Butch

Here is some candy for your mind... If you entered a black hole and found another entire universe, how would the event horizon be in evidence?

I understand my own hypothesis better the more I spend time on this forum, is it wrong for me to use it in this way? I do greatly appreciate your assistance.

I understand you, however that rod and its expansion are in the relative realm... Do you understand my task at hand?

I need to map other relationships between t-1 and t0.

Unity to t0 as the Big Bang is all I have for now, I am working on that however.

Given time = 1 (the perceived beginning of the Big Bang) expansion would= 1 as for units, we could reference the Big Bang.

I thought I had corrected that, it demonstrates a relationship between time and rate of expansion... Could you please elaborate?

In the absolute realm, everything is expanding at an accelerating rate. expansion rate = 1/time^2 At t0 the rate of expansion approaches infinity. At t-n the rate of expansion approaches 0. Impossible? Try plotting the function with limits of infinity... Fortunately we live in the relative realm, everything we experience lies between t0 and t-1. We never experience t0, all that we perceive is in the past and all that is beyond t-1 is no longer in evidence. (We perceive t-1 as the beginning of the Big Bang) The only evidence we have that the absolute realm exists is gravity. Scientific evidence does not change, however some of our assumptions do... As I see it, my task at this point is to find a system of translation between the two, I need to map t0 - t1 to the relative realm. No, I am not referring to ether. The map if I am successful will in fact be an absolute frame of reference. My goal is not to model a steady state, that was just a pleasant surprise. My original thoughts on the subject pertained to the nature of gravity.

I will have to give some thought to how to explain this, it is essential to grasp the concept. It is a process outside of our experience,my first task will be to find a way to link some references from the relative to the absolute.

The universe that we witness is indeed relative, the universe in which my hypothesis is based is absolute, it is certainly not proper to refer to them in this manner however, henceforth I shall refer to these as the relative realm and the absolute realm, I hope I have not lost you here, do you grasp the concept?I apologize for original chart and math... Rate of expansion = 1/time^2

One or the other will be our reference, and will be considered as flat while the other is curved. I am sticking with flat time and curved space.

The relative energy of the photon would be maintained by the increase in velocity... But what about wavelength? That is the math I am working on, I do want to keep Hubble.

It would be condensed, not compressed. We would be looking for a source of energy, rather than a heat signature. I believe we have assumed that to be the case, evidence does not prohibit either case. I keep saying I am not disputing current theory, Hubble can measure distance via red shift, if however the red shift were due to a different process things might not be receding at all. I am working on some math in this area and will most likely ask you for some assistance. My thoughts are that if space is expanding at an accelerating rate, photons would have to be accelerated to maintain relative c, but what about wavelength?E=mv^2

I see where you are missing my point and it is my fault, I suppose. I am saying that rather than matter having been contained in a smaller spatial region, perhaps matter and space were constricted relative to a later time. Matter being a form of energy, it could be compressed but still retain its classical form as evidenced now, if space were also constricted. It is a matter of perception. Interestingly, if this were the case, the universe would have been cooler in the past and there would need to be a source of energy to fuel expansion.

In a system that could tolerate imperfection to some extent decay would be an expected process, however motion would be required, even if only the motion of fields.Motion is relative and is measured against time, however that makes it a requirement, not a cause. I agree motion has no cause, only acceleration has a cause.

We are not bumping into each other because the vectors resulting from the force of the Earths expansion and our own are diverging.

If black holes were intersections between universes, how might the event horizon manifest?

You would have to open all three boxes and remove all items from two.

Correct.

You have 3 boxes. 1 box contains nails, 1 contains screws and 1 contains both. All three boxes have the wrong labels. You can open boxes and remove items from them but you cannot look in the boxes. How many boxes would you need to open and how many items would you need to remove to figure out how to label them correctly? The boxes are labeled "nails", "screws", "nails and screws".

Yup.

You are in a dark room with at least 5 black socks and at least 7 white socks, how many socks must you retrieve to ensure you have a matching pair when you exit the room? There are only white and black socks in the room.

Look it up. Einstein had abstract thought, not math. Lol, Good thing I am a fisherman, you people are tough catches.

Einstein did not have the math, but thankfully he had mathematicians. Wish I had a mathematician. You let me know if you want more.

You are of course quite correct it is only a false perception. If we go back to t0 the universe appears quite normal.I think you understand now? Is the cmb red shifted?