0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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)
@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.
Quote from: timey on 06/03/2018 14:49:46I'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
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.
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
recorded a faster rate of universal expansion than CMB measurements did."
revealed an 8 percent discrepancy in the value for the Hubble constant when compared with the method using precise measurements of the CMB
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.
Pretty simple, indeed, but nothing to do with physics.
radiation shifts, both gravitationally (in the gravity field)
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,
But intervening gravitational fields have no effect on the perceived red shift of a distant object.