Mordred

I suggest you study what the term frequency means. You obviously haven't a clue. Does the words. Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time. Not mean anything to you.

Wrong it takes time for light to move from a to b. So when you apply c*t this equals length. come on this is elementary school math. Do you understand the term wavelength or frequency.? Do you know that temperature affects the emitter frequency via blackbody temperature radiation? Are you aware that you must have a time component to have a frequency? Are you aware that we measure the temperature at any point astronomy studies? Or is your next argument going to be no your wrong it's your blind faith.

I already explained how we use light to measure time. I'm not going to waste my time on someone not interested in the scientific methods.

No you made a claim that time works different than what our models show. Yet supply no alternative to discuss other than were wrong your right. BORING. I at least supplied a link showing measurement data and tried to explain it to you. Don't bother posting your christanity link. I happen to be a devout Catholic. That doesn't prevent me from studying science.

I agree it makes for an incredibly boring debate.

Lol our models do an incredible job of making predictions prior to observation. If you wish to consider that based on faith so be it. I have faith my feet is currently touching the floor. In all seriousness though, I dont waste my time arguing belief. If you want to discuss science that's fine. However if the counter argument you can come up with is to ignore scientific data of measurements and extremely well tested models with a lame poor argument of faith. That conservation is far too boring of an argument. It lacks any imagination or scientific merit to discuss. I honestly hope you can provide a better argument worth discussing other than "FAITH"

I can absolutely see happening if every time someone tries explaining something you don't understand and arguing "Faith" Just curious though do you even know how Faith is defined? The common definition is the belief of something you can't see or measure. Which is the opposite in those regards to physics which all about measurements. Yet every time we mention measurement you argue that's faith...

It's not faith, look at the definition of time and then look at the definition of force. This are basic physics terminology. While looking at how force is defined study Newtons three laws of inertia. If your going to argue against physics you may as well study basic physics terminology.

Quite frankly if time didn't exist neither would spacetime. The only way time cannot exist is if there is literally nothing, not even a volume. In point of detail any absolutely empty volume would still have time. Even if it never changes. That's a measure of duration. Though quite frankly that's rather impossible to have a absolutely unchanging volume. So the concept of no time is also a meaningless concept. Time also measures duration not just change. Time isn't a force it's a measurement. It's not what I think, it's what GR allowed us to understand, and test. The tests of GR is incredible, they have even measured the time dilation between your feet and your head. It's used and tested everyday, for example particle accelerators and GPS satellites. Any cosmological distance measurements employs GR. It must.

The easiest way to think of time is the measured rate of change or duration. How we choose to model that rate can vary. Some models use "action" and geometry. GR uses geometry with vectors and scalars

This gets complex, I'll try to keep it simple. You look at a clock at rest with yourself at rest. Both you and the clock are in the same reference frame, you both being in the same gravitational potential and at rest. Now if we add a third observer who is also looking at the same clock, but is moving, who also has a clock that has been previously synchronized with the other clock. If the moving observer looks at the synchronized clock he is carrying he will see nothing unusual, however if he looks at the clock at rest, we will see it ticks at a different rate than the one he is carrying. The observer at rest will measure the same change in the clock that is moving. how you measure time depends on your reference frame (spacetime geometry) compared to the reference frame of the emitter. There is essentially a couple of reasons this occurs. light is the same velocity regardless of observer =c. So the velocity of measured signal (light pulses from the clock doesn't change) When you have relativistic effects occur two key affects occur simultaneously. Time dilation and length contraction. We model these two influences using time =ct. We map the spatial coordinates as x,y,Z. Hence 4d. Here time is treated coordinate with a vector component. Collectively we refer to this as spacetime. Reference frames being the coordinate condition of the observer and the coordinate difference of the emitter compared to the observer. if there is no difference in the coordinates the emitter and observer is in the same reference frame. Reference frames apply at all scales of measure, locally and globally in the case of modelling spacetime geometry of the Universe. As spacetime geometry also influences the light paths via null geodesics, we can essentially look for distortions in deep space images to measure potential spacetime geometry change. This is the function of the curvature term in the Cosmology FLRW metric, which is a simplified version of the Einstein field equations.

[latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex] Using this formula if the light path enters a gravity well there is time dilation. Ordinarily when it exits the gravity well the wavelength is restored. However if the background mass changes while the light is in the well, we can notice a difference. This forms the basis of the Sachs-Wolfe effect. Which is an application of using time dilation to our advantage. This technique is handy in CMB measurements as well as mapping possible gravitational lenses, and potential variations in the rate of expansion.

We know time varies depending on the observer. We have a solid good working knowledge of how time varies. However the speed of light is the same for all observers. Using the invariants of the speed of light as our baseline we can measure the amount of time dilation. By the formulas I posted above.... For gravitational time dilation this causes a change in frequency of light.

those equations use the invariance of the speed of light. In simple terms it measures how long it takes light to reach us. The amount of time. What did you think it meant? Or did you even bother reading it? If time did not exist at some mystical point, light from that point would never reach us. In point of detail we can use the above mathematics to measure the amount of gravity from gravity wells using the Sache Wolfe effect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect which takes advantage of gravitational time dilation to measure mass density using the gravitational redshift formula.

No you obviously don't have a good understanding of GR, because it does apply. I could show you mathematics but it would probably go over your head. Particularly if you didn't understand the basic equations I posted.

AH I see you have no knowledge of the basic relativity formulas. Well here is a paper that measures and tests relativity using Pulsars at various distances. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/download/lrr-2003-5Color.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjMnpGPhobMAhVO42MKHUJUB9MQFggkMAY&usg=AFQjCNFcdj07CFxj96F1IoobgMgdHVS0vw Point being relativity teaches us how observer influences occur due to gravitational potential and inertia There has been hundreds of tests as to its accuracy. Those mathematics above explain those observer to emitter influences, Coupled with the known influences upon redshift, we can determine the rate of time at a specific mass density. We know time isn't the same to all observers, yet if your in the same observer reference frame there is no time dilation. In order to have time dilation with mass density you require a gradient in mass distribution at a particular time slice. In cosmology this correlates to cosmic time, which employs a fundamental observer.

We measure rate of change by the following relativity rules. Lorentz transformation. First two postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] The above is what I would expect to see when one presents his own equation. The above isn't a full derivitave. Several missing steps. It was for another post. However it provides a better explanation of the Lorentz transformations than merely posting a formula. If your not using Lorentz then you need to define the coordinate transformation rules. Here is relativity of simultaneaty coordinate transformation in Lorentz. [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex] [latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex]

We see stars, moving, exploding, we can measure changes in plasma, such as the CMB. This is pointless, I'm recommending this thread to be locked, your obviously trolling.

I already supplied that, it's called observational evidence. We measure objects and events changing regardless of where we look with our most powerful telescopes. You need to supply evidence that your foolish conjecture has merit.

Your accusing that to be vaque balderdash? Did you not think your question better qualifies? If time did not exist there would be no change. We can observe events roughly 13 billion light years away and closer. What evidence do you have time doesn't exist elsewhere?

We know we see a rate of change when we observe events regardless of how far we look. We can measure those change of events. Those measurements correspond to relativity, precisely. That isn't based on religion but direct observational evidence. Where as your conjecture has none.

No spatial dimensions are used to measure geometric objects. There are 3 spatial dimensions one time dimension.

Not a bad link, it covers all the basic aspects. Without going too in-depth

Just to add some details. When you study particle physics in great detail. One comes to understand that particles are "Excitations in a field". So in point of detail from the classical formula I posted above, when you get into the quantum aspects, you start to learn that the number density of bosons and fermions can be calculated in any blackbody temperature. If you ever get into the Advanced formulas, the two main formulas is the Bose-Einstein statistics and the Fermi-Dirac statistics. These collectively can be combined into the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics which is more practical in a blackbody where all known particles have dropped out of thermal equilibrium. Armed with the above and using particle physics one can then start calculating the % of elements that we can easily detect. For example, hydrogen, helium, lithium etc. These elements we can identify and measure with spectrography. Through These methods and numerous others we can TEST whether or not the number of particles are roughly the same. A reduction through nucleosynthesis and spectrography can be detectable. Another key evidence that there is no net outflow of energy, is that nucleosynthesis was able to predict the % of hydrogen, helium, lithium etc to a rather high degree of accuracy based upon the above prior to being able to measure those percentages. ( not too many people fully understand the significance of predicting those percentages as accurately as the LCDM model did) Even more incredible, is that the only method to average the number density of particles prior to being able to measure the CMB was by "Counting Stars" study a region and average that mass density to the Volume of the Universe. Yet even this seemingly inaccurate method allowed us to predict the correct values.

I understand what your trying to do. The problem is the math your using is incorrect. If you change [latex]T/\acute{t}=L[/latex] to [latex] \acute{t}=t-L[/latex] for example but keep L dimensionless ( probably better to use a different symbol... to avoid confusion.) Now regardless of if I choose the LHS or the RHS of the second equation I must include the units. (Not to imply this relation is correct, as it certainly differs from the Lorentz transformation) I just randomly chose that as an example. Your formulas may make more sense. though quite frankly if all your after is compression of a volume the FLRW metric already has an appropriate formula without modification. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex] [latex]S\kappa,r= \begin{cases} R sin ,r/R &k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sinh,r/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex] You just set k=-1. For the hidden commoving coordinates. then set k=0 for the flat metrics we observe in our universe. The above is simply the spatial component of the FLRW metric including curvature Now all you would need to focus on is why the compression portion differs from what we observe. (These equations don't care what Fluid your modelling) Matter, radiation or Lambda. Or any combination *** Please don't just jump in and try to modify the last equation until you understand how it was derived*** Particularly since it critically involves geodesic aspects.