[Mike Gale]

There is no need for that hypothesis. The effects of gravity on light are fully accounted for in GR.

[timey (OP)]

...and GR in the form of Einstein's equation can precisely describe a contracting model, but only if red shifts aren't velocity related.
Are you sure that GR describes light's passage across space independently of SR?

[Mike Gale]

Absolutely. And as I said previously, the SC solution has nothing to say about Hubble's data. That's the Friedmann solution.

[timey (OP)]

So if the Friedmann equations are describing the Hubble data in relation to the Einstein equation, then what is Freidmann using as a means to the description?
You mentioned something about him using time to constantly dilate space...
Can you give me a more detailed description?
For instance when you say 'to constantly dilate space', do you mean a constantly time dilated space, or a space that is dilated by constant time?

[alancalverd]

A clock at rest with respect to the g-field, it's frequency increases in the higher gravity potential.
Lights frequency decreases in the higher gravity potential.
Light has no mass and will not gain potential energy at h from M.

Why do you keep repeating (and now embellishing) this nonsense? We're talking physics, not Mozart! Stic k tot he observed facts: The frequency of any repetitive process appears higher when observed from a lower gravity potential. The frequency of any photon is higher, when received at a lower gravity potential, than observed at the source.  The two phenomena are identical.

[alancalverd]

A clock at rest with respect to the g-field, it's frequency increases in the higher gravity potential.
Lights frequency decreases in the higher gravity potential.
Light has no mass and will not gain potential energy at h from M.

Why do you keep repeating (and now embellishing) this nonsense? We're talking physics, not Mozart! Stic k tot he observed facts: The frequency of any repetitive process appears higher when observed from a lower gravity potential. The frequency of any photon is higher, when received at a lower gravity potential, than observed at the source.  The two phenomena are identical. An observer at the same gravitational potential sees no frequency shift. 

[timey (OP)]

There is nothing that I have said that renders the observations that you speak of as anything other than the observations you speak of.

Clearly Alan, I am looking to a differing mathematical description as to calculating these observations.  A differing means that results in a description of our universe that does not require Dark Energy, or Dark Matter, that will unify the standard model with gravity, and provide mechanics for Big Bang and Inflation.

If you think that is nonsense, then don't participate.
There are many physicists who write about the fact of the standard model and gravity not being unified and perhaps someone else who has read these same books will be more interested in my model than you are.

[Mike Gale]

So if the Friedmann equations are describing the Hubble data in relation to the Einstein equation, then what is Freidmann using as a means to the description?
You mentioned something about him using time to constantly dilate space...
Can you give me a more detailed description?
For instance when you say 'to constantly dilate space', do you mean a constantly time dilated space, or a space that is dilated by constant time?

I think I said exclusively, not constantly. I'm no expert on the subject, but it is presumably energy from the Big Bang that drives Friedmann dilation. The reason why it is exclusively temporal is entirely empirical. Hubble expansion appears to be the same in every direction of space no matter where you're standing or how you're moving. It's really just a way to guesstimate Einstein's cosmological constant.

[timey (OP)]

I thought that red shift velocities are proportional to distance of source.
This meaning that more distant light sources are receding away from us faster.

I've just started a discussion on this subject here:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70013.0

[timey (OP)]

In addition to post above...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

In 1922, Alexander Friedmann derived his Friedmann equations from Einstein's field equations, showing that the Universe might expand at a rate calculable by the equations.[35] The parameter used by Friedmann is known today as the scale factor which can be considered as a scale invariant form of the proportionality constant of Hubble's law.

...whatever that means (chuckle)

In any case Friedmann deduced this from the Einstein equation which can just as adequately describe a contracting universe, where to re-interpret Hubble's velocity related red shifts one would have to look to the parameter of the 'scale factor'.

What is the scale factor?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)

In the link where they are talking about Hubble's parameter, can you tell me anything about this?

where the dot represents a time derivative.

...and the fact that I am seeing dots over a and d?

[Mike Gale]

It's misleading to say that Friedman's solution emerged from GR. It is certainly consistent with GR, but that is by design. It's really just a curve fit to Hubble's data. Variables like the Hubble scaling factor are entirely contrived. They are nothing more than convenient knobs that you can twiddle to get the equation to fit the data. They hardly qualify as constants of nature.
One of the inputs to the analysis is the desired geometry, which can be flat, oblate or obtuse so the question of expanding, contracting or static is pre-determined. The expanding option is the most plausible because it can make the cosmological constant go away (if you twiddle the other knobs in an appropriate manner.) I'm not sure, but I think accelerated expansion requires some more knobs.
The dot denotes rate of change over time: x-dot=dx/dt for example.

[timey (OP)]

Well I was just quoting the wiki link.

The Einstien equation can describe a contracting universe where the constant also 'goes away'.
If the Hubble data curve can be transposed into a time dilated curve relative to distance that is not expanding over time, rather than being a velocity curve relative to distance that is expanding over time...this constitutes another method of knob twiddling resulting in a description of a contracting universe.

[Mike Gale]

The Einstein field equations are part and parcel to GR so they are included in the Schwarzschild and Friedmann solutions. Without those equations, GR is just cartography in 4 dimensions. (I say "just", but the mathematics of that are incredibly complex. We stand on the shoulders of giants.)
I think you meant to say that Schwarzschild (not Einstein) can describe a contracting universe, but that's not quite right either. Schwarzschild (or rather Newton, on which it is based) predicts clumping of mass because everything is attracted to everything else. The cosmological constant can counteract gravity with expanding space. I've never seen the mathematical proof, but it presumably does so at large scales so that, although local groups of masses tend to coalesce, highly dispersed ones do not.
It might be possible to tweak Friedmann's knobs to produce a constant rate of expansion, but that wouldn't fit Hubble's data.

[Mike Gale]

It is worth noting that Hubble expansion is far from a done deal. Reckoning distances at cosmological scales is an inexact science. There are also plenty of anomalies (including blue-shifted galaxies like Andromeda.) It is entirely possible that red-shifted galaxies are simply moving away from us at different, but constant velocities. One smart aleck (I can't remember who) noted that we should not be surprised if the horse that ran the fastest is farthest from the gate half way through the race. Accelerated expansion is not so easily dismissed though.

[timey (OP)]

No - I meant what I posted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

The Einstein equations in their simplest form model generally either an expanding or contracting universe, so Einstein's cosmological constant was artificially created to counter the expansion or contraction to get a perfect static and flat universe.

The Einstein equations in their simplest form can model an expanding or contracting universe.  The cosmological constant in either case can be added to counter the expansion, or the contraction to get a steady state.

Therefore if Hubble's velocity related red shifts were re-interpreted as being due to a curve of slower time in space, then Galaxy clusters would be (more or less) maintaining their orbital positions in a space that is slowly contracting at an accelerating rate.
Red shifts and blueshifts as observed would be due to g-fields in space becoming weaker (red shift) because distance between light source and observation point are slightly increasing as mass clusters pull closer together, and the g-field is becoming stronger (blueshift) because distance between light source and observation point is closing as mass clusters pull closer together.
(same explanation but without velocity related expansion)

To understand this outlook, one has to consider the initial conditions.
The initial conditions for this contraction in my model are afforded immediately after the period of my model's rendition of an Inflation period which leaves us with a sea of individual particles.
If you can imagine how much space a truckload of tree trunks would take up if we wood chipped it...
Imagine all the clumped mass of the universe in particle form...
These are the initial conditions for contraction in my model where open distances in space are expanding in length because particles are vacating their former positions as mass clumps.

[Mike Gale]

Einstein's field equations are meaningless in isolation of the GR framework. They are simply conservation of energy and momentum constraints expressed in a form that is compatible with 4D cartography.

[timey (OP)]

I am referring to the equation that I posted earlier this thread which is Einstein's equation that describes GR.

[Mike Gale]

I must have missed that, but I expect you were quoting the Schwarzschild solution because Einstein doesn't have one of his own.

[timey (OP)]

If Lambda = 0 then G_uv = (8*pi*G/c⁴) * T_uv.

This equation

[Mike Gale]

That's Schwarzschild.