[alancalverd]

My initial conditions for a contraction are a more or less uniform sea of energy and particles.  Spaces in between masses are caused by particles vacating their former positions in this sea to the clumping process called gravitation

That is an entirely reasonable initial condition and a lot easier to work with than a big bang. It's familiar physics as fog and rain formation, and if we really understood it, we could even predict  snowflakes. Problem is that it still doesn't answer "why" the sea of particles existed in the first place. So you have to introduce a big bang to produce the uniformish sea, but that just moves "why" back a few microseconds and adds another unanswered question.

That said, all our models of .planetary formation seem to point to the clumping of heavy nuclides, and our best guess as to their origin is from collapsing clouds of light ones, so matter becomes its own hoover over time, resulting in more space than stuff, as observed.

So far, so good. And you might expect that near objects will indeed be clumping. But if we draw a "sphere of influence" around a gravitational attractor in a sparsely-filled universe, at some  point there will be more matter outside that sphere than inside, so some distant objects will be receding towards another attractor. We can even define the radius beyond which it is more likely that stuff is moving away. Let out local attractor have mass M

Then M/ρ² = ∑_ρ^∞m/r²

where m,r is every particle in the universe outside the critical radius ρ. If the universe has a finite age, just substitute ct for ∞.

Now you have a clumping universe with redshifts increasing with distance, using only known physics, even if we haven't answered "why". 

[Colin2B]

@timey
“So is there any chance I could get a hand with formally describing the equation that will describe (ca)t-(ct)=extra distance travelled, and how to work out what percentage of (ct) this extra distance is?
....the overall contraction of the universe occurs at an acceleration of c^2/R.”

I dont think this is going to help. These are values for expansion and give odd results.
Accelerating contraction starting at v & t = 0 is c^2t^2/2R
 Subtract ct = c^2t^2/2R - ct
Substitute ct for R as before:
ct/2 - ct so we can see dist due to acceleration is 50% of ct
There is no difference in time because t is same for both equations.

Would be best to work with Alan’s idea which gives a logical reason for clumping and what we see as red shift, his equations are more complicated but more likely to give consistent results. 

But you need to determine the changes of time. Eg Im still not clear why you get time running fast nr a black hole and slow far from mass. You must have worked out the logic of that to be able to make that statement. If you can explain it, perhaps we can describe it in maths.
 

[timey (OP)]

@alancalverd.
The trouble is is that if you now draw a sphere around any part of my model, NOTHING will end up outside of that sphere, b/c my model is CONTRACTING.

In my model:
The 'initial conditions' for contraction are an almost uniform sea of individual particles and energy.
The 'initial conditions' for inflation is a singular black hole that contains that entire sea of particles and energy.
The inflation period is the singular black hole exploding 'particles and energy' via superluminal jets into a 'sea of particles and energy'.
And the contraction period is very slowly accelerating, where all development of particles into what we see today occurs within the contraction.

Draw a sphere around the edge of this 'sea of particles'.  (Edit correction: actually light would not be emitted by a sea of particles, but you can get the idea).  In 13.8 billion of our rate of time years we will see that nothing has ended up outside the outer edges of that sphere, and in fact we can now draw a smaller sphere around the outer edges b/c of the contraction.
This means that an observation that arrives at us from c times (t=13.8billion years) started off in a universe that was as big as the first sphere we drew, and arrived to be observed by us in a universe that is the size of the second smaller sphere.

@Colin2B
My model states that atomic transitions are caused by energy, and that changes in atomic transitions are caused by changes energy.
My model also states that changes in energy are occurring with changes in gravity potential, and that changes in time are associated with changes in energy, where +energy=shorter seconds.
The bigger mass 'has' more energy, and will have more energy associated with it's gravity potential.
That is why my model makes the prediction it does for the given experiment.

So are you saying that the extra distance under the construct I suggest is 50% of R?

[alancalverd]

Draw a sphere around the edge of this 'sea of particles'.  (Edit correction: actually light would not be emitted by a sea of particles, but you can get the idea).  In 13.8 billion of our rate of time years we will see that nothing has ended up outside the outer edges of that sphere, and in fact we can now draw a smaller sphere around the outer edges b/c of the contraction.
This means that an observation that arrives at us from c times (t=13.8billion years) started off in a universe that was as big as the first sphere we drew, and arrived to be observed by us in a universe that is the size of the second smaller sphere.

A very neat description.

The smaller universe being denser, this means that g is increasing with time, so light coming from the most distant objects will be blue-shifted (a) by the Pound-Rebka effect and (b) by the Doppler effect.

[timey (OP)]

Well you are on the right track Alan.

The potential for g in the smaller universe sphere will be the same as the potential for g in the 'sea of particles and energy' sphere, only packed into a smaller space.

BUT - It is the fact of the increasing un-uniformity of gravity potential caused by the clumping process that causes the contraction.
In the bigger universe sphere, the potential for gravity was more or less uniformly distributed.
In the smaller sphere universe this is not the case. There is now disparity in the potential of g between objects of mass, and the spaces between these objects of mass.
The gravity potential within the contracting sphere is continuously becoming more concentrated into small areas of high density, and large areas of low density.

So light that is emitted 13.8 billion years ago by objects of mass that formed from the 'sea of particles and energy', will have to travel across spaces where the potential for g is much reduced, and is still reducing as mass further clumps.

So the universal contraction process causes an increase in the potential for g per unit of area, (as per a smaller sphere universe), but the contraction process itself causes the contrast between the potential, of g 'for mass' to increase, while the potential for g in the 'open spaces' is descreased.

This will cause an anomoly between the redshift observations of the CMB and the redshift observations of galaxy clusters.
The CMB is subject to the decrease in g caused by clumping, and the increase in g caused by the universal contraction.
The light emitted from the galaxy clusters is also subject to the decrease in g caused by clumping, and the increase in g caused by the universal contraction.
And the galaxies of galaxy clusters, themselves, are moving at velocity towards points of convergence.

The effects of the increase in g caused by universal contraction will be far lesser than the effects of the decrease of g in the open spaces between masses caused by contraction, and the 'observations' will be redshifts, where the CMB redshifts will be of a lesser magnitude than the galaxy cluster redshifts.

[Colin2B]

My model states that atomic transitions are caused by energy, and that changes in atomic transitions are caused by changes energy.
My model also states that changes in energy are occurring with changes in gravity potential, and that changes in time are associated with changes in energy, where +energy=shorter seconds.
The bigger mass 'has' more energy, and will have more energy associated with it's gravity potential.
That is why my model makes the prediction it does for the given experiment.

Presumably somewhere in your write up you explain why this eventually gives the same result as observation ie black hole, slower time.

So are you saying that the extra distance under the construct I suggest is 50% of R?

What this says is that if your universe started contracting from v=0, at t=0, has continued contracting for time t at an acceleration of c^2/R, then it will have contracted a distance half that covered by light in the same time t.
Problem with this is that if acceleration is = c^2/R then at t=0 we assume a larger R hence a smaller acceleration. Acceleration would then increase until current radius. This is why Alan put an integral into his formula. Without bothering to try and work this out (because we dont know if change of acceleration is constant) it does tell us that the contraction will be less than if it was at c^2/R for the whole time. So use this understanding it’s limitations.
There is another problem with using this acceleration, it is based on an expanding universe (which you said you didn’t want to use) so we dont know if the same factors would apply eg an expanding universe such as ours will not move towards a uniform sea of particles.

Separate question. You talk about light passing through areas of higher or lower density,  what effect does that have on the light between leaving a star and reaching our detector on earth?

[timey (OP)]

No - I specifically have stated that my prediction for a doable experiment states that the clock in the denser location/or on the bigger mass will run faster, and that this is the 'different prediction' that my model makes as per my modification of GR. 
Black holes in my model do not have slower time, and in physical reality, are not actually observed to have slower time, or even observed much at-all.
Given that a clock could be held in elevation to a black hole, it's time would still run faster than that of the clock placed closer to the black hole, but both the clocks placed in proximity to the black hole would be running faster than a clock on, or near Earth.

And:

No we can't assume any larger R.  The observation is of light, and light would not be present as such at the earlier larger R.
The age of the universe has been worked out in large part via the redshift observations and Hubbles constant, and more recently from the CMB data.  The other part being a consideration regarding a lower limit via estimated star/mass formation process.
My model also uses the resdshift observations to estimate the age of the universe.
So an acceleration that is based on the redshift observations indicating acceleration (under expanding theory) that matches c^2/R, where R is c times the current estimated age of the universe that has been calculated via these redshift observations, can be used for the purpose of my calculation of a contraction.

However, b/c my model interprets the redshifts differently, I then add my alterations to the result.

So - if the extra distance travelled due to c^2/R, where R=c times age of universe is 50% of R, let's put that to one side.
Now it must be considered that the rate of time 13.8 billion years ago was a percentage slower then than it is now, as compared to our rate of time on our clock.
The rate of time will have increased by the same rate as the universal contraction of the universe accelerating at c^2/R.
So how do I get to that equation?
*

That's right. An accelerated expanding universe, such as in expanding theory, moves towards a big freeze.
*

The places that the light is emitted from ie: mass, are the high density areas of g, and the spaces inbetween the mass are the low density areas of g.
The effect on light moving into low density areas of g in spaces between mass are redshifts.

Time runs faster in high density g, than in low density g, apart from for the m located inside of the gravity potential of the greater Mass. Where infact these changes in time, in the manner that I suggest, can give a physical description of the effects of g.

[Colin2B]

No - I specifically have stated that my prediction for a doable experiment states that the clock in the denser location/or on the bigger mass will run faster, and that this is the 'different prediction' that my model makes as per my modification of GR. 

Yes, you have stated that in paper and video, but have not explained why.
However, i was not aware of this bit:

Black holes in my model do not have slower time, and in physical reality, are not actually observed to have slower time, or even observed much at-all.
Given that a clock could be held in elevation to a black hole, it's time would still run faster than that of the clock placed closer to the black hole, but both the clocks placed in proximity to the black hole would be running faster than a clock on, or near Earth.

So if you place 2 clocks at different elevations above earth the higher clock will run faster, but if you place 2 clocks on the moon they will run slower than the ones on earth?
This will mean a very different relationship, if any, between gravitational potential and time compared to current theory.

No we can't assume any larger R.  The observation is of light, and light would not be present as such at the earlier larger R.

So why are you comparing contraction with a light beam emitted from a larger R?

Now it must be considered that the rate of time 13.8 billion years ago was a percentage slower then than it is now, as compared to our rate of time on our clock.
The rate of time will have increased by the same rate as the universal contraction of the universe accelerating at c^2/R.
So how do I get to that equation?

If you assume they are in the same proportion you could assume the clock rate has doubled.

[timey (OP)]

The reason why is associated with adding the separate time phenomenon for open space, and stating that the time phenomenon of clocks ticking faster when placed at elevation is a) part and parcel of a time drift associated with motion as well as position in gravity potential
And
b) has nothing to do with what is occurring for the background space at that gravity potential the clock is occupying.
*

No - the moon is satellite m to earth gravitational M.  The earth is satellite m to sun, and the sun is satellite m to centre of galaxy black hole M.
But the difference with the sun being satellite m to black hole M is that solar system m is of greater g than gravity potential g of black hole M at this distance from black hole M. (leading to galaxy rotational considerations)
*

Let's me rephrase.
A larger R is assumed for the initial conditions of the 'sea of particles and energy', the value of which is unknown.
There is a lower limit of 11billion years for the development of light producing mass (edit correction: for the development of the mass we see today) that might be of use here.
What has been derived from observations of redshifted light is an age for the universe, (based on speed of expansion) and a value for acceleration, which I can use, so long as I make my alterations to the result.
So getting a measurement based on a point in time from when mass was developed enough to produce light is the place to start, based on the fact that the observations of redshifts are the basis of the considerations.
*

Yes one could assume that the rate of time had doubled.
So if the rate of time was half as fast at t=0, than it is at t=13.8 billion years later, this being now, then the extra distance travelled due to the acceleration would be ? percentage shorter than 50%.

[Colin2B]

Still 50% because they are both subject to the same amount of time t.

[guest39538]

The reason why is associated with adding the separate time phenomenon for open space, and stating that the time phenomenon of clocks ticking faster when placed at elevation is a) part and parcel of a time drift associated with motion as well as position in gravity potential
And
b) has nothing to do with what is occurring for the background space at that gravity potential the clock is occupying.

Time moves with the object , the object does not travel a distance in an amount of time.  You are correct in a time that is independent of the object, however Newton a long time ago beat us on that one and already had absolute time.   
Understand the twins do age differently but experience the same amount of absolute time.   Understand the dilation is due to field density and velocity and not a consequence of space. 
How far we see has nothing to with the speed of light, the  inverse of light and the visual dimensional transverse of objects that are receding, are how far we see.

[timey (OP)]

@Colin2B
We made the calculation for acceleration using the value of c as per our clock rate now.
And we made the calculation for, not 'the' extra distance travelled, but a value of distance to work with, using the value of t=age universe on the basis of c as per the rate of our clock, times t.

BUT - between 13.8 billion years ago, and now, time was 50% slower and accelerated to the rate it is now.  So using c times t needs to be corrected, b/c we have held c relative to the rate of our clock.
Where the measurement of a 50% distance of contraction in t=13.8billion years, is our rate of c, times the t=13.8 billion years of our rate of time.

So, on the basis that the speed of light is constant in any reference frame, including the reference frames of our history, if the speed of light covers 299 792 458 metres per 50% longer length of second than ours 13.8 billion years ago, then our shorter second in comparison, (13.8 billion years ago) would only cover half of 299 799 458 metres, and at every point in time after would cover a little more than half of 299 799 458 metres, up until present time where the speed of light is held relative to our clock and the full 299 799 458 metres is covered in 1 second.

[guest39538]

@Colin2B
We made the calculation for acceleration using the value of c as per our clock rate now.
And we made the calculation for, not 'the' extra distance travelled, but a value of distance to work with, using the value of t=age universe on the basis of c as per the rate of our clock, times t.

BUT - between 13.8 billion years ago, and now, time was 50% slower and accelerated to the rate it is now.  So using c times t needs to be corrected, b/c we have held c relative to the rate of our clock.
Where the measurement of a 50% distance of contraction in t=13.8billion years, is our rate of c, times the t=13.8 billion years of our rate of time.

So, on the basis that the speed of light is constant in any reference frame, including the reference frames of our history, if the speed of light covers 299 792 458 metres per 50% longer length of second than ours 13.8 billion years ago, then our shorter second in comparison, (13.8 billion years ago) would only cover half of 299 799 458 metres, and at every point in time after would cover a little more than half of 299 799 458 metres, up until present time where the speed of light is held relative to our clock and the full 299 799 458 metres is covered in 1 second.

That is brilliant though, well done Timey I understood that post right away and you are absolutely correct about the content discussed. 

You are saying, my example :  that if the Universe was expanding at 0.5c it would be 27.6 billion years old which is a contradiction?

[timey (OP)]

@Colin2B
We made the calculation for acceleration using the value of c as per our clock rate now.
And we made the calculation for, not 'the' extra distance travelled, but a value of distance to work with, using the value of t=age universe on the basis of c as per the rate of our clock, times t.

BUT - between 13.8 billion years ago, and now, time was 50% slower and accelerated to the rate it is now.  So using c times t needs to be corrected, b/c we have held c relative to the rate of our clock.
Where the measurement of a 50% distance of contraction in t=13.8billion years, is our rate of c, times the t=13.8 billion years of our rate of time.

So, on the basis that the speed of light is constant in any reference frame, including the reference frames of our history, if the speed of light covers 299 792 458 metres per 50% longer length of second than ours 13.8 billion years ago, then our shorter second in comparison, (13.8 billion years ago) would only cover half of 299 799 458 metres, and at every point in time after would cover a little more than half of 299 799 458 metres, up until present time where the speed of light is held relative to our clock and the full 299 799 458 metres is covered in 1 second.

And this (unless I'm very much mistaken) reduces the 50% of R distance, that we are working with, to 25%. right?

[Colin2B]

The answer is always 50%.
Take a look at the equations and work through them, if you adjust the time in any way you still get 50%. You can also adjust c and R and get the same result.
The reason is that there is a fixed relationship between R and 2 of the given values you supplied in the equations ie R=ct and R=c^2/a.
Work through the equations and you’ll see what i mean.

[timey (OP)]

Ah yes, sorry Colin, I looked at my explanation and my explanation doesn't make it clear enough, b/c I haven't stipulated that only the resulting distance of 50% of R needs correcting.

Looking at the equation:
I use both c^2 and c to obtain the answer 50% of R.

Technically, (in my mind anyway ) I have replaced the use of c^2 with the re-lengthed seconds, that c is held relative to (in the slower rates of time), for the resulting distance of 50% of R, and the re-lengthed seconds mean that I can reduce this 50% of R distance by half.

I realise that this constitutes a weird transaction of values over R and c^2, (edit correction: over R and c) but I think it works. You have to keep in mind Colin that the point of these equations is based on time being dynamical, and that in all reference frames, current and historic, c is held relative to this dynamical time.  So c times t = R is never a fixed value equation, and the purpose here is to use this value (which is our current observation) to ascertain the 'other values'.

To be clear - there are a few more operations that need to be manipulated before it is calculated (for my model) by how much distance the universe has contracted, how old the universe is (as per our rate of time), and how long it will take (as per our rate of time) for it to complete the contraction.

[alancalverd]

All the intervening regions of more or less g are irrelevant. Spectral shift depends only on the relative velocity of the sender and receiver, and the gravitational potential difference between the start and finish points. In any contracting universe, distant objects will have a blue shift. The fact that most of them seem to have a red shift is the reason that everyone else thinks the universe is expanding.

[timey (OP)]

A contracting universe that has galaxies moving towards the observers position will be observed to blueshift.

In my contracting model, galaxies are converging into galaxy clusters and the spaces between the galaxy clusters are expanding due to back reaction.  The observations of shifted light will be the observations we observe.  And in a universe that is not expanding, all the intervening regions of more or less g are NOT irrelevant. 

And, actually, professional theoretical physicists think of theoretical physics, ie: physics that hasn't been experimentally proven, as theory, where the only reason the 'ley person' BELIEVES the universe to be expanding, is b/c that is the theory that has had the most money spent on it, and therefore it has not been financially viable for professional theoretical physicists to work on anything else, even though other ideas may have existed, and still do exist.

[Colin2B]

Bear in mind that my only interest here is that your paper gets a good hearing and doesn’t stumble.

Ah yes, sorry Colin, I looked at my explanation and my explanation doesn't make it clear enough, b/c I haven't stipulated that only the resulting distance of 50% of R needs correcting.

Looking at the equation:
I use both c^2 and c to obtain the answer 50% of R.

Technically, (in my mind anyway ) I have replaced the use of c^2 with the re-lengthed seconds, that c is held relative to (in the slower rates of time), for the resulting distance of 50% of R, and the re-lengthed seconds mean that I can reduce this 50% of R distance by half.

Ok, i dont understand why you are making a ‘correction’, so i cant really help with this, but at the end of the day it is your paper and your responsibility for final edit.

You have to keep in mind Colin that the point of these equations is based on time being dynamical, and that in all reference frames, current and historic, c is held relative to this dynamical time.  So c times t = R is never a fixed value equation, and the purpose here is to use this value (which is our current observation) to ascertain the 'other values'.

Yes the time is dynamic, but it is affecting both ct and the acceleration equally and for the same overall period, with the same changes, so it is unclear why you would make a correction. I did some rough calcs using dynamic time and it made no difference to the %. You will need to make your reasoning much clearer in the paper.

[jeffreyH]

The 'observation' is c times t.

No. Light travels at c, so the the distance of any object you can see must be cτ where τ is the time it took for the light to travel from there to here. If the universe has a finite age t then the farthest observable object is at R = ct,the Schwarzchild radius.

R is important as long as c is the limiting speed for the propagation of gravity, which seems to be the case.Nothing outside of R can affect anything inside. Or can it?

Imagine a static universe. If there is a massive body at R + ΔR, it will have a gravitational effect at R such that photons emitted towards us from a body at R will appear to have come from a more massive body and thus be redshifted.Which is what we observe!

If the observable universe is surrounded in all directions by a much larger attractor then there may be no need for dark energy. The problem is what can attract mass out of an event horizon?