre could be just as indicative of a longer distance travelled due to a period of time that is longer than a standard second, (ie: it takes a longer time to cover the distance of a metre), as it is of a longer distance traveled in a period of time that is shorter than a standard second. (ie: a shorter second will more quickly cover the distance of a metre and within the remit of a standard second it will appear as if more distance than a metre has been covered)
Both will result in the same extra distance.

Now I will add SR:

We are now going to give the lane 1 m car a speed of 0.866c.  We don't need to bother with marks because we know that for reasons of either a longer period of time, or a shorter period of time, from the observation point in lane0, the lane 1 m car will be travelling 0.010 of a metre extra per metre, than a lane 0 m car would in lane 0 at same speed.

When considering a speed of 0.866c we must remember that this speed is indeed inherent to the standard second, and will cause a 50% time dilation of a standard second.
(SR is, far as I can tell, calculated purely via the remit of a standard second in current physics...)

Lane 1 is inherent with a second that is 10% longer than a standard second and 0.866 of the speed of light per lane 1 second becomes 0.7794c per standard second.
So - at a speed of 0.7794c per standard second in lane 1, there will be a lesser percentage of time dilation for the lane 1 m car in lane 1 than there will be for a lane 0 m car in lane 0.

We can see that as the lane numbers escalate, and the second of the lane number is lengthening by 10% per lane number, that a lane 0 m car that is travelling at 0.866c in lane 0, despite maintaining a constant 'speed' when travelling in lanes 1,2,3,etc... will be dropping 10% of its percentage of the speed of light per standard second as it travels through each lane.

Because in my model light is not subject to the GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M, and is only affected by the contra directional time dilation of open space in relation to M, we 'must' make these related reductions in the percentage of the speed of light that m is travelling at, where m is subject to this contra directional gravitational time dilation at h from M.

So - as the lane0 m car, travelling at 0.866c per standard second, moves through the escalating lane numbers, the SR time dilation of 50% is reducing as the seconds inherent to these lanes are getting longer.
And - as the lane 0 m car travels through the contra directional time dilation of open space in relation to M, combined with the GR gravitational time dilation of m in relation to M, (we will say) we see the length of a second reducing(?) at h from m.

By overlaying the dilated seconds of the SR considerations upon (what we will say is) the CONTRACTED seconds of the combination of the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M, with the GR gravitational time dilation of m in relation to M - can this actually match the values of observed phenomenon?

Because we observe that SR time dilation considerations outweigh GR gravitational time dilations at a certain radius of orbit from M, I think the answer to the question above is likely to be no...

So - by overlaying the dilated seconds of the SR considerations upon (what we will say is) the DILATED seconds of the combination of the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M, with the GR gravitational time dilation of m in relation to M - can this remit match the values of observed phenomenon?

[GoC]

Here is where you are very close but do not fully understand relativity. We can use just one lane and one road one atomic clock and one measuring stick. Now lets adjust the speed of light to 990 feet per second in the Earth's center. The surface of the earth's gravity is 495 feet per second attraction by gravity. We have a mark at every 99 feet by our measuring stick on a pole. There was a hole in the planet and we flew away to a position in space the furthest point from any galaxy. We measured the pole again with our measuring stick and found the same exact measurement and the speed of light remained 990 f/s. We know the clock was ticking slower in the center of the Earth. How does this make sense? Its actually very simple your measuring stick and pole shrinks by the same ratio because it is less dilated by the gamma factor in GR. Measurements in any GR frame are confounded physically with the speed of light measurement. The equivalence with SR is not in the acceleration at the surface but the inertial position in the center of gravity.

Now lets look at SR equivalency. Your on a ship with your clock and pole and reach a relative 495 f/s which is some how equal to the center of earth's surface acceleration but you maintain an inertial speed of 495 f/s relative. You measure the pole with your measuring stick and measure the speed of light again. All measurements are the same again on the pole and the speed of light is measured to be 990 f/s. How can this be when we know our clock has a slower tick rate relative to the resting rate. Once again it is simple. The visual length of our measuring stick and pole are affected by geometry of motion relative to the speed of light. The visual of SR and the physical in GR are equivalent by there inertial positions. Why? Ok I will explain. Light from the back of the pole moves forward to the front of the pole. While the pole was moving forward the light was catching up. The pole moved two lengths before the light reached the front. Now on the return trip the pole moved forward 2/3's of a pole length before the light reached the return point. The total in feet for the reflection of light was 2.66 feet. Now 0.33 feet of the pole moved without a reflection. So we adjust the reflected feet to 2.33. When we divide by two we get a reflected visual length of ~ 1.165 visual length vs. 1.0 at relative rest. While this ratio is accurate it is not the precise value. I avoided the more complicated math to just show a rough ratio. The visual distance on the pole by your measuring stick will be the same in each and every frame. So your measuring stick at half the speed of light will actually be ~1.14 rounded off from 1.13025. The vector velocity measures the universe with a 1.14 length and believes the universe has contracted. Since the light clock is also affected by the 1.14 vs.1.0 distance the tick rate is reduced. You measure a longer distance in a vacuum with the slower clock to measure the same speed of light. Any angle of orientation with the clock will give the same tick rate.

GR is physical dilation and SR is visual dilation. The geometry of space expands in the presence of mass and the reflection expands with vector velocity in SR, This is the equivalence.

Now we get to what moves the electron and photon to be confounded? There has to be an energy of space controlling a slower electron to create a faster photon. Unless we use logic in science we have nothing.

[timey (OP)]

Here is where you are very close but do not fully understand relativity.

Good Grief!

Is it not actually possibly to open a thread without this constant lament!
Millions of posts, in thousands of threads, in hundreds of forums!

Is there something the matter with you all?

There are literally dozens and dozens of books dedicated to the fact that NOBODY understands relativity.  We only understand that it works...
...And that if we invent a mechanism, that we dub 'dark energy', to push everything apart, and invent a mechanism, that we dub 'dark mass', to hold everything in, that the maths of Relativity works for most things, but has trouble with galaxies, and breaks down in black holes.
NOBODY understands the underlying mechanics of relativity.  The physical causes are lacking.

Get over it!  Move on...

Now lets adjust the speed of light to 990 feet per second

My model sets out to purposefully and intentionally retain the speed of light as a constant.  299 792 458 metres per second of the reference frame it is travelling through.  The seconds in each reference frame vary from each other (linearly in a reducing or increasing gravity field of open space), but the speed of light per metre in each reference frame is retained throughout.

Not only does this adhere to the equivalence principle, but it also renders distance as a constant, solving a whole host of other Relativity bug bears.

My model cannot be described with conventional Relativity.  I don't know why you are even discussing poles and measurements, etc...
Clearly by all logical reasoning it must be apparent to you that if someone has read even 1 book by a prominent and qualified physicist, that is 300 pages long dedicated to the subject of GR and SR, that this will have informed them far more sufficiently than you ever could in a matter of a few paragraphs on a forum!!!
I've read dozens of books, to the point of the new books just being repetitions of that which I already read.

Again I say - if you care to continue our discussion of superluminal jets, during which btw, it appeared as if you might be guilty of confusing superluminal jets with the phenomenon of gravity waves - I'd be delighted...

[GoC]

My model cannot be described with conventional Relativity.

Then you do not understand relativity completely. If you did you probably would not consider unconventional physics. Math, geometry and angles all coincide with observations. Change one puzzle piece and it fails. And yes I feel I have a QM process that causes Relativity. There is no rest frame. You can read a 1000 books on relativity and not understand it. Many understand it mathematically only. It's very difficult without a mechanical basis. Each level of understanding can lead you astray. It does not matter if a person has the correct physical nature of relativity. Very few could follow the process in their mind. Their are some basics that need to be understood that go against main stream subjective beliefs. c as a constant, electron motion and electron photon being confounded in every frame. These are the items being ignored by main streams standard model of space not having a medium. How can anyone understand relativity when this is what they are taught.

I got over myself along time ago and I am sorry for upsetting you. That was not my intension. I believe my process follows relativity mechanically but you are correct there is no proof even when all tests are in favor of relativity. There is no proof relativity is correct even when it follows math. Math is only a tool to prove a theory is incorrect.

The seconds in each reference frame vary from each other (linearly in a reducing or increasing gravity field of open space), but the speed of light per metre in each reference frame is retained throughout.

To be more accurate the speed of light is measured to be the same in every frame. Some meters are longer than others.

[timey (OP)]

Don't worry, the only thing that is upsetting me is that you are not continuing the discussion we 'were' having.  Because that conversation 'was' interesting.

You are in fact displaying exactly the type of phycology that Lee Smolin discusses in his book "The Trouble with Physics".
There is absolutely no reason why you should believe that I cannot understand the books I've read and formulate a new theory, any more than you should believe that you cannot understand what you read and formulate a new theory.

I've noted that you make alterations to the current remit yourself.  Do you see me jumping on this and telling you you do not understand relativity? Why would I?  It's clear that you are posting in New Theories, and alterations are what I would expect.

Yes - it is understood that in current physics the speed of light remains the same in all reference frames, and it is the length of a metre that dilated or contracts.

Can you now understand that in my model - the speed of light remains the same in all reference frames, the length of a metre remains constant, and it is the length of the second in the reference frame itself that is the variable.

It's a simple matter of a swap of a distance for a time.
This being how GR mathematics approaches the remit of the black hole, so really, I just don't see what the problem is!

[GoC]

A black hole does not follow relativity.

Can you now understand that in my model - the speed of light remains the same in all reference frames, the length of a metre remains constant, and it is the length of the second in the reference frame itself that is the variable.

If the speed of light is constant and the meter is constant the tick rate cannot change. If it did we would measure a different speed of light in different frames. This is not what we measure. Or am I missing some understanding?