[timey (OP)]

@Colin2B
Yes I will have to make the paper very clear, so in going through this here with you, it is my intention that this should result in my being able to make a clearer explanation, hopefully inclusive of mathematical equations.

No the historically slower rate of dynamic time that increases at the same rate of acceleration, will not have any mathematical effect on the acceleration.
This being b/c the dynamical time increasing is what is 'causing' the acceleration, and therefore in re-described that acceleration as time being 50% slower 13.8 billion years ago, I then calculate what distance of 50% of R my variable light speeds will cover. (variable light speeds b/c c held relative to a slower second than ours will not cover as much distance as c held relative to our second, which is how we calculated distance R. This being the correction I seek to make)

@jeffreyH Whatever it is that would attract mass outside of an event horizon, I can guarantee you it will not have anything to do with my contracting universe.

[alancalverd]

The Schwarzchild radius is not an event horizon.

[alancalverd]

the only reason the 'ley person' BELIEVES the universe to be expanding,

is because distant objects are red shifted. Nothing to do with any theory.

[jeffreyH]

The Schwarzchild radius is not an event horizon.

It is the radius of the horizon. If I am wrong then please explain.

[timey (OP)]

the only reason the 'ley person' BELIEVES the universe to be expanding,

is because distant objects are red shifted. Nothing to do with any theory.

Yes - light in a negligable gravity field is redshifted as a velocity related phenomenon.  B/c current theory states the gravitational fields between galaxy clusters as negligable, (on account of the expansion), the 'fact' that redshifts are observed (here on earth) to be velocity related in a negligable gravity field, is used to describe the expansion.

But - light is also redshifted by changes in g.  B/c my model is not expanding, it is contracting, there is no such thing as a negligable gravity field in the gravitational fields between galaxy clusters, so for the most part my model uses gravitational changes to desribe redshift observations.

[timey (OP)]

@Colin2B
Yes I will have to make the paper very clear, so in going through this here with you, it is my intention that this should result in my being able to make a clearer explanation, hopefully inclusive of mathematical equations.

No the historically slower rate of dynamic time that increases at the same rate of acceleration, will not have any mathematical effect on the acceleration.
This being b/c the dynamical time increasing is what is 'causing' the acceleration, and therefore in re-described that acceleration as time being 50% slower 13.8 billion years ago, I then calculate what distance of 50% of R my variable light speeds will cover. (variable light speeds b/c c held relative to a slower second than ours will not cover as much distance as c held relative to our second, which is how we calculated distance R. This being the correction I seek to make)

Anyway - to finish the equation I'm going to say that the estimated age of the universe is based on CMB data, and that I now need to minus the 8% difference observed of galaxy cluster redshifts, from this distance that we are working with which is now potentially 25%, leaving me with a distance that is 17% of R=c(t=age of universe as per our rate of time). This would be the distance that the entire universe has shrunk by, but in how many years held relative to our rate of time did that 17% shrinkage occur in?

Now I want to go backwards from present time where our years are held relative to our clock, back to 13.8billion years ago where time was 50% slower, and I can say that there is half again as many of our years from 13.8 billion years ago until present time measurement. This amounts to a total of 20.7 billion of our years.
(this is useful for describing cosmologic development in too many ways to mention)

Then I can say let's look into the future.  In 13.8 billion of our years an acceleration of c^2 will shrink our universe by how much?
This time the seconds get shorter as we go into the future, and more distance will be covered than c times t in our present time reference frame.  I will have to add potentially* 25% to 50% for this equation.  However the recessional velocity of objects contracting towards each other in the universe will be greater than they are now, and will constitute a larger percentage than 8% (that is the tricky bit) which I must minus from 75% in order to find the pecentage of R=c(t=13.8 billion years of our rate of time).  The entire universe will have contracted by that percentage in half of 13.8 billion of our years, ie: 6.9 billion years.
(*I say potentially b/c that is the part of the equation that we were at when you didn't understand how I had transferred the acceleration into dynamical time that is the cause of the acceleration.
I hope that the explanation of intended direction has cleared that up, and we can go back to hopefully notate it)

[Colin2B]

The Schwarzchild radius is not an event horizon.

It is the radius of the horizon. If I am wrong then please explain.

Only in the special case of a non-rotating object whose radius is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius.

[Colin2B]

B/c current theory states the gravitational fields between galaxy clusters as negligable,

However, there are intense gravitational fields that light passes through.

But - light is also redshifted by changes in g. 

That is not observed when light passes through intense gravitational fields.

I mention this because you are going to have to explain this anomaly in your paper.
I think i said in an earlier post that current physics treats this as travelling along a road with hills between you and destination, it doesn’t matter how much up and down you do (potential energy gain and loss), just the difference between height at beginning and end. You will need to make clear how your alternative works.

[timey (OP)]

Light cannot be observed passing through any gravitational field.  The only place the light can be observed is when it hits the detector at the observation point, by which time anything that happened to that light with regards to shift has already happened.

Yes - we can observe that the direction that light takes in space can be changed by an intense gravitational field, but this says nothing about what the gravitational field is doing to the light with regards to shifts.  In fact it is known that light does shift with gravitational changes, but in the expanding universe theory, these shifts are negligable to the velocity related phenomenon of expansion.

Edit: In reply to your edit.  So there isn't any anomoly to be explained here, right?

[Colin2B]

Edit: In reply to your edit.  So there isn't any anomoly to be explained here, right?

So are you saying that in your theory light passing through variations in gravitational fields between galaxies is not shifted.

[timey (OP)]

Not at-all.  I'm saying that all but 8% (at this present time) of those redshift observations from galaxies is gravitational shift.

Yes, the light will be blueshifted if it passes by a gravitational mass, but this will not result in a blueshifted observation.  It just minuses the redshift, but only very slightly.

[timey (OP)]

@Colin2B
Yes I will have to make the paper very clear, so in going through this here with you, it is my intention that this should result in my being able to make a clearer explanation, hopefully inclusive of mathematical equations.

No the historically slower rate of dynamic time that increases at the same rate of acceleration, will not have any mathematical effect on the acceleration.
This being b/c the dynamical time increasing is what is 'causing' the acceleration, and therefore in re-described that acceleration as time being 50% slower 13.8 billion years ago, I then calculate what distance of 50% of R my variable light speeds will cover. (variable light speeds b/c c held relative to a slower second than ours will not cover as much distance as c held relative to our second, which is how we calculated distance R. This being the correction I seek to make)

Anyway - to finish the equation I'm going to say that the estimated age of the universe is based on CMB data, and that I now need to minus the 8% difference observed of galaxy cluster redshifts, from this distance that we are working with which is now potentially 25%, leaving me with a distance that is 17% of R=c(t=age of universe as per our rate of time). This would be the distance that the entire universe has shrunk by, but in how many years held relative to our rate of time did that 17% shrinkage occur in?

Now I want to go backwards from present time where our years are held relative to our clock, back to 13.8billion years ago where time was 50% slower, and I can say that there is half again as many of our years from 13.8 billion years ago until present time measurement. This amounts to a total of 20.7 billion of our years.
(this is useful for describing cosmologic development in too many ways to mention)

Then I can say let's look into the future.  In 13.8 billion of our years an acceleration of c^2 will shrink our universe by how much?
This time the seconds get shorter as we go into the future, and more distance will be covered than c times t in our present time reference frame.  I will have to add potentially* 25% to 50% for this equation.  However the recessional velocity of objects contracting towards each other in the universe will be greater than they are now, and will constitute a larger percentage than 8% (that is the tricky bit) which I must minus from 75% in order to find the pecentage of R=c(t=13.8 billion years of our rate of time).  The entire universe will have contracted by that percentage in half of 13.8 billion of our years, ie: 6.9 billion years.
(*I say potentially b/c that is the part of the equation that we were at when you didn't understand how I had transferred the acceleration into dynamical time that is the cause of the acceleration.
I hope that the explanation of intended direction has cleared that up, and we can go back to hopefully notate it)

So, on thinking it over further, whatever percentage 8% is of 25%, ?%=percentage we are looking for, will be that percentage of 75%.

[Colin2B]

Yes, the light will be blueshifted if it passes by a gravitational mass, but this will not result in a blueshifted observation.  It just minuses the redshift, but only very slightly.

So, if white light passes by a gravitational mass it would be blueshifted.
You need to explain why and by how much. That would be another prediction of your theory.

I hope that the explanation of intended direction has cleared that up, and we can go back to hopefully notate it

I must confess i would need to go through it in detail to see exactly what happens as i’m not getting a clear picture from your description, would have been better to declare this at beginning and work from start as the 50% might change. I’m busy this week sorting out my mother in law’s paperwork, so best you write a section for your paper clearly detailing what you’ve done and why and calling it a working estimate, then if we can work out a methodology from that we can replace it later.

Also, editorial slip, you say change in time causes acceleration, in that case faster time should be in past - think Pound Rebka, blue shift - can’t remember if i mentioned but i think there is a similar slip in your video, 2 graphs are reversed acceleration & deceleration.

[alancalverd]

Light will be blueshifted as it approaches a mass, but equally redshifted as it departs, so the net effect is zero for light passing through a stationary universe, and only dependent on the relative gravitational potentials of the  source and detector.

In the case of a contracting universe, all "incoming" light from distant objects must be blueshifted by both the motion of the source and the fact that g increases with time at the detector.

[guest39538]

Light will be blueshifted as it approaches a mass, but equally redshifted as it departs, so the net effect is zero for light passing through a stationary universe, and only dependent on the relative gravitational potentials of the  source and detector.

In the case of a contracting universe, all "incoming" light from distant objects must be blueshifted by both the motion of the source and the fact that g increases with time at the detector.

Alan, no.     The Universe could contract by the way you are describing and a blue-shift of the objects, but it can also contract another way , in that the already objects in expansion , expand out of visual range, the universe will then contract back to the furthest point we can see.

[guest39538]

I drew it ...


contact.jpg (32.6 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3509 times)

[Colin2B]

Light will be blueshifted as it approaches a mass, but equally redshifted as it departs, so the net effect is zero for light passing through a stationary universe, and only dependent on the relative gravitational potentials of the  source and detector

@timey - Alan’s description is the equivalent of my up hill and down dale analogy.

Light cannot be observed passing through any gravitational field. 

yes it can

Yes - we can observe that the direction that light takes in space can be changed by an intense gravitational field, but this says nothing about what the gravitational field is doing to the light with regards to shifts.

We use the same technique of observing before and after, but instead of position change we would see a spectral line shift. A field strong enough to bend light is strong enough to cause a shift. No shift has been observed so your paper will need to explain why, it will be an obvious question from any reader.

[timey (OP)]

@Colin2B
If time was faster in the past and is slower now, then my contraction would be decelerating as mass further clumps. Mass accelerating in the clumping process, and decelerated velocities of contraction are not compatible.
(Please remember that these changes in time that I am stating as affecting everything universally are not 'the' changes in time we observe of clocks in the gravity potential, although all rates of time of 'everything' will be affected b/c 'everywhere' is)

I have actually worked out (as per my model) the age of the universe, how long it took to contract till now, how long it will take to contract from now till the point of next Big Bang, and what distance the universe was before it contracted, the working outs of which I will post later.

@alancalverd.
In a contracting universe where the objects emitting light are not moving towards the observation point, there will be no blueshift observation.
In a contracting universe where all mass sizes 'do not' get bigger, the increases in the g field caused by the contraction will cause light to be blueshifted by the increasing g of the field caused by the contraction...
But in my model mass sizes are increasing (this being what is causing the universal contraction), so the g field of the spaces in between the increasing masses will be reducing in g faster than the contraction is adding to g.  And the observation will be redshifts.

@Colin2B But Alan you are correct that redshifted light moving into and out of the gravitational field of a body of mass, will be blue shifted as it moves into the masses field, but will be redshifted as it moves away from the gravitational mass by an equal amount, and will constitute no change to a redshift observation.
So Colin, there is no difference to these mechanics in my model.  And the equations I am seeking to describe the increase of the universal increases in time due to contraction of entire universe, do not have anything to do with the up/down hill type geometry of GR that my model adds a correction term for in my video pages 1 through to 4b.
And Colin, one can observe light that has travelled through the gravitational field of a mass, but one only observes that light when it arrives in the reference frame one is observing from. (that being my point)

@Thebox. Look I appreciate the interest, and the support, but your posts are a bit confusing the issues here, and I haven't got the time or energy to engage with 3 people about issues that are confused.
So with all due respect, b/c Alan and Colin have better math skills I will stick to answering them.  Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I'm just very focused at the mo. K?

[Colin2B]

OK, glad to hear you are clear about your theory, but there are a lot of items you will need to cover in your paper. You can't rely on someone coming back with questions like we do, you need to cover any possible question first, remember busy people no time. You can put detail and discussion into appendices in order to keep body text succinct.

If time was faster in the past and is slower now, then my contraction would be decelerating as mass further clumps.

You will need to explain why move from slower to faster is not a deceleration.

(Please remember that these changes in time that I am stating as affecting everything universally are not 'the' changes in time we observe of clocks in the gravity potential, although all rates of time of 'everything' will be affected b/c 'everywhere' is)

I had assumed that, but it is still a change of state from time past to time present, and light + universe radius are moving through it, so you will have to explain why it doesn’t result in a deceleration. After all, you state it is the cause of the acceleration so it must have an overall effect.

one can observe light that has travelled through the gravitational field of a mass, but one only observes that light when it arrives in the reference frame one is observing from. (that being my point)

My (and @alancalverd ) point also. But you will need to make this clear in statements such as:

“Yes, the light will be blueshifted if it passes by a gravitational mass, but this will not result in a blueshifted observation.  It just minuses the redshift, but only very slightly.”

Otherwise the reader will assume you mean a shift is detected at the observing point.

Lot’s left to do, but you are making progress towards a paper.

[timey (OP)]

@Colin2B.  Taking on board the peripherals that you identify for future reference:

Ok...
(please note that unless stated otherwise all (c) and (t), and therefore (R) notation is as per our present rate of time)

ct=R
c^2/R=a
(c (is it times or plus?) a)t=(R+half R) - R = half R (or 50% of R)

My notation (td) means (time changes)

(td)/R=c^2/R, is equal to (50% td) over R, which isn't equal to 50% of R.
(c^2/R is now superfluous b/c (td)/R is equal and now 'physically describes c^2/R acceleration as (td))

(50%td) over R = 25% of R.
(I anticipate that you may want explanation to understand the mechanics of this part of the equation, and can provide an explanation on request if needed after seeing the 'table')

CMB redshift observation is 8% lesser than Galaxy Cluster resdshift observation.

25-8=17% of R contraction.

8 is 33% of 25, and that is the ratio between the decrease in redshift due to galaxies converging into galaxy clusters causing the g fields between the galaxy clusters to be decreased in g, and the increase in the gravity field due to universal contraction, that is then the cause of the clumping of mass to be accelerated.

Please see my table of time changes using the (td)/R=50% acceleration, as I take the universe first back in time, and then forward.
Resulting in the total time as per our years that the universe takes to contract, what position we are at now in that contraction, and the total 'actual' distance that the inflation period expanded the universe to, before it then started contracting.



(I would be most grateful Colin if you would identify points where my explanation does not make itself clear.  Of course that table could be elloquently expressed by some type of summation of changes in time over 33%, or something like that anyway, but that type of higher degree of mathematical manouvers is 'so far' a bit beyond me tbh)