Butch

Lets try a basic example I have a 1 metre rod. That rod expands over time. Lets assume the rod starts at 1 metre. And it doubles in length every second.

1 metre/sec=1 metre/sec*100%. see how I have the same total units on either side of the equation?

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.

Can you do the unit analysis?

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.

Well once again we hit that basic problem of the equation you posted not having the correct units to keep the LHS and RHS of the equation balanced.

An equation is only valid if the units on the LHS and RHS are equal under dimensional analysis. So quaranteed if you ever try getting your idea professionally peer reviewed it would be instantly rejected based on the equation you just gave. Regardless of any other data you include. Simply having that equation in your paper would cause a rejection.

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.

What in the world do you mean by flat time?

 

If your using GR, spacetime is a single entity.

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

 

 

I think that if time is accelerated at the same rate as space, then the photons would maintain c.

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.

Sure I'll be happy to look over your equations when you develop them. Its good training to try to model build.

 

For wavelength you want to use the cosmological redshift equation. However for your proposal if I understand correctly show that it is equivalent to gravitational redshift.

 

However I will forewarn you this has been tried using proper distance. Which will only take you to the Hubble horizon.

 

You won't be able to use commoving distance as this would counter your model.

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.

I don't understand why the universe would have been cooler in the past.

 

If matter and space were compressed by the same factor, for a compressed observer, everything would appear as it appears today, or in the future, or in the past. The time stamp would play no role.

The question is what would the past look like? It would appear compressed. Why do you believe it would appear cooler?

It would be condensed, not compressed. We would be looking for a source of energy, rather than a heat signature.

when quite the opposite occurs and the pressure/temperature performs the work for expansion.

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.

You were already given an example of change without motion. Particle decay

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.

Yes something like that: gravity should be a kind of acceleration. Or better, gravity should be the reaction we feel from a kind of acceleration. If that is true, then we know the direction of this acceleration: it has a direction from outside to the inside, it is radial. IOW it has the effect of a scale factor.

But once you make such a statement like "everything is expanding" there is a question arising.

If I am expanding, and you are expanding too, then why aren't we bumping together?

Take 2 ping pong balls at a distance of 10 centimeters, then "expand" the balls and transform it into soccer balls. If each ball expands relative to its center, then the 2 balls will hit each other. The only way to avoid this is to make the distance between the ping pong balls also "expand". The 10 cm must also transform into 100cm.

How is that possible? How can the void between the balls increase? And how does the expansion take place? Relative to what center?

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?

My thought was similar - put everything in the box marked nails and screws; but charon has the correct answer quicker than anyone else

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.

 

 

It is not valid to extrapolate back to t = 0. Our theories no longer apply before that point.

 

A theory of quantum gravity might tell us more. At least one attempt to model this using quantum theory suggests that the universe is infinitely old. And never infinitely dense.

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?

lol we shall see. I expect nothing less than mathematical accuracy. Though do so on speculations not in mainstream physics section. We've pushed the moderators flexibility enough in this thread. Which is to look specifically at the CMB not alternative models.

Agreed... It will be a bit my batteries need charged (mobile).

OK, let's take a stroll in time from t0 to t+1. If we look back at our universe @ t0 relative to our new place in time it appears that the whole thing has collapsed to a single point. Is there any other entity like this in our universe?

fine mathematically prove the existence of a universe that expands whose thermodynamic process accordingly due to that volume change causes the CMB.

 

Then on top of it solve the horizon and flatness problem that inflation solves.

 

While your at it solve the distribution of the first generation stars, the early large scale structure formation using Jeans equation. The distribution of quasars which is due to the higher density past. As well as the measurements of the integrated Sache wolfe effect. The baryon accoustic oscillations of the CMB.

 

However most importantly solve why we see cosmological redshift in the first place.

 

If you believe your little equation solves those problems your dillusional

Gladly, and I mean that! Tomorrow.

Good night you brave souls!