[captcass (OP)]

Events are always undergoing acceleration as they evolve forward in the time dilated continuum. Therefore, when we look out into space beyond the solar system, and back in time, we are also looking down a time dilation gradient into slower time. The observer’s invariant relative rate of time is always faster than that in frames in the perceived past, and we find that as D → ~13.9 Gly, the difference in the rate of time, denoted here as "dRt", → 1 s/s, recessional V → c, and lateral V → 0, just as it does near the event horizon of a black hole. Slower time results in lower frequency and the Hubble shift.

(What follows in " " is my modification of 5/19/18)
"The Big Bang theorists say it is the accelerating expansion of the universe that Doppler shifts the light, but this is incorrect. They say recessional velocities can exceed c because the objects are not moving “through” space, but are embedded within an expanding space. This is also an incorrect view.

   Einstein's tensor only contains spacetime elements, i.e., x,y,z and t, and is the actual description of the evolution of events that "describe" the "effects" of gravity. The Lorentz contractions are visual and depend on relative motion, regardless of its cause. Therefore, as recessional  velocity appears to accelerate, relativistic effects are manifested, regardless of the cause of the recessional velocity. The object gets smaller and time dilation increases. As recessional V → c the dRt → 1 s/s and time appears to stop and events are no longer visible. It is not possible to see them accelerate past c. To us, they cease to exist at c when time appears to stop, regardless of the cause of the apparent recessional velocity.

   So the dilation gradient being used here is real and present. This means we have two choices. Is the shift a Doppler effect in an illogical universe that began with an undefined singularity and is accelerating into infinite expansion, or is it a simple, logical, time dilation effect due to the passage of time having a logical minuscule acceleration component?

As noted further down in this thread, I noted that when the acceleration is proportionately added to the proper and coordinate time elements of Einstein’s field equations, based upon their individual relative rates of time, singularities and infinities are avoided because the geodesics are slightly distorted:

Where t₁ = coordinate time and t₀ = proper time, the time elements Δt₁ / Δt₀ become: ((((Δt₁*(((1 +((Δt₁ / Δt₀) * (2.2686*10^-18)))) / ((Δt₀ * (1 + (Δt₀ * 2.2686*10^-18).

For each second of Δt₀ this becomes: ((Δt₁*(1 + 2.2686*10^-18 Δt₁)) / ((1 + (2.2686*10^-18))

This manifests as a net acceleration of the proper time relative to the coordinate time as the dilation gradient deepens and Δt₁ → 0. As per my paper, this prevents the subsequent formation of a singularity in a Big Crunch scenario both within a black hole, where we instead see the ever-tightening spiraling evolution, or the universe as a whole, which we see spiraling off in all directions in the galaxies, as explained in the paper.

Obversely, as Δt₁ → ∞, infinite divergence is impossible as Δt₁ is always divided by a sum > 1; i.e., ∞ / (1 + 2.2686*10^-18) < ∞.

The paper, which also explains gravity and other subjects, can be found here: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109."

Assuming a Hubble constant of 70 km/s/Mpc, we find the apparent recessional velocity reaches c at 4282.7494 Mpc = 13.968062372 Gly.

For a 1s/s dRt at this distance the rate of change is:
1/13968062372 = 7.1592*10^-11 s/s/ly = 2.3349516024*10^-4 s/s/Mpc.

So for each Mpc the dRt = 2.3349516024*10^-4 s/s and:
c*(1 + dRt) = (299792.458) km/s * ((1+(2.3349516024*10^-4)) s = 299862.458 km and:
299862.458 - 299792.458 = 70 km/s/Mpc = the Hubble constant

This indicates that the forward evolution of time includes a universal constant of acceleration.

Because we are always being accelerated forward in the rate of time, and therefore apparently space, events in the past must appear to accelerate away from us in the opposite direction.

Please also note that the solution works for a difference in the rates of time of exactly 1 s/s. Does any other theory you know of account for a 1 s/s difference in the rates of time between us and 13.9 Gly?

This also creates the impression we are at the center of the universe and leading it in its evolution. Older, slower, frames fade from view at the horizon, as we evolve forward towards the slower time of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way: an eternally evolving continuum.

6/14/2018 edit begins here:
The full paper, where gravity is also defined as an irresistible evolutionary force in time, explaining why gravity only has one direction and why it overpowers the other forces so easily, even though it appears to be so weak, can be found here on vixra: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109

[captcass (OP)]

Author's note: This is a derivative of the acceleration constant IF the shift is due to acceleration. It is not meant to be a proof of the acceleration.

[Colin2B]

There is also a reasonablle assumption that time ran slower in the past because the universe had a greater mass density and this is reducing with expansion, hence gravitational time dilation.

Interesting to look at the acceleration effects. Where did you get 1s/s from?

[captcass (OP)]

At the event horizon of aa black hole the rate of time approaches 0. This is a 1 s/s difference from our inertial frame rate. I call this the Limit of Relativity where events transition from timelike to spacelike. I talk about this in more detail in another paper I have up on Vixra entitled "General Relativity & the Evolution of Events: Relativistic Explanations for Galactic Rotational Velocities and the Hubble Shift". I don't know if I am allowed to post a link here.
The effects we see at the event horizon are the same at 13.9 Gly....2 ends of  telescope?

[evan_au]

2 ends of  telescope?

One hypothesis about black holes in our universe is that they contain another universe with a distinct spacetime, separated from ours by the event horizon.

Similarly, our universe started out as a black hole, since the density of the early universe was sufficiently great that it formed a black hole, and we are still inside it.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Black-hole_cosmology

[Colin2B]

I talk about this in more detail in another paper I have up on Vixra entitled "General Relativity & the Evolution of Events: Relativistic Explanations for Galactic Rotational Velocities and the Hubble Shift". I don't know if I am allowed to post a link here.

I don’t see why not, as long as you are open to discussion and not just advertising. Some people just post a link to their website and walk away, or don’t allow real discussion, that doesn’t sound like you.

[jeffreyH]

This is an interesting subject but you have to be careful. It depends upon the magnitude of the effect. As time passes how fast does the density decrease? You would need data on density changes over the lifetime of the universe. You also have to take into account inflation. It might be worth looking for papers on the subject.

[jeffreyH]

There is one other consideration. We have antimatter as well as dark matter. How did the amounts of each change over time and when?

[guest39538]

Events are always undergoing acceleration as they evolve forward in the time dilated continuum. Therefore, when we look out into space beyond the solar system, and back in time, we are also looking down a time dilation gradient into slower time. The observer’s invariant relative rate of time is always faster than that in frames in the perceived past, and we find that as D → ~13.9 Gly, the difference in the rate of time, denoted here as "dRt", → 1 s/s, recessional V → c, and lateral V → 0, just as it does near the event horizon of a black hole. Slower time results in lower frequency and the Hubble shift.

Assuming a Hubble constant of 70 km/s/Mpc, we find the apparent recessional velocity reaches c at 4282.7494 Mpc = 13.968062372 Gly.

For a 1s/s dRt at this distance the rate of change is:
1/13968062372 = 7.1592*10^-11 s/s/ly = 2.3349516024*10^-4 s/s/Mpc.

So for each Mpc the dRt = 2.3349516024*10^-4 s/s and:
c*(1 + dRt) = (299792.458) m/s * ((1+(2.3349516024*10^-4)) s = 299862.458 m and:
299862.458 - 299792.458 = 70 km/s/Mpc = the Hubble constant

This indicates that the forward evolution of time includes a universal constant of acceleration.

Because we are always being accelerated forward in the rate of time, and therefore apparently space, events in the past must appear to accelerate away from us in the opposite direction.

Please also note that the solution works for a difference in the rates of time of exactly 1 s/s. Does any other theory you know of account for a 1 s/s difference in the rates of time between us and 13.9 Gly?

This also creates the impression we are at the center of the universe and leading it in its evolution.

Ins't this what Timey is saying in other thread?

[Colin2B]

Ins't this what Timey is saying in other thread?

Some similar ideas but Timey saying something quite different, dramatically diffferent!

[captcass (OP)]

Thanks for all the great comments. I want to say, however, that I am not basing this on mass density. I am not mainstream. If there is an acceleration aspect to the passage of time, this could manifest the apparent shift and we can have a stationary, non-inflationary, eternal universe.
The reason I am thinking there is an acceleration aspect to time is that all events are constantly accelerated in the gravitational time dilation field. This manifests as an acceleration in velocity and the rate of time.
The paper I referred to above is at:
http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0345?ref=9821277 .
I am working on an hypothesis regarding the relationship of velocity and the rate of time as General Relativity is completely dependent on relative rates of time. I know this is unorthodox, but I am looking at the universe as the result of time dilation. Even if I am wrong, It is a lot of fun and opens a lot of insights. Can really twist the head around, though. Off to work.....

[guest39538]

but I am looking at the universe as the result of time dilation.

Ouch, the Universe is a result of simultaneous

[Colin2B]

I am not basing this on mass density.

My comment wasn’t intended as an either or, but as an additional factor.
You’re right that the acceleration would give an equivalence time dilation. I’ll read your paper, as you say sounds like fun, keeps the grey cells going.

[captcass (OP)]

How do you do a quote box on this site? Anyway, JeffreyH, I think I resolve Dark Matter in my paper. There is no dark matter. They are trying to use GR for a spherical dilation pit on a flat disk. It doesn't work. I think I explain why. GR is all about time dilation gradients and rates of evolution. This is why I am working on the relationship between time and velocity and the rate of evolution.

[Colin2B]

You can auote using the actions drop down on the right, then edit down the quoted text

[captcass (OP)]

See it. Thanks. Now I am really off to work.

[captcass (OP)]

Ouch, the Universe is a result of simultaneous

Anyone know why the quote function isn't working right?
I am hypothesizing that the evolution of time is the primary energy of the universe. Time evolves space forward. GR describes the direction of evolution which is the resultant of the Einstein's Fundamental Metric direction of evolution in our inertial frame and the evolution down gradient in time dilation fields.
A change in the rate of time changes the density of space to maintain c. Those densities are then magnified through acceleration down time dilation gradients. In a spherical pit all future evolution is frustrated at the focus and energy continues to build. Even photons are evolved downfradient, hence the bending of light near massive bodies. Space isn't bent. The photons are being evolved down gradient.

[captcass (OP)]

Never mind. It works after I post...

[captcass (OP)]

Told you it wasn't mainstream.

[Colin2B]

Told you it wasn't mainstream.

Mainstream doesn’t matter. You just need to explain your ideas logically and clearly, something most posters here fail to do.