[alancalverd]

Alas, you have got it all back to front. Gravitational redshift is a function of the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver, nothing else. More specifically, unless gravitational travels faster than c (and we have no reason to suspect it does) the shift depends on g_{source, then} - g_{receiver, now}.

[timey (OP)]

Alas, you have got it all back to front. Gravitational redshift is a function of the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver, nothing else. More specifically, unless gravitational travels faster than c (and we have no reason to suspect it does) the shift depends on g_{source, then} - g_{receiver, now}.

Alas you appear to be talking about the expanding model again, where the gravity field of the 'void' of space between the light source and observer,( which we are saying is an observation of light from another galaxy cluster) is irrelevant and redshifts are considered to be the greater part velocity related.

A contracting model will be doing a lot of things back to front.

Again can I ask you please if you actually looked at the 3 arXiv papers that I posted addressed specifically to you @alancalverd

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69800.msg535206#msg535206

[alancalverd]

It has nothing to do with expansion, contraction, or the hokey-cokey universe. A photon leaves its source and arrives at a detector with a gravitational energy shift dependent only on the difference of g between source and detector. Motion shifts are something else.   

[timey (OP)]

Do you mean the difference between the size of the masses of the emitting source and the observation point?

Or are you talking about the anistropic changes in the g field that exists in the distance of space that lies between the emitting source and the observation point that the light must travel across?

[alancalverd]

KISS* I have only mentioned the difference in local g between the emitter and the receiver, and I don't intend to add any complications. Nothing else contributes to gravitational redshift. As you know, g = - GM/r at the surface of the emitter (or receiver) of mass M and radius r.

*not implying that you are S, but Keep It Simple And Don't Waste Your Genius On Irrelevance hasn't passed into the idiom yet!

[Colin2B]

 




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,

“Static”? Blame auto correct, not what i meant to say.

Problem is one I mentioned early on, that if your falsifiable experiment is correct then your ideas mean current relationship between time dilation and GP/g doesn’t hold so you need a replacement. You somehow have to find a way of describing it -I had assumed it came out of your 3rd time ‘inversion ‘.  As I said earlier, you have to build some scenarios and work them through because it seems to me that the clumping would have to take place at >c.

[timey (OP)]

@alancalverd.  Unfortunately I am adding the complication of the 'voids' and multiple body masses. Yes it is true that the expanding model 'ignores' these complications, b/c the expansion renders the gravity of clusters to be local and isolated from other clusters by 'expanding' voids of 0 or near 0 g.

@Colin2B
No - my model states the current relationship between the time dilation of a clock and GP/g does hold.
Clocks will obey GR in all but the factor of the greater mass, where b/c clocks run slower nearer to mass, GR states that time runs slower on the bigger mass.
My model states that although all clocks do run slower nearer mass than they do at elevation from mass, that a clocks rate will be faster near a 'bigger' mass than near a 'smaller' mass. The opposite to GR, and this can be tested via the experiment I suggest.
There is no way to test for the separate time phenomenon that my model adds.  The only observation of this time is via its changes, that are inversely proportional to the changes observed in a clock at same position in the gravity potential, and are causing objects in free motion in the gravity potential to be accelerated/decelerated in their motion towards/away from the gravitational mass.

This is what pages 1 through to 3 are about. I will continue in portions later regardless of if Alan is on board with 'contracting' considerations.

But for the mo - how can clumping under the influence of gravity occur at c?
Clumping will occur at whatever rate of gravitational force the gravitational mass is exerting on the local field.
Near a black hole clumping might well occur at c, when c is held relative to our rate of time. (where orbitals will slow the process down somewhat)
But a smaller body mass will not have objects gravitating towards it at c.
An almost uniform sea of particles and energy contracting under the influence of its own gravitational anomalies will start clumping/contracting very slowly indeed, and will proceed at an accelerating rate.

[alancalverd]

Unfortunately I am adding the complication of the 'voids' and multiple body masses. Yes it is true that the expanding model 'ignores' these complications, b/c the expansion renders the gravity of clusters to be local and isolated from other clusters by 'expanding' voids of 0 or near 0 g.

Unfortunate indeed, because by experiment we know that any model must ignore them, because they have no effect in reality. If your model is to be taken seriously, it must be consistent with what we already know.

[alancalverd]

But a smaller body mass will not have objects gravitating towards it at c.

Classically, there is no upper limit to the speed of any two objects approaching under gravity. Relativity tells us that the upper limit is c, which defines the event horizon. Hence black holes and Hawking radiation.

[timey (OP)]

And could you please describe 'why' a model that is slowly contracting will ignore the fact of voids and multiple masses?
By definition, to do so would be highly illogical.

And what exactly is it that you are stating that we already know?

[alancalverd]

We already know that gravitational redshift depends only on g_source - g_receiver. Same as the height difference between your house and mine doesn't depend on the mountains in between.

[timey (OP)]

Which experimental test did this knowledge arrise from Alan?

[alancalverd]

Every astronomical observation, every repeat and variation of the  Pound-Rebka experiment, GPS satellites, radiofrequency shift from deep space probes, and pure common sense.  Just like the hills between houses: if a photon is blueshifted as it approaches a gravitational well en route to a distant receiver, it is equally redshifted as it leaves that well, so the net shift depends only on the difference in gravitational potential between the source and the receiver.

[timey (OP)]

Every astronomical observation is calculated under the contruct you put forward, but does not serve as experimental evidence that there is no relevant gravity in a void.

Unless I completely missed something and the Pound Rebka experiment was conducted in a 'void' between galaxy clusters, this also does not serve as experemental evidence that there is no relevant gravity present in a void.

Have they installed GPS in the void?

Have deep space probes probed the voids?

If there is gravity in a void, of which there is no experimental evidence that there isn't, then it will cause gravitational shifts.

In a universe that is slowly contracting under the influence of gravity, the gravity of the voids will be highly relevant with regards to gravitational shift.

[Colin2B]

No - my model states the current relationship between the time dilation of a clock and GP/g does hold.
Clocks will obey GR in all but the factor of the greater mass, where b/c clocks run slower nearer to mass, GR states that time runs slower on the bigger mass.

As I’ve said near the beginning, this will need some significant explanation because the 2 statements appear to contradict each other. You cannot keep the current relationship and have clocks not follow that relationship nr a density anomaly.

An almost uniform sea of particles and energy contracting under the influence of its own gravitational anomalies will start clumping/contracting very slowly indeed, and will proceed at an accelerating rate.

As I’ve said before, if your assertion is that light enters an area of uniform sea of particles, becomes shifted and then leaves a void area which does not affect it’s shift, then you will have to provide some scenarios and details. But it seems to me that the clumping has to occur at a significant rate so that the changes can occur while the light  is passing through the clumping zone. Gravitational shifts are very small compared to doppler, so a scenario is important to prove the magnitude required.
You will also need to explain how your idea overcomes 2 objections you will meet as your paper is read.
1. If light enters a dense area that is expanding it will be subject to the same g forces as it enters, passes through and leaves that zone as the particles that are clumping, so it is still going to have the same uphill/downdale effect. How does your void idea actually work in practice?
2. Which sources you are observing. If we take starlight then the star must have already formed during clumping, and certainly if we can see it then the light hasn’t passed through a sea of particles or that would show up in absorption spectra.
As I’ve said, i had assumed the whole idea would be explained by the inverse time dilation rather than voids.

[alancalverd]

Every astronomical observation is calculated under the contruct you put forward, but does not serve as experimental evidence that there is no relevant gravity in a void.

An observation is not a calculation. It is a fact that demands explanation by calculation.

Unless I completely missed something and the Pound Rebka experiment was conducted in a 'void' between galaxy clusters, this also does not serve as experemental evidence that there is no relevant gravity present in a void.

Of course there are gravitational fields in the space between things. They just don't happen to be relevant to the observed redshift between two points. If they were, you could extract energy from space!

Specifically, the PR experiment shows perfect antisymmetry between up and down photons, and exactly the calculated value of shift compared with the horizontal frequency, taking into account only the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver. As the gravitational field is divergent, you would get a different result if the intervening field was indeed significant.

Have they installed GPS in the void?

AFAIK the satellites whizz about between the earth and the moon, and the space between the satellite and the receiver is are also subject to the varying gravitational field of everything else in the universe, but the frequency difference between clocks only depends on the relative gravitational potential difference between them.

Have deep space probes probed the voids?

depends on your definition of void. Obviously if you are going from A to B, the space you are travelling in contains at least A and B. AFAIK there is no frequency shift ofthe transmitter caused by intervening stuff.

If there is gravity in a void, of which there is no experimental evidence that there isn't, then it will cause gravitational shifts.

Lensing, yes. Frequency shift, no.

In a universe that is slowly contracting under the influence of gravity, the gravity of the voids will be highly relevant with regards to gravitational shift.

"gravity of the voids" implies a source of graviation with no mass. Observation?

[timey (OP)]

No - my model states the current relationship between the time dilation of a clock and GP/g does hold.
Clocks will obey GR in all but the factor of the greater mass, where b/c clocks run slower nearer to mass, GR states that time runs slower on the bigger mass.

As I’ve said near the beginning, this will need some significant explanation because the 2 statements appear to contradict each other. You cannot keep the current relationship and have clocks not follow that relationship nr a density anomaly.

An almost uniform sea of particles and energy contracting under the influence of its own gravitational anomalies will start clumping/contracting very slowly indeed, and will proceed at an accelerating rate.

As I’ve said before, if your assertion is that light enters an area of uniform sea of particles, becomes shifted and then leaves a void area which does not affect it’s shift, then you will have to provide some scenarios and details. But it seems to me that the clumping has to occur at a significant rate so that the changes can occur while the light  is passing through the clumping zone. Gravitational shifts are very small compared to doppler, so a scenario is important to prove the magnitude required.
You will also need to explain how your idea overcomes 2 objections you will meet as your paper is read.
1. If light enters a dense area that is expanding it will be subject to the same g forces as it enters, passes through and leaves that zone as the particles that are clumping, so it is still going to have the same uphill/downdale effect. How does your void idea actually work in practice?
2. Which sources you are observing. If we take starlight then the star must have already formed during clumping, and certainly if we can see it then the light hasn’t passed through a sea of particles or that would show up in absorption spectra.
As I’ve said, i had assumed the whole idea would be explained by the inverse time dilation rather than voids.

No - they don't contradict each other.  There is no contradiction in stating that clocks run slower nearer mass, and stating that the clock nearer the bigger mass runs faster.

All I am saying here is, that the electron transitions of the mass elevated in the field of the gravitational Mass will have greater degrees of freedom to tick faster in the weaker field, and that time in the field itself is separate and has nothing to do with what happens for clocks/mass.

And the 'almost uniform sea of particles' that are my models initial conditions (post big bang/inflation) for universal contraction will not be producing any light before it has clumped into light producing mass.

My assertion is that an observation of light that was produced in a distant galaxy cluster 'has' to cross a void before we can observe it.
In the expanding theory that void is considered to be 0, or near 0 g because the voids are expanding and gravitational redshifts is source gravity minus observation gravity, and the rest of the resdshift is velocity related.
But in a model that is slowly contracting from initial conditions into clumped mass under the influence of gravity, the voids between masses will not have 0, or near 0 gravity. Redshift observations will be 8% velocity related redshift, and 92% gravitational redshift.

This can be evidenced in the fact that observational data shows that the CMB has an 8% lesser redshift than galaxy clusters. (where this observational data does not support expanding theory)

1/ I don't understand why you are visualising a dense area expanding, in a model of a universe that is slowly contracting from the initial conditions of an almost uniform sea of particles.

2/ I have already answered above as to the starlight question.

No - sorry, but the system of changes in time that I propose only describes 'why' an object in space is accelerated/decelerated by what we call 'gravity', and 'why' via c^2/R, this will cause an accelerated universal contraction.
The time changes can be considered just as 'gravity'.

I cannot 'make' you visualise a universal contraction from initial conditions of an almost uniform gravity field, under the influence of gravity.
But I can assure you that under this remit, an observation of light from 10 billion years ago, that has travelled a void, or voids, has travelled in a universe where there has been 10 billion years of further dividing of the field into points of concentration, and widening tracts of weakening anisotropic gravity fields when it reaches us.
This will cause redshift. The further away the source, the greater the redshift.

[timey (OP)]

@alancalverd
The point is Alan, is that there is no experimental evidence that there 'isn't' significant gravity in the voids.  And there is no experimental evidence that redshifts are for the greater part velocity related.
That's all that is relevant with regards to my model.

You said:
""gravity of the voids" implies a source of graviation with no mass. Observation?"

The mass of the galaxy clusters Alan.

[alancalverd]

Of course there are gravitational fields everywhere. The universe couldn't clump, form planets, or have visiting comets otherwise. So by "gravity of the voids" I assume you just mean "gravitational fields", as understood by everyone else, i.e. gravity in the voids

I thought you were objecting to velocity redshift, the observation of which is consistent with an accelerating and expanding universe, being significant.

[timey (OP)]

I'm not 'objecting' to anything.
I am simply proposing something completely different that also fits with observation...
...and I provide a prediction that can falsify/prove the proposal via suggested experiment. (that is a further test of general relativity that has so far not been conducted)