[captcass (OP)]

I know my synopsis above is short, and probably totally outrageous to most. Physicists love physicality and I am looking at everything upside down, so to speak. The concepts are developed more fully in my paper. It is only 16 pages, but it is too much to post here. I am happy to clarify if anyone thinks questions are worth asking....

[Colin2B]

When you say “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?“ i assume you are working on the hypothesis that the current universe started as a singularity and 1 s/s is the relative rate at that past event horizon?

PS I’m going to read you paper when i have a mo, looks like some interesting ideas.

[captcass (OP)]

i assume you are working on the hypothesis that the current universe started as a singularity and 1 s/s is the relative rate at that past event horizon?

No, I am basing it on the same effects we see at the event horizon of a black hole where time appears to stop. If time stops, there is a 1 s/s difference between the observer and the.stopped time frame.

[Colin2B]

In your paper you say:
“When driving down the road, the road is not there waiting for us. The road is also evolving forward in the continuum, always changing, but in the same place relative to adjacent frames so it is there for us as we evolve forward and move through the continuum relative to other events. It evolves forward at the same rate we do, maintaining its relative position in time and space, because we occupy the same relative position in the dilation gradient and are therefore evolved forward at the same rate.
The author postulates that it is because we are not evolving “through” space that IBEX2 did not find a bow shock at the edge of the heliosphere, as was expected, and why Voyager 1 has entered a “dead zone”3 where solar particles just seem to stop and Voyager 1 is not affected by the expected stellar winds.”

 I understand what you are saying in the 1st paragraph. Can you expand on your reasoning linking 2nd paragraph to 1sr?
Thanks

[captcass (OP)]

In the first paragraph I am trying to show how we are part of an evolving energy field. We are densities (masses) within the fabric of that continuum. So when we "drive down" the road, we are shifting our mass within the continuum. This takes the application of force and there is resistance to the shift.
GR describes the apparent curvature of evolution as the energy field evolves forward, not an actual movement through a bent space. The apparent motion is due to the simple evolution of time and no other force is being applied and there is no resistance. So the sun's motion appears to move through space around the center of the galaxy, which would create the expected bow shock, but as it is only actually an evolution of the energy field, due to the passage of time, giving the impression of movement through space, no bow shock is generated.
Does this help clarify it?
.

[captcass (OP)]

After studying QM, what got me thinking along these lines is that Einstein translates the differences in the clock rates into angular deflection and velocity. He calls these his "energy" components. So even though GR is based on the EP and the constancy of c, the apparent effects of the time elements should also appear to manifest as a virtual flow in the forward direction of time. That forward direction in a gravitational field is down the dilation gradient. This would account for the fact that gravity only has one direction and why it overpowers the other forces so much. It is an irresistible evolutionary force in time.

[Colin2B]

GR describes the apparent curvature of evolution as the energy field evolves forward, not an actual movement through a bent space. The apparent motion is due to the simple evolution of time and no other force is being applied and there is no resistance. So the sun's motion appears to move through space around the center of the galaxy, which would create the expected bow shock, but as it is only actually an evolution of the energy field, due to the passage of time, giving the impression of movement through space, no bow shock is generated.
Does this help clarify it?

I understand what you are saying, but what about a body in freefall (apparent movement), would you say they are not moving through the air hence no bowwave/shock?

[captcass (OP)]

Great question. I hadn't considered it before. There is difference between the two. The stars and planets occupy specific tick rate levels and evolve forward within the continuum at that rate without resistance, taking the shortest route in time. Because they have a slower tick rate then the surrounding space, they are actually putting a drag on the evolution of time.
A body in free fall in the atmosphere is going from a faster tick rate to a slower tick rate. It wants to evolve forward faster then the frames it is entering. It is meeting resistance in an energy field that is increasing in density as the tick rate slows.
The same affect would be evident If one were to accelerate the evolution rate of a star or planet so it was faster than the surrounding frames, instead of slower, it would then appear to encounter resistance. As we approach a velocity of c, the resistance (and relativistic mass of the body) approaches infinity.

[Colin2B]

A body in free fall in the atmosphere is going from a faster tick rate to a slower tick rate. It wants to evolve forward faster then the frames it is entering. It is meeting resistance in an energy field that is increasing in density as the tick rate slows.

Ok, makes sense.

The same affect would be evident If one were to accelerate the evolution rate of a star or planet so it was faster than the surrounding frames, instead of slower, it would then appear to encounter resistance. As we approach a velocity of c, the resistance (and relativistic mass of the body) approaches infinity.

So what if it goes slower than surrounding frames?

[captcass (OP)]

The passage of time evolves space forward. Space is cohesive and resistant to change. Frames that are slower put a drag on the evolution of adjacent faster frames, while faster frames accelerate the tick rate of adjacent slower frames by an equal amount. This equalization maintains the relative slope of the dilation gradient.
 

the apparent effects of the time elements should also appear to manifest as a virtual flow

This manifests as the faster frames accelerate the evolution of events into the slower frames. The next
moment appears to be "originate" in the fastest frame and then shifts down the gradient into the slower frames, carrying events with it, concentrating them at the center of the dilation pits, which are spherical  in spherical bodies.

[Colin2B]

This manifests as the faster frames accelerate the evolution of events into the slower frames. The next
moment appears to be "originate" in the fastest frame and then shifts down the gradient into the slower frames, carrying events with it, concentrating them at the center of the dilation pits, which are spherical  in spherical bodies.

I think I see what your saying. I’ve been interested in another new theory by @timey which also considers the time differences to be responsible for the acceleration, but is working on a very different mechanism. I don’t agree with the conclusions but like yourself she is at least putting some real thought effort  into the ideas. .
Although you say the road ahead is evolving in time I assume you mean as a complete road or space rather than evolving just ahead of our feet?
Can you also explain a little bit more how you derive the acceleration from the time changes, I wasn’t clear on that.

[Ve9aPrim3]

This manifests as the faster frames accelerate the evolution of events into the slower frames. The next
moment appears to be "originate" in the fastest frame and then shifts down the gradient into the slower frames, carrying events with it, concentrating them at the center of the dilation pits, which are spherical  in spherical bodies.

I think I see what your saying. I’ve been interested in another new theory by @timey which also considers the time differences to be responsible for the acceleration, but is working on a very different mechanism. I don’t agree with the conclusions but like yourself she is at least putting some real thought effort  into the ideas. .
Although you say the road ahead is evolving in time I assume you mean as a complete road or space rather than evolving just ahead of our feet?
Can you also explain a little bit more how you derive the acceleration from the time changes, I wasn’t clear on that.

Just quickly perused over the discussion and I think I understand where most people are getting stuck.
Small = Big
As counter intuitive as that may seem, think in terms of ratio. A small square, and a large square are certainly not equal IF you pull out a third tool (like a ruler) to compare it to. BUT, if you take a small square, and zoom in, and then you take a large square and zoom out... You will end up with two squares of relatively similar sizes. The same could be said of Time. A Plank second, no matter how short or long, will still be perceived in the exact same manor.

So from the moment of the "Big Bang" (which is only slightly wrong, definitely NOT an explosion) a Plank unit from then is still the same Plank unit now... Just much much larger than it was originally.... but it's STILL a 1:1 ratio.

[captcass (OP)]

I assume you mean as a complete road or space rather than evolving just ahead of our feet?

You've almost got it. Consider the quantum continuum, the energy field. It is evolving forward within the energy field, within which it is just a relative density.
Consider Einstein's Fundamental Metric in GR. This is a null gravitational field where the evolution of space is linear, just "straight ahead". This is the evolution of the continuum due to the simple passage of time, which I am considering the primary force of the universe. I am trying to finalize a paper on that aspect.
So when we include densities within the continuum, they are evolving forward in that respect.
The original 1 s/s difference in the rates of time at ~13.9 Gly I deduced from what we see at the event horizon of a black hole where time appears to stop, giving it a 1 s/s difference from the observer. The effects we see at the event horizon are the same effects we see at 13.9 Gly. It seems reasonable to assume they are from the cause. I am calling a 1 s/s difference the "limit of relativity", where our perception shifts from time-like to space-like.
Someone told me yesterday that he saw some scientists were considering not just if time accelerates, but if there is an acceleration on top of that acceleration. I need to think about that......
In deriving the rate, I took the distance where we see a recessional velocity of c based upon a Ho of 70. I divide that distance into the 1 s/s difference to get the rate per Ly, etc.

[captcass (OP)]

a Plank unit from then is still the same Plank unit now.

The EP assures us a meter is a meter and a second is a second in any observer's inertial frame. This is not the reality we live in, though, where everyone else's clock ticks slower and meter is shorter.
You are trying to apply absolutes to a totally relativistic world. Planck time is just how long it takes a photon to travel a Planck length. If you see it occurring in slower time,.......   or faster time.......both change.
We are talking about whether the passage of time itself has an acceleration aspect built into it. As that would be universal, it would only be detectable through something like the Hubble shift.

[Ve9aPrim3]

a Plank unit from then is still the same Plank unit now.

The EP assures us a meter is a meter and a second is a second in any observer's inertial frame. This is not the reality we live in, though, where everyone else's clock ticks slower and meter is shorter.
You are trying to apply absolutes to a totally relativistic world. Planck time is just how long it takes a photon to travel a Planck length. If you see it occurring in slower time,.......   or faster time.......both change.
We are talking about whether the passage of time itself has an acceleration aspect built into it. As that would be universal, it would only be detectable through something like the Hubble shift.

So that's what a plank second is? I was under the impression it was the smallest measure of time. My bad. I was using it as the base "pixel" of time. The smallest amount of measurable time before it ceases to exist. No matter the actual size of the pixel, it's still the smallest increment.

The problem with assuming that we live in a relativistic universe is that it's absolutely false. The universe is absolute. The way we individuals perceive the universe is where it becomes relativistic.

[captcass (OP)]

So that's what a plank second is?

The Planck units just measure the smallest meaningful amount of things. It is not a Planck second, but Planck Time.

The universe is absolute

Unfortunately, though the EP (and the constants) holds true for all observers in their inertial frames, our physical reality is based on the relativity. We cannot currently see it any other way, though, as in radar plotting, relative motion implies true motion. In the case of the universe this would be a point of view where everyone appeared to have the same rate of time and length of a meter. Figure out the math for that and you will win the Nobel!

[Ve9aPrim3]

Figure out the math for that...

Pretty sure I already did.
I started by watching a lecture on Black Holes, and it was commented that the edge of the universe would behave like an inside out Black Hole according to our POV of light.
By that statement, I decided that (x,y,z)=0=Sol was a little too Earth centrist, so I decided to re-calibrate (x,y,z)=0=Center of Expansion.
I did that by picturing the universe as a sphere inside of a box and by using simple algebra to find absolute center:
IF f(n)=x is TRUE (a line)
AND
IF f(n)≠x is also TRUE (everything other than a line)
AND THEN
APPROXIMATE an infinite margin of error to correct for.. well.. errors.
So.. ±π (a circle to its unit square, sphere to cube, hypersphere to hypercube,.. etc.)
I need a circle and an inverted circle overlapped to find dead center
Also note
π has 2 values naturally. or 3 if you want to get technical.
1st value:
The ratio of a circle to its unit square (This is what we use most commonly)
2nd value:
The ratio of its outer circumference to its square
3rd value:
The ratio of its inner circumference to its square
The outer circumference is ALWAYS > the inner circumference... otherwise it wouldn't be a sphere. Even if the circumference is infinitely thin. π IS an infinite non-answer after all.
±π≠|0|
±π=0.(∞0)n
THEREFORE
(f(n)=x)±(f(n)≠x)±π=±n
NOW
(=x)±(≠x)=±(≈x)
SO
±(f(n)≈x)±π=±n
NOW move the "≈" over
±f(nx)π≈±n
(±f(nx)π)/±n≈±n/±n
f(x)π≈1
f(x)π-1≈1-1
f(x)π-1=0
f(x)π-π-1=-π
f(x)-1=-π
(f(x)-1)/-π=-π/-π
(f(x)-1)/-π=1
((f(x)-1)-1)/-π=1-1
(f(x)-1+1)/-π=|0|
f(x)/-π=|0|

-π would constitute Negative Space or what's outside the universe. That's where Negative Energy is found, and you access it via Zero Point.
That also happens to build a 4D fixed point matrix that imagines space itself as stationary and everything within it moves away from the cosmic center, aka Big Bang at the speed of Time.

Tahdah!

Has no one considered the Doppler Effect in accordance to light waves?

Also, this lead to an advance machine learning algorithm.
f(n)=π=0=1≠0=n
It looks like nonsense for sure, but, there is a logic to the illogicality.
I just did the Math and grouped all the (in)equalities.
The function of a number(f(n)) is imaginary(=π) and false(=0) and true(=1) but doesn't exist(≠0) and is a number(=n)
"≠0" acts as a logic breaker (fixes "error, error, does not compute, error") and "π" acts as a buffer reset switch.
n=car
n=blue
n=blue car
etc......
Pretty sure that's what Google is using now since it fixed their image based search engine less than 24hrs after submitting it.
Google(search)=....

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72397.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72574.0

[Colin2B]

The Planck units just measure the smallest meaningful amount of things.

Wouldn’t agree with that. Planck resistance is 30Ω and Planck mass is 0.02mg, very divisible and < is meaningful.
There is no proven physical meaning, but plank length might be a good guess at where quantum gravity might start to be important - possibly the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate.

[captcass (OP)]

Planck resistance is 30Ω and Planck mass is 0.02mg

You're correct. I was a bit too general in my statement.

There is no proven physical meaning,

This is more of my point. They are utilitarian, and nothing more.

possibly the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate.

I'm not sure by what you mean by "classical".....but I am thinking there is no separation. Gravity will work on all levels the way I am looking at it.
When we get into particle physics at the level of quarks, we are talking about virtual particles with different degrees of permanence. I am thinking they are vortices in time, but that is just what I am speculating. The strong force could be tow vortices spinning in opposite directions sharing a common side. (like spins repulse violently). This could occur along each axis, (x,y,z), the plus and minus on each axis being a particle and its opposite, for balance, and with this occurring along all three axes simultaneously (3 +/- quark pairs) we get a 3 dimensional proton or neutron. I am not working on developing this further because particle physics gets way to physical beyond that. I am only speculating, repeat, speculating, on a possible process.

[andreasva]

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.

I don't know about eternal, but stationary makes perfect sense to me.  We can't be eternal, because things are definitely further away then they were before.  Eventually that gap will be too far.

I'm working on nearly the exact same thing, in a round about way.

My personal feeling is that time isn't real in the physical sense.  There is no temporal dimension, only opposing energy states.  I eliminated spacetime, and renamed it time-energy.  Time-energy has various densities, and is opposed to mass-energy, and attracted to itself.  It is the vacuum of space. Mass and time push out at the inverse square of each other.  They're both the same energy though, but existing in different states.  Mass is bound energy, and time unbound energy.  The unbound energy is what we call space-time, or space.  We can even detect the various densities through SR.  It's a well understood fact that time slows inside gravity sinks, or wells.  The Earth for example has it's own unique gravity well which we have physically seen in satellite times.  It confirms Einsteins' SR.  Everyone here knows all this though, so I'm not telling you anything new.  Those times differences are energy density signatures.  I also feel mass-energy converts directly to time-energy.  This conversion process has been happening since moment 1 of the universe.  As a result, time-energy density has been increasing from the start of the universe.  Looking back 3.3 million light years, we're looking at light that came from a lower time-energy density.  That's where the redshift comes from, not motion.  We aren't expanding in my opinion.  Time is frequency, as everybody here knows.  What happens when you press down on a bouncing ball?  Frequency rises.  Same deal in space.  As we move out of a gravity well, time-energy density rises, increasing mass frequency, and apparently our perception of time.  All these concepts are basic physics 101 for most of you on here.  I don't think it's anymore complicated than that honestly. 

A part of me feels Einstein intentionally mislabeled time-energy as space-time because he knew there would never be any physical evidence to prove energy density in space.  His answer would never satisfy the scientific community.  Especially when the Michelson-Morley failed to detect the aether.  He suspected frequency would change in the density, changing clocks, so he opted for spacetime.  That's my guess anyway.  And we've been chasing this spacetime thing as some sort of intangible ethereal temporal dimension ever since.  Does it really make sense?

The bottom line is, we haven't moved or expanded to anywhere.  We're pretty much right where we were created, aside from local gravitational movement.  Our star is dimming, as is the rest of the universe.  It's all converting back to time-energy, where it will probably begin anew, at slightly less than what it was before.       

Okay, I'll now leave you guys to hash this out without my nonsense...  This is what I think is going on anyway, for what it's worth...  Probably not much to you guys...