Is the Hubble Shift due to time dilation?

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, captcass said:

I am not proposing an alternative to GR. 

Time dilation does not cause gravity in GR. So how is your proposal not an alternative?

How does the rate of mass accretion depend on dilation, according to you?

[Strange]

2 hours ago, captcass said:

Gravitational dilation accretes mass.

Because of the curvature of space-time. So it clearly isn't time dilation, but the curvature that is important.

2 hours ago, captcass said:

E =Mc^2

How is that relevant?

31 minutes ago, captcass said:

It is being misapplied to spiral galaxies wheich is why they don't understand the rotation velocities and are looking for dark matter.

You can, I assume, demonstrate this mathematically? You can show that your model produces the same results as observed?

[captcass]

I am proposing mutually complimentary alternatives to the Big Bang and cosmic expansion, and am visually picturing the evolving energy field of QM, not objects moving through space. GR works no matter how it is looked at that way. GR just works.

Consider the unanswered questions surrounding the Copenhagen Interpretation. The bottom line was they agreed to disagree and to just avoid talking about certain aspects. "Don't ask, just do the math because it works." Those aspects have to be addressed if we are to tie gravity to the quantum field. This is why I say the quantum field is spacetime and it all simply originates with slight variations in the rate of time that create a change in spatial density and an evolution of those densities down the time dilation gradient as per GR. Not only does it evolve densities down gradient, it accelerates them down gradient, increasing their mass. I am thinking the densities once generated do increase the dilation gradient due to their increased resistance to evolve and this could possibly explain the accelerating nature of the gravitational gradients.

 

[Strange]

56 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can, I assume, demonstrate this mathematically? You can show that your model produces the same results as observed?

I’ll take that rambling incoherent post as a “no” shall I?

[captcass]

Correct. The answer is "no". As I said very early on here, I am not saying this is correct. Call it a hypothesis or theory, or whatever you will. I began this thread about the Hubble shift, I just like talking and debating about the other stuff with those who are willing as it helps clarify my thoughts. No one need take it that I am stating fact. This is a speculation thread, and I am speculating.

 

[Strange]

47 minutes ago, captcass said:

Correct. The answer is "no".

So we can just ignore it then.

Quote

This is a speculation thread, and I am speculating.

This is a science forum, not. a random guesses forum.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

This is a speculation thread, and I am speculating.

!

Moderator Note

We need evidence to elevate an idea to where it's worthy of discussion, otherwise it's just guesswork, and that's not how we speculate here. 

If you can support your speculations, you can open them here so the evidence can be discussed. There are other sites that support wild-ass guesswork. Thread closed.