[Colin2B]

@timey “I cannot 'make' you visualise a universal contraction from initial conditions of an almost uniform gravity field, under the influence of gravity.”

I’m not trying to. What i am doing is reading what you say as if i am reading your paper and asking myself where people will see sticking points, questions etc. You have a choice, you can anticipate and  explain these issues in your paper, or you can wait for the questions to be asked. But what if the questions, and hence the endorsement, never come.

[alancalverd]

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)

I refer the honorable lady to reply #966 above

[timey (OP)]

@timey “I cannot 'make' you visualise a universal contraction from initial conditions of an almost uniform gravity field, under the influence of gravity.”

I’m not trying to. What i am doing is reading what you say as if i am reading your paper and asking myself where people will see sticking points, questions etc. You have a choice, you can anticipate and  explain these issues in your paper, or you can wait for the questions to be asked. But what if the questions, and hence the endorsement, never come.

@Colin2B And I am answering them aren't I?.
I have told you that I am not describing a redshift observation of light moving through a uniform sea of particles.
I have told you that I am not describing a redshift observation of light moving through a dense area that is expanding.
I have told you that light passing by an intermediate gravity concentration surrounding a body of mass will not be affected with respect to the observed magnitude of redshift. (Same as expanding theory)

I have told you that (in my model) light emitted from a distant galaxy 10 billion years ago will travel through voids that are weakening in gravity as matter further clumps 'while' the light is travelling, and this will cause a gravitational redshift to the travelling light.
The further away the source, the greater amount of time the light has been in a weakening field, the greater the redshift. That is what we observe.  I have interpreted the observed data differently.
The void will be weakening because the galaxies of galaxy clusters are converging and as they get closer together within each cluster, the voids between weaken in gravity.
Is that understandable?

Edit: I have also directed you to the fact that the observed data CMB redshifts are 8% lesser than the observed data galaxy cluster redshifts. (doesn't support the expanding theory)  And have explained how my model states the CMB redshifts as 100% gravitationally shifted, and that the galaxy clusters are 8% velocity shifted, and 92% gravitationally shifted.  These are figures, for my model, that are based on observed data.

[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)

I refer the honorable lady to reply #966 above

@alancalverd. What of post 966?  Are you reposting those questions that my following posts already answered?
Or should I re-phrase to make it clear that I am saying that I do not 'object' to the expanding theory, but am proposing something different?

[alancalverd]

Very simply, you have to explain why the observed red shift of distant objects is greater than that of nearby objects of similar mass. As I have explained since #966, you can't blame anything (or even a vast expanse of nothing) between the source and the observer. Your model has to consider only the gravitational red shift of the source and its motion relative to the observer.

[timey (OP)]

Very simply, you have to explain why the observed red shift of distant objects is greater than that of nearby objects of similar mass. As I have explained since #966, you can't blame anything (or even a vast expanse of nothing) between the source and the observer. Your model has to consider only the gravitational red shift of the source and its motion relative to the observer.

In my model that has been slowly contracting from an almost uniform sea of particles and energy:
Light emitted from a distant galaxy (already clumped) 10 billion years ago, will travel through voids that are weakening in gravity as matter further clumps (over 10 billion years) 'while' the light is travelling, and this will cause a gravitational redshift to the travelling light.

The further away the source, the greater amount of time the light has been in a weakening field, the greater the redshift.

That is pretty simple I think...
I started talking figures of magnitude in post 1002 if you would care to read it...

[alancalverd]

Pretty simple, indeed, but nothing to do with physics.

And I'm afraid the numbers in #1002 do not make sense.

The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089

The most reliable redshifts are from spectroscopic data, and the highest confirmed spectroscopic redshift of a galaxy is that of GN-z11 with a redshift of z = 11.1

The "8%" you talk about is not a variation in redshift but the discrepancy between two values of the Hubble parameter  (it isn't really a constant) as calculated from two different measurements of redshift. That doesn't immediately imply anything about a model of the universe since the stellar data is derived from numerous events over a wide range of times and a fair bit of guesswork.

[timey (OP)]

Yes - there is a descrepancy in the Hubble parameter, based on redshift observations of the CMB and galaxy clusters.
On the basis that we are talking about the expanding model now, this anomaly suggests that the CMB is expanding at an 8% lesser speed than the galaxy clusters are, and this anomoly does not fit with expanding theory.

Edit:
https://www.space.com/38496-hunt-for-hubble-constant-standard-model.html
"Using the Hubble Space Telescope to measure the light from a number of type 1a supernovas, a 2001 study revealed an 8 percent discrepancy in the value for the Hubble constant when compared with the method using precise measurements of the CMB. In other words, the Hubble Space Telescope recorded a faster rate of universal expansion than CMB measurements did."

[alancalverd]

recorded a faster rate of universal expansion than CMB measurements did."

No it didn't. It simply

revealed an 8 percent discrepancy in the value for the Hubble constant when compared with the method using precise measurements of the CMB

. The "rate of universal expansion", indeed the entire concept of universal expansion,  is an inference from redshift, not  a measurement.

Don't confuse journalism with science. Remember that the Hubble "constant" is nothing more than the slope of a line through a number of measurements of stellar redshift. The only reason it is called a constant is because the experimental line is fairly straight. Its value has varied from around 500 (Hubble, 1929) to 55 (Sandage and Tallemann, 1970) and is currently estimated to be around 71 from telescope data. A variance of 8% from an independent measurement of CMB is not a big deal, and I would advise you not to get excited by numbers at this stage of the game.
.
The physics aspect is the fact that distant objects mostly seem to have larger redshifts than near ones, which suggests expansion, but the fact that some near ones (e.g.Andromeda) are blueshifted says that the expansion is not uniform.

[timey (OP)]

For crying out loud Alan, universal expansion is inferred b/c redshifts measurements are being 'interpreted' as the greater part velocity related shifts.
My model simply infers that the universe is contracting via a re-interpretation of the redshifts observation as being the greater part gravitationally shifted.

I know perfectly well what the Hubble ladder is thank you, and far from getting excited about journalism, I could have posted 1 of a dozen or more arXiv papers (peer reviewed) that concern the CMB Hubble telescope discrepancy, but was trying to make the info accessible for those people who do not read the arXiv links I post.
Sorry, but you are wrong.  The CMB redshifts measurements 'inferred' that the recessional velocity of the CMB is 8% lesser (or as little as 2.4%, dependent on who's error margins we are talking about) than the recessional velocity of galaxy clusters.
This is a fact that has 'professional' theoretical physicists confused, as it does not support expanding theory.

At this stage in the game Alan, all I want to do is calculate. I know exactly what I want to calculate, and have a pretty good idea of the type of calculation required, but do not know how to formalise the notation, this being what I am asking for help with.

Now it matters not to my model if the observational discrepancy is a lesser percentage. The parameters are adjustable here and do not require a specific value.

What I would like to do now is go back to the 'table' I posted earlier @Colin2B and explain to you how this reinterpretation of the redshift observations being the greater part gravitational fits in with c^2/R being an observed acceleration value.

[alancalverd]

The CMB redshifts measurements 'inferred' that the recessional velocity of the CMB is 8% lesser (or as little as 2.4%, dependent on who's error margins we are talking about) than the recessional velocity of galaxy clusters.

That would be entirely consistent with the notion of the observable universe expanding, driven by the gravitational attraction of all the matter outside the Schwarzchild radius. The CMB, having no mass,  is not subject to gravitational acceleration.

[timey (OP)]

Yes well - if it is your fancy to disagree with the professional theoretical physicists, who consider that the discrepancy is a problem for the expanding theory, and work on these problems as part of their bread and butter, then that is your opinion and I will not argue with you on it.

However, your opinion on these matters has no bearing on calculating, or even being open to considering an alternative contracting model, does it?

The CMB is radiation, and radiation shifts, both gravitationally (in the gravity field) & velocity related. (edit: evidenced in the fact that a recessional velocity has been given to the CMB)
In the expanding theory, a nobel prize was awarded for the discovery that the cosmological observations of light from supernova's indicate that there is an acceleration of the expansion.
In my contracting model, there is an acceleration of the contraction, and the value of c^2/R is relevant.

Is there any chance that we ONLY discuss my contracting model from now on Alan?

[timey (OP)]

Pretty simple, indeed, but nothing to do with physics.

Yes - you are abslolutely right, it's not physics...
And I'm not pretending that it is. What it is is a hypothesis of a model, in much the same way as the Cold Dark Matter Model is not physics but a hypothesis of a model.

It is only experimental evidence that will result in CDMM being 'physics', where experiments are being conducted.

It is only experimental evidence via the experiment that I suggest that will prove my model as being physics.

"Tis the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"

Isn't it?

[alancalverd]

radiation shifts, both gravitationally (in the gravity field)

Wrong. As it has been since you first suggested it. Redshift depends only on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.

You can't pick and choose which experimental facts fit your model, and you certainly can't invent some that plainly aren't true. Well, you can, but nobody will take you seriously: this is astrophysics, not politics.

The expanding universe has a lot of associated problems, which is why I don't defend a simple version of it. But whatever else you propose must not deny the facts. By all means consider a contracting or clumping universe, but don't kid yourself that redshift will fit your model - it is the job of a model to fit reality.

[alancalverd]

radiation shifts, both gravitationally (in the gravity field)

Wrong. As it has been since you first suggested it. Gravitational redshift depends only on the gravitational potential difference between source and receiver.

You can't pick and choose which experimental facts fit your model, and you certainly can't invent some that plainly aren't true. Well, you can, but nobody will take you seriously: this is astrophysics, not politics.

The expanding universe has a lot of associated problems, which is why I don't defend a simple version of it. But whatever else you propose must not deny the facts. By all means consider a contracting or clumping universe, but don't kid yourself that redshift will fit your model - it is the job of a model to fit reality.

Curiously, I've just been arguing with some transport planners who want to pour more concrete over the countryside "because the road [past my house] is congested". I pointed out that the peak rush hour traffic moves at an average of 55 mph so adding a bus lane won't help as buses can't go any faster, and that doesn't fit with any sane definition of congestion. "But the computer model says the road is congested". "Have you actually measured the traffic flow?" "No. We have a computer model."

[timey (OP)]

If the zero mass CMB radiation can be velocity related shifted in an expanding near zero gravity field... (expanding theory)
...then the zero mass CMB radiation will also be shifted by a gravity field that is changing in magnitude as the universe contracts under the influence of gravity... (my contracting model)

That 'is' a fact, b/c if the first holds true, then the second must also hold true, and if I knew how to make a poll from my phone I'd put it to the rest of the forum.
@Colin2B
@jeffreyH
@evan_au
@chiralSPO
Can you add your opinion please?

[Colin2B]

If the zero mass CMB radiation can be velocity related shifted in an expanding near zero gravity field... (expanding theory)
...then the zero mass CMB radiation will also be shifted by a gravity field that is changing in magnitude as the universe contracts under the influence of gravity... (my contracting model)

That 'is' a fact, b/c if the first holds true, then the second must also hold true,

The 2nd does not follow logically from the first as there is no causal connection. You have to demonstrate a mechanism for the 2nd statement as an independent premise. You may feel you have done that.

[timey (OP)]

In the first statement, (expanding theory) the causal mechanism for the velocity related shift is the expansion of the field.

In the second statement, (my contracting model) the causal mechanism for gravitational related shift is that matter further clumping over time under the influence of gravity causes changes to the magnitude of gravity 'in' the field.

So yes I do feel that I have demonstrated a mechanism for the 2nd statement as an independent premise.

[alancalverd]

But intervening gravitational fields have no effect on the perceived red shift of a distant object.

[timey (OP)]

But intervening gravitational fields have no effect on the perceived red shift of a distant object.

So you keep saying, but what experimental test has been conducted in the intervening fields for you to state this as factual physics, Alan?

The answer is none.

Therefore, it is not proven that intervening gravitational fields have no effect on the perceived red shift of a distant object, and in posting your above post as fact, you are incorrect.

If you continue to make the above statement as an objection to my model you will be guilty of what is known as 'crank' behaviour.