captcass

The community finds it to be at 32 Gly because it is assuming an expanding universe. If it is not expanding, the distance is 13.4 Gly. The community assumes a faster than C recessive velocity because of the high red shift. I show the expansion isn't necessary to explain the high z. Thanks, guys, I'm off to work. I knew this would be a difficult sell. I could hardly believe it as it developed. Physicists like substantiality. But there is nothing substantial about the events in space/time. As Einstein said it is all an illusion. It is all just manifested in an evolving continuum.

Sorry 'bout that, I am having fun, too. As per the continuum, quantum physics tells us that nothing can be nailed down, position and momentum. I am not really here, is is just more probable I am here but I am in constant flux. Never, in any instant, can I be said to be anywhere. We perceive distance as though things are "there", but they are not really there, it is just more likely they are there and they are evolving forward in the continuum just like we are. If you could look at the universe from the side, it would have no depth. It is all an evolving energy field without even the thickness of a photon. It looks like we have space ahead of us we are moving into, but it is not "ahead" of us. It is just a perspective within the continuum. Each reference frame evolves forward at its own relative rate of time and the differences manifest as the perception of distance in both space and time.. Scientist says: "A theory is not such until it has widespread consensus that it's predictions match observation and can make predictions. At best, you have a hypothesis." What are the odds that my derivation of the Gravitational Equivalency Constant using the Earth's time dilation gradient works to derive the mass/energy of the dark matter of the Andromeda galaxy?

Does that mean you accept my answers as valid, or at least possibly valid?

Physics Expert said: "I do not understand this... when we move with respect to what?" When we consider motion, when we move in respect to other reference frames or they move in relation to us, the effects of relativity come into play. I am considering stationary reference frames where the only effects are due to the apparent differences in rates of time. Physics Expert said: "There is no meaningful notion of gravitational length contraction... sorry. You need to compare rulers to have length contraction. You need to describe a set-up for which one can do that in a meaningful way" We know that to maintain C space has to contract or expand when the rate of time changes. When we look up at a reference frame with a faster rte of time, the space in that reference frame has to also appear contracted to us. As I state in my paper, the reduced space is not in less meters, it is in a shortening of the length of a meter. When time slows and space expands, the increase is in the lngth of a meter, not the addition of meters. Physics Expert said: "I don't understand this statement. We model space-time as being curved irrespective of test bodies in motion. (But then you do have soem test bodies - your observers)" What I see is an evolving continuum. As reference frames within the continuum evolve forward at different rates of time the curvature of motion we see is manifested. In the paper I describe gravitational lensing as being produced by the up gradient side of the photon being updated in time sooner, and in faster time then the solar side. This applies to any particle moving across a time dilation gradient. As the Earth moves across the solar dilation gradient, for instance, the off solar side is being updated in time sooner than the solar side, evolving it forward in the continuum sooner than the solar side which causes the Earth's path to curve. As the off solar side is also in faster time, rotation is also induced. Of course this is simplistic and other effects influence the Earth's motion in the solar system such as the presence of other bodies, the Earth's velocity, etc. . I don't see a pre-existing curved space bodies move through, only an evolving continuum that manifests apparent curvature of motion. Physics Expert said: "However, the general notion of inflation is supported by observations of the CMBR. It is true however, that we are not at the stage of throwing particular models out." Once we accepted Hubble's law based upon the visual evidence, we began trying to make everything fit that theory, including the thermodynamics and the CMBR. Guth's attempt was impressive, but certainly not conclusive. And, of course, we still have no causality for why things began in the the first place, what set off the BB. Trying to make everything fit the inferences of Hubble's law has led us down a path to absurd conclusions and we are stuck in a rut. My theory gets us out of the rut.

I should also note that it is only Guth's theory of inflation, which is just that, a theory, that allows the thermodynamics to work in an expanding universe. Without Guth's theory, the thermodynamics do not agree with a BB and there is no proof of Guth's theory. I read the book when it first came out and found it to be an interesting idea, but really it is just another "placeholder" as no one has been able to move it past the theory stage. Please tell me this; Speaking of probabilities, Is it just a fluke that my derivation of the Hubble shift works out for a primarily stable universe AND, that the Gravitational Equivalency Constant I derive using the Earth's dilation gradient works perfectly to derive the mass/energy of the Dark Matter of the Andromeda galaxy? What are the odds of that? Isn't it time this thread be moved out of the trash?

I'm very well aware that a and b each see a slowing of each others clocks under relativity. That is not the same situation here. Bob and Alic at Everest do not see a slowing of each others clocks They both see the higher one running faster in that situation. You are again referencing effects for observers in motion. 32 Gly is teh estimated distance based upon an expanding universe, which this theory is not about. Curvature doesn't apply as I am not talking about bodies in motion. I am not ignoring the thermodynamics, I simply do not know how they apply under this theory. I don't think, but might be wrong, that they are involved or affect the results of this theory in any way. I'll grant you that. The fact that they indicate and expanding universe, like Hubble's law, might mean they need reconsideration. Why do I show up as "Quark" and a senior member?

The recessive velocity measurements are based on Hubble's law for an expanding universe. Redshifts greater than about 3 are considered to be in excess of C. Gn-z11 is the farthest know galaxy with the highest known red shift, 11.1, which is why I chose it. Hubble's law does not apply here as I am considering a fairly stable universe, not an expanding one. In my theory the redshifts just get really, really big the farther the distance due to the compound percent increase in space. It will be very interesting to see what redshifts we see when we get the new telscopes up in a few years.

In an earlier post you asked whether it was coordinate or proper time. These effects are only apparent in external reference frames where the rate can appears different, slower or faster, than yours.. In our own frame, the rate is always the same except when we move. You are right. I am describing a fairly stable, non-expanding universe and it could be considered I am replacing the cosmological redshift with a relativistic time dilation redshift..If the universe isn't expanding, this would be an alternative. I know that a meter is a meter and a second is a second in any inertial frame. I understand why it looks shorter at a distance when motion is involved. But in external reference frames up gradient, without motion, it also has to appear shorter just because we perceive the rate of time there to be faster than our own, which means space has to appear contracted.

Sorry, but I'm not combining all 3. I note at Frame 1 the result is less than expected and that could be due to the peculiar motion of Gn-z11 or the approximate values used for the mass of the Milky Way and the actual distance to Gn-z11. I ignore the cosmological redshift as it is used in the expanding universe model. Inside the Hubble horizon the compound percentage increase remains relatively small and the Doppler effect due to peculiar motion has a larger relative influence including blue shifts . If you look at my derivation, the increases don't begin to get very large until the end. At the beginning they are actually extremely small. This is why we see such a large acceleration at far distances.

Consider this: Time and space are inter-related. If the rate of time increases, space must contract. If it decreases, space must expand. We are seeing time distortion as due to space distortion in the way of mass. If time dilation is due to mass, (I;m not talking about motion induced TD here, just gravitational), we have an unproven causation for the time distortion. We say the mass causes it, but don't say how. If we look at it from the time perspective, that time distortion creates space distortion that results in mass, we have causation for the mass. If time progressed at a steady rate, there would be no space distortion, so space distortion depends on time rate fluctuations. There would only be flat space with no events occurring within it. An eternal moment in flat space. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the initial, massless, space/time continuum can have fluctuations. Though fluctuations have to involve time because fluctuations occur over time. This also gives us causation for time. Instead of looking at it as events in space, look at it as events in time. Sorry if you get a headache. I did. .

OK, thanks. Yes, I understand this. However, , I believe this is due to a lack of understanding regarding perception outside our own inertial frames. No matter that what you say above is true, redshift = blueshift, the perception is based upon our own inertial frame and its corresponding gradient.and is therefore deceptive. What we see is not what is going on. An external observer far distant, and let's say midway, between in an Equilateral triangle setup, would see that the redshift = blueshift for both bodies relative to each other, but he would see both of them redshfted in his own inertial frame due to his own gravity well. This is why I don't think we really understand what we are seeing in our scientific results that result in expansion, dark energy and dark matter. That my derivation for the Hubble shift works might just be a fluke. Then again, we don't really know because we don't really know, are only theorizing, about what our evidence indicates. As it indicates illogical results in dark energy and dark matter, I believe we have to be wrong. And you are correct, this is based upon my intuitive impulse to reject the illogical. Sorry, I realize how stubborn I seem to be. But I don't think you are fully grasping the extent that perception is based on the observer in his own inertial frame. The relativistic effects cloud what we see. I know this is not covered by GR or SR, it is a new concept. But it could be correct which would be why the derivation works. Can we believe our own eyes? In a traffic accident different witnesses will say it was a blue car, a red car, a green car, a yellow car. What color was the car? Is it in superposition? We can't always trust what we see in a relativistic. illusional, universe. We can't see time, but we can see the effects of time distortion in Einstein's field equations. LIGO can detect space/time distortion and the effects of accelerated time on space. I believe this supports the GEC and the Andromeda DM derivation, which really, really comes out beautifully. Is that also a fluke? I thank you again for engaging in this conversation and for being a great foil to test myself against your arguments and ask for patience regarding my stubborness. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the GEC derivation.

Resident Expert, you said this above: "see my last example. You keep working with the mistaken assumption that Cosmological redshift means time dilation. my last example on cross edit will show this error" When our posts got out of sink I lost the meaning of this. Can you please repeat the "last example" and what you mean bu "cross edit" Thanks, Off to work.

I am not talking about the relativistic effects of SR and GR when motion is involved and light travels in such a way as to produce the effects. I m only talking about the effects manifested by different rates of time in adjacent frames.

Again, I am not trying to describe worldline paths. I am only trying to show the effects in time that create a gravitational drag.

The gradient is measured in s^2/m, the dRt between frames over so many meters. This is what I equate with the Newtonian force to derive the GEC. The GEC is most accurate when using multiples of the Schwarzschild radius for the subject body.

OK, our posts are out of sync here so I am not sure what you are presently referring to. All of our perceptions are based upon our own inertial frame, this is as per Einstein's 2 postulates in SR.. I agree that a photon leaving Gn-z11 would experience a blue shift leaving that fame of reference. But that is that frame of reference. From our inertial frame of reference, however, all upward frames are perceived to have a faster rate of time. I know this isn't strictly logical, but it is how relative perception works.

You say: "The other problem is no observer will measure another clock going faster. alice and bob. each has his own clock. Bob is moving near c. Alice is static. if both Bob and Alice compare clocks. Both Bob and Alice will measure the same time dilation. Alice will see Bobs clock slow down. Bob will see Alice clock slow down. This also applies to length contraction of the worldline. Your paper claims one observer will measure greater distance while the other a shorter. Thats not how relativity works here. you can check yourself. "How it can be that both observers measure slower rates on the other's clock" You are dealing here with relativistic effects involving motion. This is different from what I am talking about and I have no argument with what you've said. We know these effects manifest. If Alice is at the top of Everest and Bob is at the base of the mountain, a stationary situation, both Alice and Bob will agree that Alice's clock is faster than Bob's. This is why Cdr. Kelly spent a year on the space station while his twin remained on Earth: to determine the effects of faster time. This represents the time dilation gradient I am talking about.

Again, I am not talking about the effects of gravity that result in curvature of motion. I am not describing motion at all, only relativistic effects in time. I have no problem with the field equations on the solar scale, but they do NOT accurately describe events on the galactic or cosmic scale, hence we hve dark matter to try to make them work there. The Andromeda derivation has nothing to do with time dilation on Earth or even the Milky Way. It is limited only to the time dilation within the Andromeda galaxy. Time dilation has different aspects. Gravitational time dilation is one thing. Then there is also time dilation due to motion and rotation. All time dilation is relative to the observer's inertial frame. In my derivation of the gravitational equivalency constant I point out that time dilation gradients are very slight. This is why gravity appears to be so weak on the cosmic scale. But, as in my dark matter derivation, the cumulative effect of the force over distance manifests the proper mass/energy equivalency of Andromeda's dark matter. My theory also explains why gravity only acts in one direction, which is in the down direction of the gradient.

I am not using curvature because I am not trying to describe motion through space or in a gravity well. As I stated, I have no problem with Einstein's field equations describing motion on the solar scale. But they do not work on larger scales, hence the big unknown, dark matter.. One of my premises is that space/time has an at least perceptual substantiality and that all events are events in space/time. By accelerating time a meter length is shortened and this creates stress in space. It is not a force in the sense of the other forces, but if I am correct then the other forces are the result of gravity. Time dilation gradient: Time goes faster the higher up we go. This creates a gradient from faster time to slower time. Accelerated time is just the faster rate of time in an up-gradient reference frame. It is also evident in LIGO's results which detects ripples of accelerated time moving through the continuum. When LIGO detected gravity waves they were detecting pulses of accelerated time that shortened the length of a meter and thereby distorted the shape of the antenna. If all events are manifested out of space/time, then changing the shape of the antenna is changing space. Time forces space to change and this results in a perceptual force. When two adjacent frames have different rates of time, the faster time rate of the faster frame puts stress on the slower frame that accelerates the rate of time in the slower frame by half the difference in the rates of time between frames.and decreases the length of a meter in the slower frame creating stress and drag so frames shift forward in the direction of the update as it moves down the gradient. This stress and drag increases frame to frame as the dilation gradient deepens. This is all explained in greater detail in the paper. Again, what I am describing is only the dynamics created by relativity in time. I admit I do not know yet how this would influence thermodynamics and other processes. I believe the mass/energy derivation of the dark matter of the Andromeda galaxy proves this. The darn thing works so well, with the mass/energy equivalent being reached at the event horizon of the central massive black hole. Is that just a co-incidence? I thank you for all the arguments regarding expansion and the BB. I know the evidence indicates that. I just can't accept it logically and feel we are just not seeing things clearly or interpreting the data correctly, just as we aren't seeing dark matter correctly. Like I said, a resolution of dark energy and dark matter would cause me to reconsider everything, but I don't see that happening as I believe they are looking for something that isn't there.

Sorry, you are taking this back into the field equations. I have no argument with them on the solar scale to describe the forward evolution of events. But they fail to define gravity, they only describe the effects of gravity. I haven't included curvature terms because I am not trying to create field equations that predict forward evolution. I am merely describing gravity itself. I don't understand what you mean by "the observer at rest, not the gravity well that needs corrections". Please elaborate.

The temperature data relies on the scale factor which was developed to help explain expansion over time. Therefore it is unreliable if the universe is not expanding. Einstein did not deal with the Hubble shift in Relativity, but the Hubble shift is directly caused by retativistic effects. Einstein has his Relativity and Hubble his shift. The shift caused everyone to start looking in the wrong direction, even though Relativity could explain it if anyone had thought of that, including Einstein. Off to bed. Thanks

Seems to me the difference of perspective here is that you are ignoring the gravity well so your theory will work, (if you include dark energy and dark matter), and I am basing everything on the gravity well and everything works just fine in a very simple fashion with no dark anythings.

Removing the observer from the gravity well ignores the gravity well. If you left the gravity well in, your results wouldn't work. I work in the gravity well. I can't comment on the thermodynamic aspects. I've done reading there, but not study as it doesn't really relate to the effects in time I've been considering. All cosmic bodies have a relativistic spiral motion relative to other bodies as they evolve forward in space/time along Einstein"s geodesics. This means the forward evolution of space/time, and events within space/time, have a spiraling motion and fold back upon themselves. The universe need not be contracting or expanding, though one would think so as the only constant is change, but it is certainly not necessary. The evidence shows expanding in the absence of the gravity well, but it is based on the Hubble shift, and as you say, thermodynamics....and the big unknown, a gravitational constant that would equate to the dark energy. Don't you think this is all very "iffy"? Certainly none of it is deterministic, which is why it all remains theoretical.

When you factor in, or out, relativisitic effects, aren't you doing so to make it fit the BB theory? that is sort of like dark energy and matter. "I don't know, but this makes the BB work". Einstein's field equations do not work on the cosmic or galactic scale, hence dark matter. Dark matter doesn't relate to expansion, that is dark energy. Place holders of this scale are huge "I don't know's" meaning the theory isn't working. Einstein struggled with a cosmological constant and failed repeatedly. Dark energy is much shadier than that. I just wanted to inform you of my spiritual beliefs. Religion is something completely different to me. Religion is simply what we do or don't do for our own health and the health of our communities to me. The wisdom of our ancestors. Spirituality is a much different thing to me. Like I said, just wanted you to know where I am coming from and I don't mean to start a discussion on that here, but a private side discussion via email would be fun..

It depends on scale. Look at anything from a distance and it appears homogeneous.The universe is not homogeneous and isotropic. Each particle is a gravity well. All of perception is relativistic. Time dilation fields exist within each other. There is a dilation field for each particle. The solar field exists within the galactic field. The Earth field is within the Solar field. Our personal fields are within the Earth's field. All such gradients are perceptually infinite and completely dependent on the observer's inertial frame where time passes "normally" and light travels at C based upon that rate of time. When we look out at Gn-z11, it appears to be in faster time. It cannot appear to be in slower or the same rate of time because we are at the bottom of a gravity well. If we were at Gn-z11, the Milky Way would appear to be in faster time.....relativity. The difference in my new point of view compared to my old, which is your point of view and theories, is that I am now seeing a fully relativistic, non-substantial universe that can be delineated in terms of time. The BB depends on substantiality. Events are real and substantial. Not to repeat myself, but Einstein said it was all an illusion, and he meant it. When we get to the quantum level, we are nearing the basis of the illusion and substantiality loses meaning. Only possibilities and probabilities exist in the evolving continuum. Distance itself is an illusion, hence particles can be entangled in time and appear to "communicate" instantaneously over infinite apparent distances. I believe time dilation creates the impression of distance in time, and therefore space. None of this requires a BB. Just for the sake of discussion, and by the way thank you for this discussion, it is extremely difficult to find someone willing to talk about all this who also knows the normal science, imagine a light-filled boundless void. Can't tell if the void is large, or small. Can't determine distance as there is only the light. Distance determination depends on relativity between objects and there are no objects. Time is just a seemingly eternal moment here. It doesn't seem to pass because there are no events to judge the passage of time by. Now dilate the time. The light now stretches out, attenuates , and the impression of distance appears along with the impression of now and then. Of course this is a simplistic example, but I hope you get the drift. Fact is, my simple relativistic theory has derivations that work without any "darks", as incredible as that might seem, while the BB is full of flaws and dark places. My derivation of gravity as a force initiated by time works to explain dark matter, while Einstein cannot. In fairness, I should tell you that I have a very strong mystical base, having learned to wash my hands in acid harmlessly, and other things, from a Muslim Haj in Indonesia in 1972. Because of my miraculous spiritual experiences throughout my life I know the power of faith and realized the truly illusionary nature of the universe long ago. It is not just stubbornness causing me to stick to my guns here. I believe Space/time is created by an eternal awareness simply being aware of itself here (space) and now (time). Our science works to describe the illusion because it is part of the illusion. the universe is only logical because it appears to be. OK enough of that. Just thought you should know where I am coming from. Again, thanks for the discussion and I completely understand where you are coming from, but just find it all really lacking in a firm basis due to the "darks"..