[timey (OP)]

Why do you keep locking my thread Jeff?

Yes - that's right, the time dilation is the wrong way round, hence the name 'contra directional gravitational time dilation'.

The problem with QED is that it cannot be reconciled with gravity.

By adding this contra directional gravitational time dilation, my model can potentially unite the standard model with gravity for a continuum in quantum...

...As I have repeatedly been saying here at this site for rather a long time now.

[jeffreyH]

QED quod erat demonstrandum.

[GoC]

Can we demonstrate the BB?

[jeffreyH]

Not unless you know something I don't.

[timey (OP)]

Goc - yes, my model demonstrates the Big Bang.  Please look at my personal details 'Patreon' for a synopsis of my model that explains the procedure.  (I wish to stay 'on topic' here on this thread with the adding of SR to the picture my previous posts present, but if you wish for a more detailed explanation, I can open a new thread, let me know)

Jeff - can you please give reason for the locking of my threads?  You clearly are not reading the content and as far as I am concerned you are being abusive...  I have emailed Chris about the fact.

P.S.  Alan - you have asked intelligently oriented questions that I have answered.  I had been hoping that you would take the discussion further...

[alancalverd]

Multiple password problems now resolved. If you read my last post on the other thread you will see the problem with inverted time dlation.

[timey (OP)]

Multiple password problems now resolved. If you read my last post on the other thread you will see the problem with inverted time dlation.

Happy New Year to you Alan - yes the new site is having teething problems, but other than that it's clearly pretty cool!

This is the third 'My model of a cyclic universe' thread I've opened.  You didn't post on the second thread.  The last post you made was in the first thread, post 143 here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69032.125

...and I answered this post in post 144...

The thread has been closed for reason that I dispute, but have no wish to make public.  Thread 2 was also closed, hence thread 3, but has since been reopened.  Point of fact, I  am indeed hampered in addressing the situation by the PM function being disabled at mo.  I expect that once everyone has had time to get back to their usual routines that brains might kick in and clarity shall prevail.  But until such time, as you have the moderator tech, perhaps you might transfer post 143 and 144 to this thread that we may continue with continuity?

[alancalverd]

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.

Keep it simple and observational. 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! 

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.

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.

I consider quantum physics and gravitation as two mathematical models of what happens in the universe. The fact that neither is complete to the extent of predicting the other is of no consequence because experimentally there is no phenomenon that is not entirely predicted by one or other.

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?

keep it simple. You can describe motion as a vector and a gravitational field as a vector. And of course there is a third choice of motion along a gravitational equipotential. Or just say dV/dx can be positive, negative or zero. The nice thing about that is the way that both red shift and acceleration can be precisely calculated from dV/dx without invoking any new physics.

[timey (OP)]

Yes - distant objects are observed to have larger red shifts.  The more distant the object the larger the red shift.  As was addressed in the early posts of 'my model of a cyclic universe' thread 1, it is only the fact of Hubble's velocity related  interpretation of red shift observation that supports an expanding universe.

My model's interpretation of red shift observation supports a contracting universe, and this contracting universe can be described by General Relativity.

As I keep pointing out, General Relativity with respect to an expanding universe requires dark energy and dark mass to achieve the required symmetry....  My contracting model does not require these additions to achieve the required symmetry.  All it requires is an alternative interpretation of red shift observation, and an addition to the equivalence principle stating that the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time, both additions of which in conjunction with SR effects rendering relativistic mass as redundant...
The nice thing about my model is that it makes all the description that GR can, and more, without invoking mathematical necessities such as dark energy and dark matter to support its predictions.

You may be satisfied with juggling between 2 theories that cannot be united and require additions that are not physically observed, but all of the physicists who's works I have read are not.  It is their view that a unifying theory exists, and a hell of a lot of money is thrown into various highly expensive projects that are seeking experimental evidence to either support the current theories or disprove them.

You say that there is no phenomenon that is not predicted by either GR or quantum, but neither can predict what will occur in the distant future to any precision, nor give explanation for the mechanics of the Big Bang, or inflation period.
My model can!

Yes - conventional GR gravitational time dilation is directly correlated with gravitational acceleration, and because this is so, and the suggested contra directional gravitational time dilation is equal to the GR gravitational time dilation, only negative... either scenario can be used to explain the same effect - except that my model's description gives the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration an actual physical cause, rather than the description just being a mathematical tool.

In thread 2, 'My model of a cyclic universe continued', I am superimposing GR gravitational time dilation into the contra directional gravitational time dilation picture...  Would you care to comment before I add in SR?

[alancalverd]

The classical velocity component of red shift is independently demonstrable in the laboratory (and indeed on the road - Doppler radar!) , as is the gravitational component. If time ran faster close to a large mass, the Pound-Rebka experiment would yield  the opposite answer. The SR component of time dilation has been measured by the Haefle-Keating experiment to be entirely consistent with conventonal SR predictions.

Yes - conventional GR gravitational time dilation is directly correlated with gravitational acceleration, and because this is so, and the suggested contra directional gravitational time dilation is equal to the GR gravitational time dilation, only negative... either scenario can be used to explain the same effect - except that my model's description gives the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration an actual physical cause, rather than the description just being a mathematical tool.

nal time dilation picture...  Would you care to comment before I add in SR?

What we observe is that time runs slower close to a large mass, photons blue shift as they approach  a large mass, and small objects accelerate towards a large mass, all according to exactly the same equation, so there is no observation consistent with inverted time dilation.

[timey (OP)]

No it wouldn't give the opposite answer for the pound rebka, because in my model the gamma ray emitter, due to gravity potential energy, is emitting at higher energy at elevation, and the wave length of this higher energy gamma ray is compressed into shorter lengths as it gets closer to earth by shorter seconds. Blue shift...
...Different means of describing the same observation.

Time for m gets slower as it moves towards M, but for anything without rest m, like light and gravity, time gets quicker moving toward M.

Same calculation for alternative reasons.  If the maths that describe red shift and blueshift as per my model are proportional to the calculations that describe red shift and blueshift as per General Relativity, then where is the problem with the alternative reason?

Star suffering red shift velocity for 10 years:

Star is travelling at say 20 000 miles per hour x 24 x 3650

We have time period of 10 years and a speed, so we can work out the distance the star has traveled.  But hang on a minute because that speed is relative to a time period as well.  It is relative to an hour of standard time.  If the speed the star is supposed to be travelling at is not related to the standard second then the distance the star travelled in 10 years is uncertain.
So... Checking to see that the distance the star is supposed to have traveled away from us, at this speed per standard second over a 10 year period, is correct should be possible by equating the luminosity of the star compared to 10 years ago.  The distance will have reduced the luminosity of the star correlating to the inverse square law.

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

Ooops!  Observed luminosities are not matching up to the length of distance that red shift velocities suggest will have occurred over the 10 year period.
(I have posted this link umpteen times now, would you care to comment?)

So...  We have a time period of 10 years, as per a standard second, and a red shift velocity as per a standard second.  If we consider that the light itself is travelling through open space that is inherent with time that is slower than a standard second, then the light, travelling at 299 792 458 metre per second where seconds are longer than a standard second, will take longer to reach us...
In fact the star might not be moving away from us at-all under this remit.

By equating luminosity of star in relation to distance, and applying that distance to red shift observation, it can be worked out by how much the slower time inherent to that distance has slowed the lights progress across space, and by subtracting this new distance from the old distance and calculating the remainder via the speed distance time formula using the speed of light as per standard second, this will give you a period of time.  This period of time is the degree by which the light has been slowed in its transit from the star to observation point.  Transposing this extra time back into a velocity should give the same value as the red shift velocity interpretation, and if one were to draw a straight line of the shorter distance and then draw the longer distance over the shorter distance so that the ends of the lines are touching and the longer distance makes a curve over the shorter distance, like a "D" rotated left, this is an example of curved space time, where it is the slower time in space that causes the curvature of space.
The value of this curve should match gravitational acceleration for both light and mass.
(which is what my diagram that I sent you year before last is describing)

[GoC]

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

Alan
This is not exactly accurate. Acceleration has nothing to do with time dilation and there is only a correlation to the same GR
frame. After acceleration from point A to B the inertial speed has a slower tick rate. Accelerate again to a different inertial speed and
the tick rate is even slower. So we have to know the beginning tick rate to have a correlation. When we decelerate once again
 we have gravity effects but our tick rate increases. So acceleration and deceleration are not the cause of time dilation. A planet
is acceleration to the center where the center of a planet is the inertial equivalent to SR with the exact acceleration and distance
to an inertial speed. The SR acceleration being instantaneous and linearly reduced to the center radius. This would also have to
be in the planets orbit. The center of a planet is the same as inertial speed in space.

Same calculation for alternative reasons.  If the maths that describe red shift and blueshift as per my model are proportional
 to the calculations that describe red shift and blueshift as per General Relativity, then where is the problem with the alternative
reason?

Timey

First you have to prove there is a correlation with a BB. I agree current science uses SR red shift only while GR red shift plays
a very large part. So how is your theory any different from steady state? The 13.6 billion years attributed to the Universe is a
 ridiculously short amount of time when you consider BH's as large as 37,200 AU. Our sun as a BH would stretch about 1.8 miles.
Each AU being 92 million miles? When Andromeda BH 25 million miles reaches the Milky ways 4 million mile BH in 4 billion years
we have 29 million mile BH. Looking at the math 13.6 billion years of existence is a drop in the bucket. Try looking at the big picture
rather than trying to build a theory on a theory that is physically impossible.

All mass has an aura. The earth, the sun and the galaxy all have one. What is that aura we call lensing of a galaxy?
I would suggest it is the accumulated dilation of the mass in the galaxy. This being the case 75% of the light from a galaxy
comes from 25% of the center where dilation would be the greatest production of red shifted light. Our position in our galaxy
is 75% out from the center way less dilated position where our clocks would tick faster and our detectors in less dilated space.
Naturally we would view the entire universe of galaxies as red shifted by position similar to the pound-Rebka results for
a gravity well.
What about red shift increasing with distance? AT&T uses shorter wavelengths that penetrate building better while Verizon used
longer wavelengths that traveled further. We may be losing the shorter wavelengths inside of galaxies that light is traveling past.
The longer wavelengths may rotate around galaxies more efficiently. This would increase red shift with distance.

So what is the point of a theory based on a theory that will eventually die? Einstein's steady state may yet prevail.

[alancalverd]

From SciNews

To do that, the astrophysicists had to link the distance to the galaxies with their redshift. They hypothesized that the distance is proportional to the redshift at all distances, as is well verified to be the case in the nearby Universe.

They checked this relation between redshift and distance with the data on supernova brightness that has been used to measure the hypothesized accelerated expansion of the Universe.

“It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy,” said study co-author Dr Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy.

This is surely consistent with the notion that there is more material outside the observable universe than inside, so the interstellar field adds to the source field at long distances, and increases the effective red shift  of distant objects of any given mass.

[timey (OP)]

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

Alan
This is not exactly accurate. Acceleration has nothing to do with time dilation and there is only a correlation to the same GR
frame. After acceleration from point A to B the inertial speed has a slower tick rate. Accelerate again to a different inertial speed and
the tick rate is even slower. So we have to know the beginning tick rate to have a correlation. When we decelerate once again
 we have gravity effects but our tick rate increases. So acceleration and deceleration are not the cause of time dilation. A planet
is acceleration to the center where the center of a planet is the inertial equivalent to SR with the exact acceleration and distance
to an inertial speed. The SR acceleration being instantaneous and linearly reduced to the center radius. This would also have to
be in the planets orbit. The center of a planet is the same as inertial speed in space.

Same calculation for alternative reasons.  If the maths that describe red shift and blueshift as per my model are proportional
 to the calculations that describe red shift and blueshift as per General Relativity, then where is the problem with the alternative
reason?

Timey

First you have to prove there is a correlation with a BB. I agree current science uses SR red shift only while GR red shift plays
a very large part. So how is your theory any different from steady state? The 13.6 billion years attributed to the Universe is a
 ridiculously short amount of time when you consider BH's as large as 37,200 AU. Our sun as a BH would stretch about 1.8 miles.
Each AU being 92 million miles? When Andromeda BH 25 million miles reaches the Milky ways 4 million mile BH in 4 billion years
we have 29 million mile BH. Looking at the math 13.6 billion years of existence is a drop in the bucket. Try looking at the big picture
rather than trying to build a theory on a theory that is physically impossible.

All mass has an aura. The earth, the sun and the galaxy all have one. What is that aura we call lensing of a galaxy?
I would suggest it is the accumulated dilation of the mass in the galaxy. This being the case 75% of the light from a galaxy
comes from 25% of the center where dilation would be the greatest production of red shifted light. Our position in our galaxy
is 75% out from the center way less dilated position where our clocks would tick faster and our detectors in less dilated space.
Naturally we would view the entire universe of galaxies as red shifted by position similar to the pound-Rebka results for
a gravity well.
What about red shift increasing with distance? AT&T uses shorter wavelengths that penetrate building better while Verizon used
longer wavelengths that traveled further. We may be losing the shorter wavelengths inside of galaxies that light is traveling past.
The longer wavelengths may rotate around galaxies more efficiently. This would increase red shift with distance.

So what is the point of a theory based on a theory that will eventually die? Einstein's steady state may yet prevail.

GoC - It is interesting what you are saying to Akan because the GR field equations require SR to move light across space.  My model does not use SR to move light across space, it uses the contra directional gravitational time dilation only...
... Light is not subject to GR gravitational time dilation in my model.  Only m is subject to GR gravitational time dilation in my model...
Light is also not subject SR motion related time dilation in my model, only m and M are subject to SR.
The contra directional gravitational time dilation converges with the GR gravitational time dilation where open space meets M, and 'should' give physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.

Where I see a potential problem with this view is in looking at the rate of gravitational acceleration that the moon has, which is lesser than earth.  According to my model the moon is experiencing GR time dilation in an m in relation to M relationship with earth.  Time on the moon according to GR will be ticking at a rate that is faster than on earth.
So if the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space where to converge with GR gravitational time dilation where open space meets the M of the moon, then what would explain the physical cause of the lesser value of gravitational attraction observed near the moons surface?

I can see only 2 possibilities out of this conundrum to continue with the view my model presents.  One being that because the moon is that much of a lesser M than earth, that the inverse square law reduces at a greater rate per radius, causing a second to be greater in length at a lesser radius relative to the length of second found at the same radius from Earth...
And the other being that the moon will be experiencing greater SR effects than the earth, because it is moving faster than earth is through space.
I think a combination of both effects will make the view my model presents a possibility, but without being able to check the numbers mathematically, I cannot know for sure.

My model demonstrates the Big Bang like this:

Taking Einstein's GR, minus Hubble's red shift velocity interpretation, minus the retracted cosmological constant - we now have a universe that is contracting...
Immediately after my model's inflation period, (I'll get to that), the whole universe is comprised of an immense sea of particles spread more or less evenly across all of the distance that we can see and beyond in a more or less uniform gravity field.
Due to these slight anomalies particles start pulling together into clumps of mass, and as pockets of concentrations of gravity emerge, spaces that have been created by particles vacating as they clump emerge as weaker gravity fields surrounding the concentrations.

This evolves into what we see today as galaxy clusters.  Beyond today the matter will continue clumping until all that is left is a galaxy of black holes that will merge until there is only 1 black hole left.  Because there will be no equivalent gravitational force acting upon this singular black hole, it will explode via its super luminal jets and 'Everything' that is inside it will be expelled outwards in particle form at high energy until the black holes extinction, to form an immense sea of particles.

My model looks at the possibility that virtual particles being formed in this scattering process are being propelled from the fastest possible rate of time, into a sea of particles that experiences a relatively slow rate of time compared to a standard second, and that virtual particles may have 'the time' in which to become real particles.  This adheres my cyclic model to the second law of thermodynamics in that each cycle of the universe gets bigger than the last.
My model also adheres black holes to the conservation of energy law.
According to my model the black holes of our present day that are supposed to throw matter across space via superluminal jets are miniature representations of a Big Bang.

(Please note that I have not added SR yet for m travelling across open space in relation to M.)

[GoC]

To do that, the astrophysicists had to link the distance to the galaxies with their redshift. They hypothesized that the
 distance is proportional to the redshift at all distances, as is well verified to be the case in the nearby Universe.

Astronomers in the past have viewed different size galaxies in the same group with different red shifts. The larger galaxy having
the greatest red shift. This view was challenged but never proven to be inaccurate. Different size galaxies would appear to be
 at the wrong distance from us in space if this is the case.

They checked this relation between redshift and distance with the data on supernova brightness that has been used to
measure the hypothesized accelerated expansion of the Universe.

If you are measuring the energy of a system using the spectrum all measurements should have the same offset affect used for
distance calculations. That is not truly an orthogonal method for distance testing.

If our understanding is based on our expectation we tend to only view results with a leaning towards what we expect. Like interstellar
conditions that cannot truly be verified as expanding.

Timey

   I do not have faith in the BB so discussions of interpreted results favoring one of expansion or contraction is lost on me.
I can discuss relativity relationships as I view them. Your little m to me is Dark Mass Energy. This moves electrons for my
way of understanding.
No matter what you say we can never get something from nothing which is counterintuitive when there is something.
I believe mechanics always apply so something is moving the electrons. It is unlikely a BB set the ground work to move
electrons. This would come from the bottom up not the top down. It is unlikely the universe is as small as our ability to
observe.

[timey (OP)]

GoC - I'm not sure what you mean by the BB setting the ground work for moving electrons.  My model puts forward the idea that gravitational attraction and gravitational acceleration may have a split value, where "attraction is implemented by the magnetic moment of an electron", (the text in inverted commas is not my own notion but one that I read about put forward John Faust) - and that the acceleration of this attraction is contra directional gravitational time dilation related.

I respect your preference not to discuss the Big Bang, although my model's rendition of the mechanics of the Big Bang differs entirely from the current view of a Big Bang.  My model traces cycles of smaller and smaller universes back to an initial microscopic universe that finds its beginnings in an fluctuation that my model also has trouble deriving out of nothing!  Of course I realise that the size of out universe currently is bigger than we are able to observe...
Given that a cyclic model must have a beginning, a middle, and most importantly an end that initiates a beginning, my model's rendition of the Big Bang process is necessary to perpetuate my model's mechanics...  So I guess we won't talk about my model...

I find it interesting that you equate my little m, which is m in relation to M, with dark energy.  My model states GR gravitational time as an m in relation to M time dilation phenomenon, where it is only m that experiences the GR time dilation, and replaces the concept of dark energy, that pushes the universe outwards, with a contra directional gravitational time dilation that m travels through, that draws masses towards each other in an M in relation to m time dilation relationship...

[timey (OP)]

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.

Keep it simple and observational. 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! 

Alan - I'm quite certain that you are capable of understanding that Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation is an interpretation, and not a proven phenomenon...

... And therefore the expansion of the universe of any description is not actually observed, but is in fact a mathematical consequence of Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation that describes an expanding universe, no less accelerating in this expansion - but the mechanics to describe a reason for this expansion as of yet elude current physics to this day.

My model is describing a universe that makes all of its development of clumping in a contraction period.

To be clear, this is an experimental model posted in New Theories.

As an experiment - By re-interpreting the red shift distance correlation as being due to a contra directional time dilation phenomenon associated with the gravity fields of open space in relation to M, (in addition to the time dilations of GR and SR)... this describes a contracting universe as per Einstein's GR, minus his cosmological constant that he retracted in light of Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, contrary to his previous steady state preconceptions.

It is in fact an entirely logical venture to experimentally calculate an alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation for a contracting universe...  But only if the values of the dimensions of the new interpretation are equal in proportion to the current interpretation, no matter if these values are given for different reasons.

The dimensions of the alternative interpretation that I suggest 'should' be equal in value to the current interpretation, just for an alternate reason.

If so - this would be interesting because the consequences of adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation then go on to solve every physics conundrum there is, from cause of Big Bang, to the cosmological constant anomaly, and the altered remit of GR will not break down in black holes.  Furthermore - the standard model 'should' be united as a continuum with gravity, whilst relying purely upon the standard model with no unobserved additions.

I cannot see why you do not seem able to progress past trying to interpret my model of a contracting cyclic universe via Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation...

By remit of logic - one is never going to be able to even consider my 'experimental' model of a cyclic universe, that makes all of its development in a contraction period, without disassociating from the concept of Hubble's velocity related interpretation and considering an alternative...
I covered this fact in the initial posts of my first thread of this title, here:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69032.0

(Btw, your site is still not functioning properly.  The 'recent posts' page is not updating all of the recent posts.  Many are missing.  And I'm not sure the PM function is working.  Messages send ok, but I think there may be a problem with the inbox.)

[timey (OP)]

The classical velocity component of red shift is independently demonstrable in the laboratory (and indeed on the road - Doppler radar!) , as is the gravitational component.

What we observe is that time runs slower close to a large mass, photons blue shift as they approach  a large mass, and small objects accelerate towards a large mass, all according to exactly the same equation, so there is no observation consistent with inverted time dilation.

Doppler radar - bounces radio waves off a moving target.  If the target is moving away or towards the radio wave source a change in the frequency of the radio wave can be observed when the radio wave is analysed after being bounced back to source.
Or - If the radio wave source is itself moving, then the radio wave beam can be directed at both the stationary backgrounds surrounding the moving target as it moves, as well as the target itself.  The difference in the frequency of the radio waves bounced back from the stationary background objects in relation to the frequency of the radio waves bounced back from the moving target, can then be equated to analyse the speed of the target object.

How does this calculation work?  What are the mechanics involved?
A radio wave that is compressed or dilated relative to the length of the radio wave at the source, by being bounced back off a target moving closer to or further away from the source, is translated into a distance that a speed can be derived from, via the speed distance time formula, by knowing how much 'time' it takes the speed of light to cover a distance.
Correct?

So - In the case of Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation - what are the mechanics of this calculation?
This isn't so obvious. We have to remember that unlike dealing with Doppler radar in a uniform gravity field, light shifts wavelength in a non uniform gravity field anyway, and also we have no fixed wavelength that is being bounced off the light source that we imagine is moving away from us.
Are we relying on Hubble's standard candle for a relative frequency?
Taking the length of the wave of the observed redshift in relation to the estimated distance of light source, and estimated frequency of light at source, a distance can be derived by calculating the difference, a speed can then be derived by knowing how much 'time' it takes for light to cover distance?
Is this correct?

My model's interpretation of the red shift distance correlation simply turns that 'speed' of Hubble's interpretation into a 'time' via the speed distance time formula - by knowing the length of the wavelength  of the red shift in relation to the length of wavelength estimated at source of light for a distance to calculating a time via the speed of light - and then states the light as travelling through a contra directional gravitational time dilation in the open space between light source and observation point, that causes the light to take that amount of 'time' longer to cover the estimated distance between light source and observation point.  This being because, (in my model), time is running at a slower rate in the weaker gravity fields of open space in relation to M.  (note: relativistic mass is then rendered redundant for both light and mass.)

(My model states this phenomenon of a contra directional gravitational time dilation as being observable as the physical cause of the acceleration of gravity.  Applied to quantum this contra directional time dilation 'should' cause the standard model to be united as a continuum with gravity)

Now we are looking at a model of the universe that has made all of its development in an incredibly slow contraction period, a contraction that has been slowly accelerating and will accelerate further as the contraction progresses.

As my model's universe further contracts, red shifts will further redshift, as is observed.  This being due to the gravity fields of open space between clusters of galaxies that are contracting into each other, over time, becoming weaker as the matter further clumps.

Again - this is an experimental model that 'may' be interesting if it is mathematically viable because it describes the mechanics of a fully described cyclic universe that gives cause for Big Bangs, and could solve most, if not all, known physics conundrums.

*

What is observed is that time runs slower for mass near a bigger body mass.  No-one has measured what time is going in open space because it takes a mass to make a measurement.

By stating light as being massless, and relativistic mass as redundant, looking at the length of the wave length of light closer to a mass as opposed to further away, the length of the wave is shorter, and describing this shortening of a wavelength in light as it get nearer to a body of mass can be described by saying that the light is taking a shorter amount of 'time' to cover the same distance, and the wavelength therefore appears shorter.
This concept also gives physical cause for the type of acceleration that is observed of all m in free fall, in relation to M.

[GoC]

   Allot of what you are saying is correct and not included in the main stream calculation of expansion. Larger galaxies have greater red shift by GR the gravity aspect of red shift. This is ignored by main stream while the very proof is the lensing around galaxies. Main stream suggests that is dark energy pushing all galaxies away and expanding the universe. Apparently Dark energy has a threshold rather than the dilation threshold. The gamma term in relativity.
   We use our inability to distinguish objects further than 13.6 billion years in all directions as the age of our universe. The BB persists in the minds of man even when mathematics prove otherwise. So your expanding or contracting universe is based entirely on faith that math is no longer a valid tool of measurement. Lets consider our sun was able to create a black hole (way to small). That BH would be about 1.6 miles across. Billions of miles away is a galaxy with a BH 37,200 AU in diameter. That is about 3,500,000,000,000 miles in diameter. The BH in our galaxy is about 4 million miles in diameter and Andromeda galaxy has a BH of about 25 million mile diameter. Its going to take 4 billion years to collide and create a 29 billion mile diameter BH. By relativity suns have to create a mass capable of gravity with an attraction greater than the speed of light to form a BH. Main stream has not even figured out that mass is created in suns from dark mass energy in order to create BH's. The math to create these enormous BH's is in the trillions of years and not billions. So if you want to invalidate math and relativity in favor of a BB you may believe anything you like. The general public will believe you because you must know what you are talking about Your scientists. The best minds of the day also suggested you would fall of the earth if you sailed to far. When something is unknown it is in mans nature to make something up.

It is in mans best interest to follow math when trying to understand the observable universe. To recommend faith over observation is not science. It is a religion.

[timey (OP)]

Thanks for your post GoC.

I personally think that the maths of the current physics can be juggled around until all the pieces fit together as shapes that form a united geometry and match the values of observed phenomenon.

I did not start out my idea as a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycles via the black hole phenomenon.
This model developed after many years of thinking about the consequences of adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe, and the dimensions of this contracting cyclic model, as I now describe, emerged as a result...