Bird11dog

That is true because a photon could be half of a sine wave.

You can't or at least I can't.

Gosh. I wonder why none of the experts in GR and cosmology have never considered that... Good question, I would like to know.

Inertial frames are time dependent. The vibration of atoms obviously have very short and energetic inertial frames except at absolute zero.

The photon is a sine wave, right?

Because time dilation shortens the done going side of the wave.

I addressed this idea back in 2014 here. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83655-time-gravity/

Yes but very rarely.

I don't think that is true. Does gravity slow a clock down? Yes And, how could you compare clocks then and now? The only way of comparing clock rates is to communicate between them, or bring them together. Neither of this is an option for a clock 13 billion years ago. My reply to your first answers your second. I have been told that you can choose a coordinate system where there is no expansion of space, but a shrinking of rulers and a changing speed of light. This is generally not used because it is more complex and less intuitive. It would also be exactly equivalent to the current model (as it is just a coordinate transform). So if inflation is required (and it isn't clear that it is required) then it would still be required using a different coordinate system. If you use logic as a basis for thinking I don't see how you can give that response. It s logically intuitive that what i have said is true.

Suppose we had a triple planet system that orbit each other and of quite different masses. We could find an average clock rate for the system by checking how fast a cock runs at the surface of each. We could do the same thing for our galaxy or a volume of space with a radius of a hundred million light years. If we look at the clock rate for the Universe thirteen billion years ago when it's volume was much smaller it's clock rate would be slower than the clock rate for today's Universe. This brings up an interesting question. We all know that velocity is determined by dividing the distance traveled by time. If this is true then the speed of light in the early Universe would be greater than it is today. If we were to go back to just after the BB, say 10-42 seconds then the speed of light could have been millions if not trillions of times faster than today a neat explanation for inflation.

I made an error in my second post, red shift should have been blue shift. If I have three stars orbiting each other won't the light being emitted by each be slightly blue shifted to a far away observer? If the people doing the calculations are unaware of the blue shift then it would not be automatically included.

The question in my second post was unanswered. Sense the gravity of a star or galaxy red shifts the light they emit would not the light being emitted by the early Universe be red shifted much more by the mass of the entire Universe pulling on it thus changing the way we calculate distance using red shift?

Notice the word about? That means, I don't know, I'm guessing! I suppose you can't answer my main question?

Thirteen billion years ago the Universe was about 1/13 of it's size today. If we look at a galaxy 13 billion light years away that means we are looking at light coming out of a gravity well created by the entire mass of the Universe. When we make measurements on that light do we take into account the redshift caused by that gravity well?

Can we see stars in all directions at 13 billion light years?

i DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT i AM TALKING ABOUT. THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD FOR THE UNIVERSE WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY VERY LARGE AS COMPARED TO TODAY, THEREFORE TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN RUNNING MUCH SLOWER THAN TODAY. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS MUCH GREATER THAN TODAY(MAYBE BY A FACTOR OF AS MUCH AS 100 OR EVAN A 1000) WHICH MAY EXPLAIN THE INFLATION THEORY.

With all the mass of the Universe concentrated in a much smaller volume of space why wouldn't time be running much slower than today's time?

A related question, how fast would time be moving at T = 30 sec as compared to today's Universal time?

This is dependent upon your frame of reference so I wouldn't really call that proof. This could be construed as proof but could it not be caused by something else such as time dilation?

Gr says that matter warps space/time. We have proof that matter warps time but do we have proof that matter warps space?

You know if I'm such a cope out why don't you guy's show me were my thinking is wrong instead of just quoting QM paradigm.

Mord, just saying that something is true does not make it true.Meta is right If it is a particle and not a field it cannot bend light. Naturally QFT claims that the graviton is both a particle and a field. You can't have it both ways just because you want the physics you were taught to hold up.

Thanks for your response Ima, it appears there is a communication problem preventing any clear understanding between us and it will exist for as long as you and I are alive.

Given that each ball has the same mass and the same velocity and the same surface one would think the momentum would be the same. The frames of reference are always that of the ball being examined. At the edge of an event horizon I am sure there is a large difference between one meter and one half meter from the EH. When examining the overall momentum of the system the individual atom would determine the collective momentum.

Suppose we could make a sphere out some mythical material that is totally non-elastic and inside the sphere we place six balls made of the same material such that the balls almost touch the sphere but not quite. The sphere is located somewhere out in space where gravity is as close to zero as possible. We shake the sphere to start the balls bouncing around inside. Each ball has the same mass and inside the balls is a clock that we can observe. Now we use the clock of each ball to measure it's momentum just before it collides with another ball and obviously we find that the momentum of each ball is identical. Next we move our sphere close to the edge of a black holes event horizon. Now if we calculate the momentum of a ball bouncing toward the EH we find that because it's clock slows down as compared to a ball bouncing away from the EH that it's momentum is greater. The total momentum of the balls will always be greater toward the EH. Now instead of balls we could be talking about atoms. Now can someone show me why this does not prove that gravity is just an artifact of time dilation?