Butch

I never said this was in any way to explain red shift. Did you extend the graph?

An example of my rules and a part of my hypothesis that I did not wish to discuss just yet, but good a time as any I suppose. Extend the graph above with limits of infinity, what do you get?

Space is 3 dimensional and expands equally on all axis.

Ahh... My rules for infinity? 1)Any quantity that is a factor of infinity approaches infinity. 2)Any quantity that is not a factor of infinity approaches zero. That is difficult to do on a 2d surface, the math is Space = 1/Time^2

Dr. Perlmuter realized that if the expansion of the universe had been accelerating as observations indicated, for 13.8 billion years, it would be a very cold dead place. His model allows for a change in the rate of acceleration to match the current state of the universe. My model presents a universe that is consistent with the Big Bang and Steady State. If it is correct, Perlmuter model could have a constant increase in acceleration, which to me seems a better model... He might agree. As for Hubble, it could be erroneous. We should always be questioning. I did not want to appear to be hi-jacking the discussion, it was someone asking what force moved time or something like that. Could you please restate your question?

In science there are no facts,there are only speculations, hypothesis and accepted theories. No one is wrong or right, it is a discussion and a study. If you are inflexible, perhaps you should pursue applied science. I do appreciate your challenges, but not your bashing.

Are you familiar with the model?

The model is NOT based on observation it is an attempt to explain a perplexing observation, maybe you should actually look at the model. Here's a link to an image: https://goo.gl/images/jmhzgR

You will find here a model of the cosmology for the Drs. Discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate via super novae and red shift. Note that in this model that the rate of acceleration varies, with my hypothesis that acceleration could be constant, after all, relating to your inquiry of what causes the expansion, what caused the change? http://aether.lbl.gov/bccp/news.html I think I am doing rather well, but that is a matter of opinion. I am not proposing a new model, I am proposing a mechanism for accepted models, Einsteins principal of equivalence and the curvature of space. It matches gravity quite well (see graphs) It describes curvature of space.

Why so much vinegar, you are being abusive for no reason.

Start here, more to come... https://www.aip.org/news/2011/2011-nobel-prize-physics-accelerating-expansion-universe

5) No, they may be in conflict, and they may not... Perhaps you can come up with an experiment? 6)The Big Bang. Give me a bit on #7... I am referring to the dimension of space, 3 coordinates.

4)Only way I can describe it is: Space = Time^2.

You are going to love #7... 1) I am saying that the spatial expansion could be the Big Bang, rather than massive bodies receding from one another dimensional space is expanding, this does fly in the face of Hubble, so I tend towards the local event hypothesis, but who knows? 2)Equivalence, Einsteins curvature model. 3) I don't know... As I stated earlier the universe would have to be gaining energy, but how will you measure that relative to infinity?

Perhaps something with very pure lasers?

As I stated previously red shift might be misleading, it might be that it is gravitational redshift. A proof of this would take millennia at least, however consider this, if the universe is infinite and Hubble is correct it seems we would have reached absolute zero by now. Also there is the possibility that the Big Bang is a local event, then Hubble would be accurate relating to a local event. As to the acceleration, Dr Perlmuter would be the current expert on that, he used redshift to detect that the universe does seem to be expanding at an accelerating rate. Perhaps if you would consider my ideas for a bit you could help me. My real problem is finding a measuring stick, they all seem to be trapped in space/time.

"That is not consistent with the evidence, therefore it is wrong." Could you be a little more eloquent? I have been answering a great many challenges and I think I have been very informative... If you would describe what evidence I will reply. g @ sea level = 32'/sec^2 is a hyperbolic function, is it not?

I agree completely, just did not want to knee jerk respond to the question of where the center of expansion was. As for the volume change statement, I am not going to say it is inaccurate, however I tend to believe the universe is infinite, so expressing space as a volume gets a bit tricky. I do have some rules for dealing with infinity, and I will introduce them when they are needed (they will be needed). Two possibilities: 1) The Big Bang is a singular ongoing event which is the very nature of our universe, however rather than just everything receding from everything else, space itself is "Banging" and at an accelerating rate. This one would be a relief to Dr. Perlmuter I believe. 2)The Big Bang could be a local event like many other Big Bangs in the universe. Note that my hypothesis would require energy increase, but again we have to deal with that infinite thing. (Again I will introduce this later.) OK, I will introduce it now... I have two rules for dealing with infinity, I don't know if anyone has come before me on these... 1)Any quantity that is a factor of infinity approaches infinity. 2)Any quantity that is not a factor of infinity approaches zero. The relationship between time and space in my hypothesis is simply the inverse square. Space = 1/Time^2 y=1/x^2. Try plotting that with limits of infinity.

Yes,it is. The Big Bang and the Steady State can co-exist under my hypothesis. The CMB is just that, background radiation from the or a Big Bang. I find this exciting! The illusion would be that the balloons are not expanding but are being pulled together by some attractive force, the same illusion we would experience if the dimension of space were expanding.I am still giving thought to the gravitational red shift, however the direction I am currently pursuing is that if space is expanding at an accelerating rate, photons would have greatly increasing wavelength to maintain energy in equivalence with normal space time. This increase in wave length would be greater than expected. I am not sure how this can be measured short term, however long term, objects that were thought to be receding would not be receding at all. This I also find quite exiting, certainly more exciting than a universe that ends when it reaches absolute zero.

Happening everywhere does not describe a local event. For all we know Big Bangs could be occurring all over the universe. If the Big Bang is the "Birth" of the universe, my hypothesis says it has no beginning. If we were able to go back in time to our perceived beginning of the big bang it would still appear that the universe was about 13.8 billion years old.

Red shift could be deceptive, it could be gravitational red shift, if so then the universe is in a steady state, or perhaps the Big Bang is a local event or an ongoing event which has no beginning... Reference my chart as space being flat and time being curved.

I have to go stretch some fish lips, I will be back... Thank you for your interest in this topic.

Dr. Perlmuter took the time to measure this to see if the universal expansion was slowing or remaining constant... What he and his team found was not what they had expected, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. He won a Nobel prize for this observation.

A better example is two balloons inflating, if the observer is moving away from the two balloons at a rate which causes the balloons to appear to remain the same size relative to the observer, the illusion for the observer would be that the balloons approach one another until they touch. As for the center of expansion, I will cover that once more ground has been covered. Q... Does time have a beginning?

Not critiquing, if space were expanding at an accelerating rate, how would we perceive it? By "Space" I am referring to the dimension of space v the dimension of time. Would you refer to this space as flat or curved?