Kenneth Bibby

I see light can not be at rest, so it can be thought of as moving from it's start point to end point but the journey in between can not be broken down into stages, so my question is invalid, and my view of time is wrong because if you use maths to describe the motion you do not need time in the equation. My problem with this is that I can imagen the light being streched so why no model. Is it the maths, maths are stupid they never stop they have no wall of reality.

If light experiences no time then there is no time for it to change so no red shift?

if time slows at the speed of light, is this slowing relative or actual. If it's actual from the lights point of view it must not be travelling at the speed of light. So I presume it's relative, I would like to know thanks.

time is the rate at which things change and varies with speed and mass. a lot of nows could be viewed as age. How long the changes have been happening for. But I'm no expert so dont beleve me.

I have made a mistake in my original theory, I have fallen into the all to human trap of, I think there for I am first. The gravitational profile from the past will be flatter, but those from the future will be much more normal in shape more bowl than plate. So if we where first all plate, if last all bowl, if we are in between then some of each with some interacting. I will try to answer the maths thing and come up with a more understandable explanation. Thank you for showing interest.

I propose that gravity is an effect of age or the now not being uniform. That if now was an expanding bubble a large mass would cause a depression in it's surface this depression produces the gravitational effect. Big bangs 2 3 etc could then be hidden in the past. There now being behind our's and there local depressions distorting ours (dark matter ) .If I'm right these distortions will have a different profile to normal gravity, probably flater ( more plate than bowl)On the small scale every partical would leve a track a path of less resistance where a pattern of electrons around a nuclius could mess into a corresponding track , where tracks would be over written, where gravity would be fickle.

I use the age and time because of the twins, the one left behind sends his fast brother a text wishing him a happy birthday each year. The one that flies off time slows by say 10% after 10 years they meet up. One looks a year younger than the other, but he has still received 10 text messages, so thay are the same age, they meet in the now, no one has time traveled. Am I still OK.

I have tried but can not get the hole idea on, so it's in bits. I suppose if the bits dont stand it all falls. So time is the rate at which things change and varies with speed and mass. Age is how long it's been happening for. Age is the line travelling up the page, past behind future above. The line is the now and is age. Am I OK so far.