[guest39538]

My notation (td) means (time changes)

Δt  means time changes

p.s you could of put  t/x  ≠   t'/ 0.5x

But you didn't want my help ....

[Colin2B]

I’ll have a think about the table. I’ll need go through it to think if there is a better way of notating the rest but at the moment i cant really understand why you’ve done what you have.
Can i suggest you write this up to go in an appendix and we move on, perhaps something further on will feed back to this and make it clearer for me.

EDIT: just to explain. You have an understanding of how your 3 different time systems work and they don’t work as per conventional physics, so Alan & i need more information before we can understand how all this works. Hopefully that will come as we progress and at some stage we can revisit this. For the moment you have something you are happy to use as a working hypothesis.

[timey (OP)]

OK Colin.  Thanks.
I have completed (for my paper) the inclusion of my video considerations up to page 4b, these being concerning considerations of GR  curvature, inclusive of motion related SR considerations.
I will now go back to page 5 and provide a much better description of what are explanations of SR length distortion considerations, placed within the construct of the page 1 through to 4b considerations.

(EDIT CORRECTION: Don't consider b/c I got it wrong
***What I do need you to consider in that 'table', (b/c sleeping on it, I realise I should have included) is that:
When the 'distance due to (td)' is at 0.75% of R, and the 'percentage of R due to the velocity of 'objects' redshifts' is at 0.24% of R, and the 'percentage of R contracted by' is at 0.51%...
It goes back in history 1 more time of +50% (td) where the 'percentage of R due to velocity redshidts' ends up being 0.033% or so, and 'percentage of R contracted by' is 0.1%.
(Edit correction:  the 'percentage of R due to velocity redshidts' ends up being 0.1% or so, and 'percentage of R contracted by' is 0.033% (I had put numbers wrong way round))*** EDIT CORRECTION: see next post for correction)

Anyway that is the ratios, and in going back in history we are heading back to an almost uniform sea of particles and energy, where the slightly anisotropic nature of this arrangement can be considered as the almost uniform g field having more potential in some areas than others.  This is a GR consideration, so my alterations to these descriptions are contained elsewhere.

The universal increases in rates of time over history (and into future) are going to be describing the 'observation of the acceleration of redshifts' that is attributed (currently in the expanding universe theory) to the accelerated expansion of the universe at a rate of c^2/R.

GR can describe a contracting universe, (without cosmological constant).
I just described physical mechanics for the acceleration of a contraction, for a universe that is accelerating in it's contraction,  using a value know to be associated with the cosmological constant.

[timey (OP)]

Ok, I said something wrong in last post regarding taking the universe back further in history.  But this is the last word on this contraction business before I move on.

You will see from the table, and the last 3 colomns, that I take the 'reduced distance due to (td)' and ask what 33% of that distance is.  This is the 'percentage of R due to velocity reshifts' (or the rate at which mass is clumping) which I minus from the first distance to result in 'percentage of R contracted by'.

Now to say so, I tried calculating, in addition to the 6 jumps I already made into the past, 5 more t=+50% jumps of R=ct into the deeper past, where the 'distance due to time dilation' at each jump is halfed, and 33% of that distance is minused to give the percentage of R contracted by, which after 5 further jumps into the past has left me with a contraction of 0.0313225% of R.
In order to get to a 0% 'the percentage of R contracted by' result, I'd have to jump back few(?) more times.   

[timey (OP)]

I had to step off and take a break from this project for a while, but I am back on it now.
@Colin2B, I am wondering if you have found the time as of yet to have a look at the 'table', and if so, if you had diciphered what I am doing there?

[timey (OP)]

I’ll have a think about the table. I’ll need go through it to think if there is a better way of notating the rest but at the moment i cant really understand why you’ve done what you have.
Can i suggest you write this up to go in an appendix and we move on, perhaps something further on will feed back to this and make it clearer for me.

EDIT: just to explain. You have an understanding of how your 3 different time systems work and they don’t work as per conventional physics, so Alan & i need more information before we can understand how all this works. Hopefully that will come as we progress and at some stage we can revisit this.

@Colin2B Are you and Alan still with this?  It is my intention for you guys to understand.  I have re-arranged the intro quite considerably to this purpose, trying to outline what I am trying to do, and where the differences that I am implementing are.

[alancalverd]

As I understand things so far, the hypothesis is that the red shift of distant objects is due to their clumping.

So let's have two observers at distance D and 2D from a clumping object. The observer at D sees events that occurred t years ago, and the observer at 2D sees events that occurred 2t years ago.

As the object contracts, so its red shift increases because g is increasing. Velocity red shift is irrelevant because for every part that is moving away from the observer towards the center of the clump,  there will be a symmetric part moving towards him. Gravitational red shift is the only significant factor.

Thus red shift increases with time. So the red shift observed at D, being the result of a more recent emission than that observed at 2D, will be greater.Therefore the red shift of near objects will be greater than the red shift of distant objects, which is contrary to observation.

[timey (OP)]

Ok, look @alancalverd, you understand that a contracting universe consideration, where light sources are moving towards the observation point, will result in a blueshifted observation.

Do you also understand that a contracting universe consideration, where the light sources are 'not' moving towards the observation point, and mass sizes do not get bigger (ie:no gravitational clumping action), that the observation will also be blueshifted? This being due to the g field inbetween the light sources increasing in g as the universe contracts. (although in this scenario there is no mechanics for a contraction)

Ok, so what I am describing is a contracting universe consideration, where light sources are not moving towards the observation point, but are converged into galaxies that are converging upon each other into galaxy clusters, and mass sizes are increasing due to gravitational clumping.
Under this construct the highly anistropic g field between lightsources that have converged into galaxy/galaxy clusters* will be decreasing in g due to the clumping action, faster than the contraction of the universe will be increasing this highly anistropic g field.
(*clearly this is a vast oversimplification of the physics of galaxy formation, I am just referring to the action of gravitational clumping here)

Ok - so let's look at what you have said:

Quote Alan:
"So let's have two observers at distance D and 2D from a clumping object. The observer at D sees events that occurred t years ago, and the observer at 2D sees events that occurred 2t years ago."

Ok well a 'clumping object' is not good visualisation for me, so let's say we are looking at a galaxy cluster from D and 2D, at events that took place at t and 2t

Quote Alan:
"As the object contracts, so its red shift increases because g is increasing. Velocity red shift is irrelevant because for every part that is moving away from the observer towards the center of the clump,  there will be a symmetric part moving towards him. Gravitational red shift is the only significant factor."

Ok, so I don't get the first sentence.  The galaxies of the galaxy cluster will be converging upon each other, and this motion will be 'away' from either observer who is observing from differring galaxy clusters at D and 2D. (my model says that this will be a velocity related redshift and that this velocity related redshift will constitute 8% of the observed redshift for both observers.)

I do not understand "there will be a symmetric part moving towards him".  Our only observations of light sources movng towards us involve galaxies of our own galaxy cluster.
But yes - apart from the 8% velocity related redshifts, all the rest of the redshift is attributed to gravitational shift due the g-field between masses decreasing in g, and this is caused by the clumping process. (the universal contraction process that the clumping action causes does not add to g in the field as fast as the clumping process reduces g in the field)

Quote Alan:
"Thus red shift increases with time. So the red shift observed at D, being the result of a more recent emission than that observed at 2D, will be greater.Therefore the red shift of near objects will be greater than the red shift of distant objects, which is contrary to observation."

So yes, the redshift will increase over time, and this is what we observe, in that lightsources that are more distant are more redshifted.

However, if we say that we are the observers at 2D from observation, and we observe redshift B from light source at observation, but we observe redshift A coming from D.  We can then work out that observer at D will observe a redshift A  from both the observation at 2D from us, and from our galaxy cluster, because observer at D is midway inbetween. (this is no different to the current expansion viewpoint)

Now it is the data of the CMB values, where the redshifts are 8% lesser than those of galaxy clusters, that becomes significant.

The contracting universe that I am proposing results in the observations that we observe Alan. I've spent over 10 years checking this now... and indeed I will state again that my model can explain observations that current theory cannot, such as the discrepancy between the CMB and galaxy cluster redshift measurements, the discrepancies of luminosity magnitude with respect to distance, and the quandry of the development of the recently discovered supermassive blackholes, etc.

Before moving on, is there any part of the above that needs clarifying?

Because if not, then I can start talking about how the 'table' that I provided earlier is essentially placing observers at D, 2D, 3D, 4D, etc, into the past, and at D, 2D, 3D, 4D, into the future, using D=R and R=c(t=13.8billion years) in order to make it's calculations.

Or alternatively I could start intoducing my revised paper as to the modification that my model makes to general relativity, and see if I can bring you to an understanding of what I am doing there, as @Colin2B suggested, and come back to the 'universal contraction' consideration afterwards.

[alancalverd]

The "intervening fields" between source and observer are irrelevant. Gravitational redshift depends only on the difference of gravitational potential between the source and observer.

The bit about symmetry isn't terribly important, but if a galaxy far far away is condensing, to a first approximation that movement will be a spherical collapse towards the center of that galaxy, so there will be as much matter moving towards us as away from us if the center isn't moving. But the important part is that the gravitational redshift of that galaxy will increase with time as the local g increases. Thus red_D> red_2D

Now let's allow the distant galaxy to move towards us as part of the overall collapse of the universe. That movement will produce a velocity blue shift that will increase with time as the collapse accelerates. Hence blu_D >blu_2D.

So we have a balance between observed redshift due to local clumping of distant objects and blue shift due to overall contraction.Therefore

(a) there will be a value D₀ where the clumping redshift equals the collapsing blueshift, and

(b) nearby galaxies will have a net blueshift and distant galaxies a net redshift.

Is either statement actually observed?

[timey (OP)]

@alancalverd Can I ask please if you had a look at those 3 arXiv papers on contracting scenarios by professional theoretical physicists, that I posted to you earlier this thread?  I can assure you that the only difference that I am adding 'never heard before' is the time related cause and effect mechanics for gravity.

OK so...

The difference of gravitational potential between the source and observer IS the 'intervening field' surely?

And in a universe that is contracting under the influence of gravity, this intervening field of gravity potential between source and observer is not irrelevant.

Also, you haven't seemed to grasp that a galaxy cluster, where the galaxies of that galaxy cluster are converging on a point, will not produce any objects that are moving in any significant fashion 'towards' the observer.
(My models contraction occurs due to the influence of gravity. There is no gravitational reason for 'a part' of a distant galaxy cluster to move significantly towards another galaxy cluster.)

The observers point of observation will also be converging towards the point that the galaxies of his galaxy cluster are moving towards.
Both the observation and the observation point are moving away from each other, and the distance between, ie: the g field of gravity potential, will be lengthening in distance, and reducing in g.
And the redshifts observed (of galaxy clusters) are then a combination of velocity related redshifts (8%) and gravitational redshifts (92%). Where 8% is the discrepancy between galaxy cluster redshifts and the CMB redshifts.

Now it becomes important to consider that a universe contracting under the influence of gravity will contract at an accelerating rate.  That is what my 'table' is concerning, providing physical cause and effect mechanics for an accelerated contraction, via the physics of changes in the rate of time in the g field, also addressed as my modification to GR in the video worksheets. (currently being improved upon for my paper, hopefully with some mathematical guidance from yourself and @Colin2B?)

[Colin2B]

@alancalverd Can I ask please if you had a look at those 3 arXiv papers on contracting scenarios by professional theoretical physicists, that I posted to you earlier this thread? 

I don’t think @alancalverd will be able to see them as they were embedded in the paper which has now disappeared.

The difference of gravitational potential between the source and observer IS the 'intervening field' surely?

And in a universe that is contracting under the influence of gravity, this intervening field of gravity potential between source and observer is not irrelevant.

Just to clarify. Did you agree in an earlier post that the uphill down dale effect wouldn’t affect your light beam.
The difference between gp of source and observer is not the intervening field in current physics, so you would need to offer a new methodology here.
What is relevant is the gp of the source at the time the light left. Could your theory suggest that this has changed and so what we observe might not be correct? Just a thought.

[timey (OP)]

No - what I said was that light travelling into and out of a mass's gravitational field that is between the source and the observation point will not affect the magnitude of redshift.

'Hills and troughs' is an analogy of the general relativity spacetime geometry.  This analogy allows the visualisation of an object moving slower when it climbs a hill, and faster when it drops into a trough.  This is the general relativity "mass tells space how to bend, and space tells mass how to move".

My model doesn't change this outlook in the slightest.
What my model does is describe physical cause and effect mechanics for 'why' the object goes faster or slower, via the physics of changes in time. (and in doing so results a flat spacetime geometry)

So you say: "the difference between gp of source and observer is not the intervening field in current physics"
...and as such, is therefore not irrelevant but can be negated at present.
It is the g field between source and observation point that is NOT irrelevant to the redshifts observation.

The methodology I am proposing is that light that left a source 13.8 billion years ago will have been moving across a g field in-between source and observation. In the 13.8 billion years (our rate of time) that the light took to travel from source to observation, that g field will have changed due to 13.8 billion years of further clumping under the influence of gravity.  It will have gotten 'weaker', and that will cause a redshift.

Yes - I did notice that the company who web hosted my PDF deleted it, but I'm sure I actually posted those particular 3 arXiv papers in a post specifically addressed to Alan.  I will now go back and see if I can find it.

[timey (OP)]

Here are the 3 arXiv papers

@alancalverd
Investigation into the concept of a contracting universe has been explored under various premise:

By Christof Wetterich
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878

Here in the form of a pre-big bang contraction by Thorsten Battefeld, Robert Brandenberger
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0406180

And more recently here with regards to black holes by Jerome Quintin, Robert H. Brandenberger
https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02556

In case, as a latecomer, you have not realised, I was asking about the mathematical consideration b/c I am, following both @Colin2B and @jeffreyH advice, currently improving on my paper that I am trying to submit with arXiv scientific journal.

[Colin2B]

Yes - I did notice that the company who web hosted my PDF deleted it, but I'm sure I actually posted those particular 3 arXiv papers in a post specifically addressed to Alan.  I will now go back and see if I can find it.

Ok, i notice you found them, i couldn’t and remembered them in the paper.
Will your revised pdf be too big to post here?

[timey (OP)]

I haven't actually revised the whole paper as of yet.  What I have done is take on board the non-understandings that I have encountered here, and I am re-arranging the paper accordingly.  I am now, after the abstract, starting with the diagram of the quarter sphere, giving some 'known' context to what is occurring in page 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, etc, afterwards.

If I could I would like to be able to run this past you portion by portion, to make sure that it is understandable.  Would that be ok?   

[timey (OP)]

In any case here is the first portion...

Abstract:

This proposal for a modification of general relativity, providing cause and effect mechanics for the acceleration/attraction of gravity, results in fully described cause and effect mechanics for a very different cyclic bounce cosmology, where our current position, including the entire history of universal development into clumped mass occurs within the 'contraction' period.

General Relativity can already describe a contracting universe, but to modify general relativity, (bearing in mind that physics has no comprehensive theory of time), I add another entirely seperate time function for background space - where the changes in the rate of this time can be considered as the phenomenon from which the effects of gravitational acceleration (not gravitational attraction) are emergent.
This temporal interpretation of space time curvature constitutes a renormalisation term to the general relativity metric resulting in Euclidean geometry, or flat space.

My model incorporates both general and special relativity considerations into a singular space time structure that addresses the quantum/relativity time problem resulting a 'pilot theory' type scenario of position and momentum.

My model makes a definitive falsifiable prediction for a doable experiment.

My model predicts that galaxy clusters will have greater magnitude redshifts than the CMB. (as is observed)


Modifications to General Relativity are:
1/ An additional time phenomenon
2/ An additional axiom "+energy=shorter seconds"
3/ An additional axiom "The speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time"


1/ Introducing An Additional Time Phenomenon:

So before I introduce my model's additional time phenomenon and it's changes in rate, I will quickly go through some known time dilation considerations - that it be clearer the contruct of what follows.



The diagam above is a quarter sphere (purple curve) plus equatorial bulge gradient (blocked green).
Clocks placed at sea level at any placement on that equatorial bulge gradient (red curve/big dots) will all run at same rate.
This is because, from pole to equator, the increase in centripetal speed caused by the increased hieght from centre of earth/planet due to the equatorial bulge gradient - where an increase in speed causes a decreased clock rate - exactly cancels out the increase in the clock rate that is expected of a clock when that clock is positioned at an increased height from centre of earth/planet.
(ie: elevated position in the gravity potential)

Therefore this model makes all it's considerations of the rate of time of 'clocks' on the basis that the observed clock rate is a combination of both general relativity(position in gravity potential) time dilation effects, 'and' special relativity (motion related) time dilation effects.

This model states that these general relativity and special relativity clock timing effects are occurring ONLY for where m does NOT equal zero, (ie: for mass), and states that there is another separate time phenomenon for where m does equal zero. (ie: open space)
That this additional time phenomenon for where m does equal zero occurs concurrently to the timing of clocks, but as a separate issue.
And the changes in the rate of this additional time phenomenon are inversely proportional (ie: change by the same value observed of the clock, but negatively) to the changes in the rate of time for clocks, (ie: where m doesn't equal zero), when clocks are observed in fixed position* with the centripetal motion of the earth/planet in the gravity potential.
(*as opposed to clocks/mass in free motion with respect to the centripetal motion of the earth/planet, in the gravity potential, this being a differently valued consideration, more on the difference here later)
And the specific rates of both time phenomenon are defined (for all but a very tiny part, this being a 'universal contraction' consideration) by the magnitude of the Gravitational Mass.


I then go on to introduce the worksheets outlining the modification, which I can post next, when the above is found to be understandable.

[Colin2B]

@timey   “I then go on to introduce the worksheets outlining the modification, which I can post next, when the above is found to be understandable.”

Ok, i understand [or think I do  . ] what you are saying.

I assume statements like:
“It is the g field between source and observation point that is NOT irrelevant to the redshifts observation”
Will be fully explained as we go forward.
As I say, I’m not concerned whether I agree with your analysis, just whether it is understandable by a reader.

[timey (OP)]

OK good. But to give you an idea of my philosophy, I don't expect that anyone should agree with my model, in just the same way that I do expect everyone not to agree with the expanding model. This being because both are just models and hypothesis until such time as experimental agreement is attained.  My model provides a falsifiable prediction.  Expanding model doesn't.

But it does concern me that you haven't fully understood why the g field between source and observation is NOT irrelevant in a universe that is slowly contracting under the influence of gravity, so before I get back to my laptop later and post the next portion, I'll have another go at this.

It's about 'initial conditions' Colin.
The initial conditions of expansion are that an almost uniform sea of particles undergo an inflation period that slows down, and then speeds up again as an accelerated expansion.  The g fields between galaxy clusters observed today 'are' irrelevant in this expanding theory.
The initial conditions of my models contraction are an almost uniform sea of particles that entirely filled up all of the spaces between the clumped mass' we see today (and beyond).  The masses we see today are formed of the particles that used to be in those spaces.
What is occurring is a dividing of the gravity field into points of concentrated gravity (mass), and tracts of weakening gravity (fields) between.
Light that was emitted at a point in history ago, will have been emitted in a universe that was less clumped, where the gravity (fields) were of greater magnitude. When the light arrives at observation in present time, the universe has further clumped between then and now, into more concentrated points of gravity (mass), and the gravity (fields) are weaker now than they were when the light left the source.
Light that is travelling through a g field that is weakening in magnitude will be redshifted.

There is nothing in the following worksheets that is going to cover giving an explanation of why the g fields in-between mass will weaken as the clumping process is furthered.  I daresay I will have to describe this in the bounce cosmology chapter.  Is the above description understandable?

[Colin2B]

But it does concern me that you haven't fully understood why the g field between source and observation is NOT irrelevant in a universe that is slowly contracting under the influence of gravity, so before I get back to my laptop later and post the next portion, I'll have another go at this.

Problem is with use of term g field. I’ll explain.
We have agreed that the intervening gravitational potential has no end to end influence, however, GP and g are strongly linked. I know I'm teaching granny etc, but for clarity: think of lines of equal GP as contours on a map, the gradient of those lines ie steepness of the slope is g. So if you talk about the g field folks will assume you mean static GP/g field.
I think you have to explain in basic terms, perhaps light passing through a changing mass density. You could also make some assumptions about the size of the volume and change necessary to give the effect you are looking at.

[timey (OP)]

Ok - I think we are having terminology problems, and that is good, 'cos best I get it sorted now.

I have agreed that the difference between gravity potential of source and observation point is relevant but can be negated at present.

Now when I say the difference in gravity potential of source and observation point, what I am talking about is the mass ? of source, and the mass ? of observation point, and the difference in the gravity potential of those masses.

When I say the g field between source and observation point, I am talking about the anistropic nature of gravity in open space and the inverse square law by which gravity gets weaker with distance from mass.

So - as the anistropic nature of the 'g field' of open space becomes weaker due to the gravity potential of masses becoming greater due to the clumping process, light travelling from source, emitted at a point in history, will be travelling across the anistropic nature of the open space g field (between galaxy clusters) that is getting weaker as the light travels, b/c clumping of mass is still occurring while the light travels.
And when that light is viewed 'now' at the observation point, it has been 'gravitationally' redshifted by this ever weakening g -field of open space.

If you can think of any better way to express this terminology-wise I'd be grateful.
I, myself cannot think in terms of a static gravity field, b/c I cannot visualise a means by which a static gravity field may exist in our universe of many masses interacting, but that's just me, and I don't think like everyone else, so best I know about these things.