[timey (OP)]

Really?  Well I never.  The program I lifted that equation from said it was the Einstien equation.
I didn't know the SC was Einstien's equation.

[Mike Gale]

I suppose it's fair to credit Einstein because Schwarzschild's solution is based on his field equations, but it's ambiguous because there are several other solutions, all of which are based on Einstein's constraints.

[timey (OP)]

In any case, that equation can describe a contracting universe.

[Mike Gale]

Agreed, but that equation is only one part of a larger set.

[timey (OP)]

Only when you start adding the Hubble parameter surely?
The program I watched said that Einstien was upset to have had to have added the constant lambda because it ruined the simplistic beauty of his equation.

[Mike Gale]

No wait. That equation is actually part of Einstein's field equations, but it doesn't tell you anything about expansion until you apply it to a scenario like the Schwarzschild solution.

[Mike Gale]

It's true that Einstein was disgusted with his cosmological constant (because it's ad hoc) and was happy to see the end of it when Hubble's data emerged on the scene. But observations of accelerated expansion suggest that he may have been too hasty.

[timey (OP)]

As I understood it, that equation is describing GR in full, and it does describe expansion, or contraction without any additions.  This being why Einstien included the constant, to stop his equation from doing either in order to maintain a steady state.

There are no observations of expansion.  There are only observations that are interpreted as expansion.

[timey (OP)]

In addition to post above...

The GR field equations, if I remember correctly from the Susskind lectures, include the use of the Lorentz transformations.

[Mike Gale]

The Einstein tensor (denoted G_uv) is a fundamental part of GR, but there are lots of other moving parts. I have to admit that I don't really understand how the Schwarzschild solution leads to an expanding universe, but that is indeed what the literature says. I suppose you have to envision an accelerated object as a stationary one with space flowing in the opposite direction. It hurts my brain.

[timey (OP)]

So that is the first expression of the equation, and it is equal to the latter part.  The latter part also being moving parts?

[timey (OP)]

...and aren't the GR field equations different from the Einstien equation?
Where Einstein's equation describes GR, but the GR field equations describe moving stuff around under the remit of GR?

[Mike Gale]

The GR field equations, if I remember correctly from the Susskind lectures, include the use of the Lorentz transformations.

Quite right. Lorentz invariance is one of the constraints.

[Mike Gale]

So that is the first expression of the equation, and it is equal to the latter part.  The latter part also being moving parts?

The other "moving parts" come from the cartography part of GR.The Einstein tensor is part of an equality that relates energy and momentum to spacetime curvature. The idea is that accelerated motion in flat space is equivalent to uniform motion in curved space.

[timey (OP)]

The Einstein tensor is part of an equality that relates energy and momentum to spacetime curvature. The idea is that accelerated motion in flat space is equivalent to uniform motion in curved space.

Yes - that is why my model's change to the structure is physically possible.
My model states that space is flat, and accelerated motion is uniform motion that is accelerated by a 3rd time dilation that gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity...
Where the energy of the g-field causes the 3rd time dilation, the differing lengths of seconds this energy of the g-field causes result in non uniform motion for any m in the g-field.

Gravity potential energy is increased for m at h from M, which will increase the frequency of the electron transitions of any m.
And where m=0, the decreasing g-field value at any h from M will decrease any m=0 energy levels, such as the energy of the g-field itself, and the energy levels of already emitted light.
Where we can say that pe=mgh, and that where m=0 we are talking about there being no additional potential energy at h from M...
Could a calculation such as something like e=gh describe the decreasing values of the g-field at any h from M?
And if so - can a calculation such as e=gh result in values that can be matched to the reduced energy levels for already emitted light<<<M at h from M?

[timey (OP)]

http://homepages.rpi.edu/~newbeh/gersonaguiblava.pdf

Mike - here is a link plotting supernova light curves to the time dilation factor.  As they are talking about time dilation slowing the passage of light across space, this must be an SR application.

As per my model, it would be the  3rd time dilation of open space that would be the cause of the light's curve of slower motion across space.

As an aside to add to the basis of my model's 3rd time dilation consideration - in current physics if we apply SR to mass travelling at a percentage of the speed of light, we cannot state the time dilation effects of SR as slowing the velocity of that mass, because if we did then the lesser velocity wouldn't be the same percentage of the speed of light and the time dilation factor would consequently be altered.
It is not possible to calculate a time dilation effect caused by a velocity if the time dilation effect calculated changes the velocity.  This is a catch 22.

[Mike Gale]

"Light curve" is insider jargon for temporal variation in intensity. You measure brightness over the course of several days. The idea is that we know how the brightness of a type Ia supernova changes over time so, if you're confident that you're looking at that type of object, the time line can be used as a clock and you can use red shift measurements to figure out how fast that clock should run relative to your own. SR is only involved insofar as it is incorporated into GR. The "tired light" theory, which they purport to have debunked, is an alternative to GR.

[Mike Gale]

Einstein taught us that the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space is to measure the flight time of a light ray. If time slows down in flat space and the speed of light is invariant then space must be compressed equally in all directions. That scenario is incompatible with a spherically symmetric gravitational field and cannot be reconciled with the constant velocity scenario of SR.

[jeffreyH]

You do not need the Einstein field equations to describe spacetime.

[timey (OP)]

They don't sell red diesel at Birchanger Green....