captcass

OK, Mordred; Patience please. You know how dense I can be. Here is Einstein’s paper I am quoting: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf In § 21 he says: “The remarkable thing in the result is that in the first-approximation of motion of the material point only the component g44 of the fundamental tensor appears.” Also: “….the special theory of relativity as a special case of the general theory is characterized by the guv having the constant values (4)”, i.e. the fundamental metric, in which there are 3 space and 1 time elements X, Y, Z, T. (His X1 X2 X3 X4). From the fundamental metric the various derivatives of the relative changes in each element, including the relative changes in time passed based upon C in those frames generate the tensors. It is the time elements that always combine to evolve events down a time dilation gradient, “field” if you like, which is why Einstein calls them his “energy components” in § 15. Am I correct in saying that the fundamental metric can be utilized as the basis of a tensor representing a null gravitational field? Altering an element alters direction and/or velocity of movement creating curvature. In developing the tensors, momentum and relative rates of time along each axis of motion must be considered. I am using Einstein’s notation from his 1915 paper so the first row/column is 1,1 not 0,0 and the bottom right becomes 4,4. I am also using the convention -1,-1,-1,+1, though that doesn’t matter as it is only concepts I am discussing. In the fundamental metric, when u=4=v, guv = g44 and g44 is then the time-time element. I am saying that the fundamental metric represents the “I Am That I Am” state. A “forward” evolution of time of 1 s/s. In a dilation gradient, “gravity field”, there is also a “forward” evolution down gradient. GR defines the resultant in a spherical system. When the mass is flat, as in spiral galaxies, events are not evolved forward sequentially in a deepening pit. In a deepening pit, forward evolution is apparently accelerated the deeper in the pit the body is. In a flattened galaxy, all bodies are being evolved forward at the same level of the flat field so they have the same velocity. They all share the same rate of time and, therefore, evolution and, therefore, apparent velocity. Are we talking about the same thing yet? Why can't I ever get the right font?! Sorry folks, don't mean to shout. As for BeeCee and Strange....... I am not saying there cannot have been a creation event. The Creator might have a sleep state and it is not human, so we have no idea if it just enjoys evolving things from scratch. I think not as others are so important to it. It is fully capable of just popping things into being as it has been doing this, whether or not on and off, for eternity. I don't imagine it finds it complicated. It is really just light. If you think a Creator is unlikely, the universe itself is a fantastic impossibility, as are all the combined factors that allow life to ebb and flow on this planet, which seems more and more likely to be unique as we have found no signals in our search of the heavens. I learned the power of faith when I was a bitter atheist and learned to wash my hands in acid, as noted elsewhere. This led me to try to build my "faith", a feeling.... I studied all the great faiths, and more, reading their books, trying to find what their founders knew, not what was being said in the churches and temples. I'd been there and they had no answers. They are the blind leading the blind. Which is OK. The Creator loses itself here, remember? But they all contain a golden nugget. Do what the founder said to do. It is always simple. It is always the same. It does not involve ritual and rote prayer. It is done in all postures, even on the toilet. When people say, "Oh, God!", they roll up their eyes. Even atheists. So, roll up your eyes and put your attention within yourself through your third eye, the Hindu Om, and focus on your greater self. It is just you there, but a higher you. Love that self and ask it for something. No, not the lottery. Then let it be. You cannot force it. This is how I finally proceeded because all I found inside of me was me and I just didn't get it. When I got what I asked for it was really easy to start feeling that love. Two years later I had an epiphany and I have been living in the quantum world ever since. Hence my love of all this stuff. What I see cannot be unseen. I don't think I live in that world. I live in that world. When I go within, I am filled with an overwhelming love, rapture. And, yes, I have an agenda. I have always loved science and I cannot stand the fact that we are looking for dark matter and energy and the BB as postulated. Even Einstein, the father of relativity, jumped off the deep end over what Hubble saw! Einstein! "Mr. Illusion"! Considering relativity, couldn't it be possible we just don't understand the processes behind the image? It has been my goal to find a way to tie what we see to my personal, spiritual, quantum field, existence. Our other theories are full of "dark" voids filled with totally improbable things, including the very beginning and end of things. If anything, we should have learned that it is all logical. Only the Creator aspect can make it fully logical.

At work, so just a note: Instead of asking "what" we are, ask "who" we are. Who are you? You are a be-ing that is ultimately, totally, painfully, alone. You fear both loneliness and boredom and hope for an eternal life with loving others. Loneliness is so painful for you that you use it as the ultimate non-violent punishment of others. Loneliness drives people to insanity. It kills a bee or a termite. The most important thing to you is others, especially loving others with whom you create more loving others........ You are me..... If you would know the creator, know yourself...... From this point of view, considering quantum physics, how is the illusion that lets us escape our "singular" self state manifested? The physical science is part of the illusion. How is the illusion containing the physical science manifested? I say it is through the manipulation of time. Time dilation allows us to create depth in space and manipulate the light. The science then develops within the illusion being manifested. It is "entertainment" that allows us to further manipulate the light for our further entertainment..... But I am not ducking replying to your post. I just need to have uninterrupted time to do it.

Thank you, Mordred, this is why I was hoping you were listening. You certainly know your stuff! This is going to take me a bit to digest and co-relate, though I understand where you are coming from. I need to get back into his 1915 paper so as to explain my references in response. I appreciate the work and input. I have no doubts about the spiritual aspects. I learned to wash my hands in acid harmlessly under a Muslim Haj in Djakarta in 1972. My life is filled with miracles, including materializations. I live in the quantum continuum others do not see. I can guarantee that it is all an illusion and manifested for us, that each of us is the center of our own universe. The science, my friend, is part of the illusion. I am not a Christian. I follow Jesus. (and Krishna, Buddha, etc.) Only personal experience reveals and proves those truths, though quantum physics should be a big clue to any seeker of truth. My primary goal is to discredit the Big Bang and accelerating expansion, etc., as that is contrary to the notion of the eternal Creator, which I know exists. Again, only personal experience proves this to anyone. The dark matter aspect is just a curiosity, but I can see the cause of the rotational velocities clearly, though am apparently not expressing myself clearly enough in that regard. Sooooo....I will reply fully when I have time to do some cross referencing. For the moment, however, I would note that in § 15 of his 1915 paper, he calls the time dilation elements his “energy components” (his quotation marks), while considering the Hamiltonian function, Thanks again for the time and input.

Hey Mordred - I'm sorry, you came out scrambled. Can you try it again? I understand one forms and the tensors. I am quoting Einstein himself in the time-time element being g44. The quote is referenced by paragraph in his 1915 paper. The time elements are his "energy components". The difference in the rates of time affect lengths of meters (and curvature of trajectory) and rates of acceleration. The tensor provides the resultant. Instead of just being Einstein's resultant geodesics, I am suggesting that there are two directions of evolution in time; the first is the straight line of Einstein's fundamental metric and the other, relativistic one, is orthogonal to that in spherical systems. Einstein's equations are describing the resultant of the interactions of those two directions of evolution of the continuum. Velocity relates directly to acceleration in time within the continuum. I.e., Mercury is being accelerated faster in time than the Earth and therefore shows a higher velocity through space. If it was not accelerated in time (and space), it would slip from view, which we know to be true. It would also fall back in time as it is in a slower rate of time than the Earth. If it was over-accelerated in time it would fly out of its apparent orbit and away. I am calling the relativistic lateral flow a force as it is what evolves and accelerates each frame and all events down the gradient. This does not happen in our inertial frame direction where we always experience a 1 s/s rate of time and a meter that maintains C. We would perceive ourselves to be motionless in the fundamental metric but would still be aware of time passing.

Hey Strange, the link info doesn't help except that if this is as good as it gets then the info isn't there yet. The uncertainties alone are too big and if I am reading the table correctly the mass of individual stellar systems isn't compared or considered. The effect I am looking for would be subtle and I just see no way to check for it yet.

Thanks, Strange. Rotational velocities are not completely independent of mass as mass is indicative of the degree of time dilation within the body's gradient. If the Earth was in Mercury's orbit, it would have to have a much higher velocity to maintain that orbit. I will check out the link.

Sorry Strange, I disagree. Theoretical points of view do not require math. It is certainly possible to debate whether GR describes motion through space or motion within the continuum, and the nature of the continuum itself. But I do provide a test for the dark matter aspect. I just have not been able to find the appropriate data. It might not even exist yet, but I think it does. What it requires is the rotational velocities of two bodies of different mass at the same radius from the center of the galaxy. As I noted earlier, no human could possibly do the math for the dark energy effect without a supercomputer and a huge database. Are off site links allowed here? Thanks. OK, here is the PDF link http://vixra.org/abs/1708.0142 As you will note in the paper Mordred, I disagree that photons have a null geodesic, which is why they "lens" around large masses. The paper explains why. Tks

Hello Mordred. I was hoping you were listening. This is not the previous paper at all. You guys showed me how screwed up I was. That is why I trashed it and went back to school. I needed to be able to read Einstein in the original. There is no math in this paper. It is strictly based on relativity and a clarification of what GR describes re the evolution of the continuum. You guys were absolutely right and my last attempt remains a total embarrassment to me. This paper is strictly theoretical. I am trying to clarify how we are not perceiving what GR actually describes re processes in time. Einstein set out to describe what we see in the solar system, the effects of the processes, but never saw the processes working through his "energy components" (his quotes). Instead he saw the gravitational field and objects moving through space instead of the evolving continuum.. He defined the effects of gravity in a spherical gravity well, but not gravity itself. This is why GR does not work on the galactic scale. We all know GR is incomplete. I am trying to explain why. So....is it allowable to post the whole paper here? Unlike my previous monster it is only about 15 pages long at this font size. It is not just the Hubble shift subject matter, though, as I guess you can tell from the above. Is just a link acceptable?

I believe my model does match observations. I believe it is a viable theory that can be tested as I suggested as regards dark matter. I made some inquires to see if that data is available, but have had no replies. The Hubble shift is self evident. Acceleration "through" space requires an acceleration in time to maintain C. All events are constantly accelerated in spacetime. All older frames are therefore slower in time. This slows the frequency, creating the red shift. We see the same effects as at the event horizon of a black hole, where the difference in the rate of time approaches 1 s/s, hence, we can expect it to be a 1 s/s difference at ~14Gly. This is the limit of perception where we shift from time-like to space-like. Understanding the dark matter aspect requires a new view of what GR describes in spherical systems, as postulated in this theory. Back to work.

This is why so many are looking for the "new math" that will do this. First, however, we need a theoretical framework to start us in the correct direction, which is what I am trying to establish. I am still considering if GR's equations can be used. If so, it would be by applying the same time-time element, Einstein's G44, to all of the stellar systems, adjusting each system's element for its relative mass and the complex interactions between the whole cloud of systems. Sorry, even a two or three body solution to Einstein's field equations is extremely complex. There are very few actual examples of solutions using them at all. So - to be clear, I cannot carry this forward mathematically. It will take a supercomputer and data bases I have no access to. I am trying to establish a new theoretical approach that will allow us to see things anew. We need to switch from looking at events "in space" to events "in time". When we look at it from the time perspective we don't end up with all the unanswered questions. We have no dark matter or energy. All we have is simple relativity. Off to work...

As Einstein’s field equations use an infinitesimal surface so he can apply SR, and translate the difference in the rates of time into angular deflection, I am as yet unclear as to whether his formulations will adapt to work on flattened galactic gradients. The rotational velocities do not require Dark Matter. They require a correct understanding of what GR describes, which is the evolution of events within the continuum due to effects in time. It is also necessary to understand the nature of the continuum, which has no actual depth. Spherical systems and flattened spiral galaxies have different shaped dilation gradients. Spherical systems have one primary gradient centered on a central pit. Flattened spiral galaxies have two interacting shapes of dilation gradients. The time dilation gradient of a flattened spiral galaxy is not spherical. It is nearly flat when considered from above and below the disk. It is only “spherical” looking in from the edges. Because the dilation gradients from above and below the disk are not spherical, events (objects) are not being evolved forward by the "lateral flow" (see below) sequentially in deeper levels of the gradient, as in a stellar system gradient, but nearly all at once across a broad flat surface. A check of this theory would be that deeper pits, i.e., larger bodies, within the galaxy at any radius should have slightly higher velocities than smaller bodies at the same radius; i.e., larger masses and concentrations of masses are evolved forward faster than lesser masses due to their steeper gradients within the primary gradient. The curved paths of the stellar systems within the galaxy are due to the flow moving in from around the edges of the galaxy, which is GR’s curvature of motion, but the orbital speeds are primarily determined by the flows from above and below the disk, which also act to compress the disk. The flattened time dilation gradient of the galaxy explains the increased velocity of the stellar systems when combined with a correct view of the dynamics in time. The accelerated velocities increase momentum and the total energy, and therefore the relativistic mass, of the galaxy. What follows is my section on the dynamics in time that describe gravity and the forward evolution of events. It was this insight that motivated me originally and caused me to go back to school so I could understand Einstein. The Lateral Flow & Dynamics in Time As the dilation gradient deepens as a particle approaches the center of a spherical (stellar) system, the relative velocities and angular deflection of stable orbiting bodies increase with proximity to the center of the system, and larger bodies require a higher velocity to maintain the same orbit as a smaller body. This proves gravity is not just evolving geodesics. As in Newtonian physics, gravity is related to mass. The greater the mass, the greater the drag. This is because the greater the mass, the deeper the time dilation gradient within that mass. This is why Einstein needed the stress-energy-momentum tensor on the right side of his equation even though, as in § 16 of his 1915 paper, he says, “It must be admitted, that this introduction of the energy-tensor of matter cannot be justified (author’s italics) by means of the Relativity-Postulate alone; for we have in the foregoing analysis deduced it from the condition that the energy of the gravitation-field should exert gravitating action in the same way as every other kind of energy. The strongest ground for the choice of the above equation however lies in this, that they lead, as their consequences, to equations expressing the conservation of the components of total energy (the impulses and the energy) which exactly correspond to the equations (49) and (49a). This shall be shown afterwards. It is not required by the theory of General Relativity”. Without it, the equation does not balance, i.e., there is no equality nor conservation of energy and momentum. To an outside observer, time is evolving forward faster, and therefore “first”, in the fastest rate-of-time frames. The next instant is “beginning” there and then perceptually flows into slower time rate areas, seeking the shortest routes to the bottom of the gravity wells (time dilation pits). This apparent flow along the time dilation gradient we call the “lateral flow”; a second, relativistic, forward direction of time, some of the effects of which are described by Einstein’s field equations. As above (elsewhere in the paper), the author postulates it is this flow that also manifests the real energy of the CMBR. It is the lateral flow that is the force of gravity. It creates drag by traveling down gradient through a deepening time dilation field at a constant speed, C, relative to the base temporal time rate in the preceding reference frame up the gradient. This creates a stress in time as it accelerates the rate of time in the local reference frames it is updating, and the acceleration shortens the length of a meter in those frames, creating stress in space and drag in events occurring in space. For every second of an originating reference frame’s evolution, the lateral flow attempts to flow downgradient through 299,792,458 m of space, evolving time in the slower rate areas one second as it shifts through space. Due to ever slowing rates of time, the time dilation gradient prevents this without a shift forward of all the events and spaces in the gradient. This drag curves the evolutionary path of events downgradient, i.e., particles, including the photons of the CMBR, in or moving across a dilation gradient, will have their paths curved downgradient. The degree and rate of curvature depends on the existing velocity, momentum and trajectory of the particle as well as the degree of time dilation. This is GR’s curvature in the forward evolution of events. The accelerating nature of gravitational time dilation gradients creates gravity just as acceleration through spacetime due to the application of an external force creates a gravitational drag. In a gradient, time is being forced to evolve forward at an accelerating rate and relatively longer meters are being forced to shorten a higher percentage of their length. We do not feel gravity in static states of motion, or when moving directly down gradient with the lateral flow unless the down gradient movement is halted, as when standing upon the Earth. A steady acceleration, as in an orbital free fall, manifests the same as a steady velocity, as the flow around the particle normalizes along all axes, as it does with simple velocity. Acceleration due to the application of an external force creates a dynamic where the rates of time, and their associated meter lengths, must dynamically adjust. When we accelerate, we are accelerating against the flow, no matter which direction we move in, and this creates the drag. We are forcing ourselves to evolve forward sooner and faster than we normally would: our rate of evolution increases. To an outside observer our rate of time must slow to accommodate C, but as long as we are accelerating, our rate of evolution increases. The quickened deterioration of fruits and vegetables aboard the International Space Station is probably a manifestation of advanced aging in the inertial frame due to acceleration. Although the fruits and vegies have an apparent steady velocity, and therefore are weightless, they are still undergoing constant acceleration beyond what they would experience on Earth, as all orbiting particles are. Because gravity is partially a stress between different rates of time, the tension between the time rates of the flow and the local frame equalizes midway between them. The lateral flow accelerates the rate of time in the reference frame it is updating by dRt/2, (where dRt is the difference in the rates of time) while the drag of the slower rate also slows the rate of time of the flow by dRt/2 so it is flowing into the next frame at C based upon the rate of time of the reference frame just updated. This preserves the relative rates of time of adjacent frames, the relative length of a meter, and maintains the slope of the time dilation gradient. As the flow shrinks the relative length of a meter in successive frames at an accelerating rate and pulls everything along with it, and since space is cohesive, it works to shrink the relative size of the universe. But as relationships between reference frames are only relative, both in the rate of time and length of a meter, the universe maintains its proportionality. When the flow is moving in opposite directions against itself into two pits from their barycenter, the effect is augmented proportionately, as per current equations. The flow is obviously only downgradient, which is why gravity only has one direction. This means all events, in any dilation field, which means all known events, are being dragged and accelerated into slower reference frames as they are simultaneously accelerated forward in both time and space in the inertial frame. GR defines the resultant of these two effects for particles in apparent motion in a dilation gradient. In spherical systems, the flow is primarily orthogonal to the center of the system and the stable orbits orthogonal to the flow. This is also true in flattened spiral galaxies where the flows through the gradients on the flattened disk sides are orthogonal to the direction of rotation. This, of course, reminds us of the orthogonal relationships between electric and magnetic events described by Maxwell’s equations and as used by Einstein in his explanations of both SR and GR. If the CMBR is a time dilation phenomenon, and the processes above are correct, this probably allows the electromagnetic field to be directly connected to gravity. The flow shifts all events downgradient, even photons, hence the apparent deflection of light around large masses like the sun. This means all energy masses are shifted downgradient, including the CMBR. This concentrates energy at the bottom of the gradient, spherical or flat. The author postulates that in a spherical pit this creates a high concentration of energy and a shear that leads to the formation of particle events. These are vortex events in spacetime. Intersecting flows can create clouds of particle events and intersecting flat gradients create a foam of spherical pits where they intersect, creating flattened spiral galaxies. However, particulate formation is observational, as per quantum physics. When we observe events, we are slowing their rate of evolution in time and see them as particulate, i.e., “frozen” in space in the past instead of as waveform superpositions with evolving momentums in the present. Everything we see is in the past. It is not possible to directly observe the present. Light having a “velocity” prevents it. The present only exists for us within us. When we are not observing them, events are not a part of our reality. This is also relativistically correct. What is behind you does not exist for you until you turn your head around. Without an observer, there is no substantive creation, only superposition waveforms, possibilities and probabilities. As the Big Bang theory thermodynamics rely on the creation of permanent particles of invariant mass, it cannot be valid. There are no permanent particles. Again, as per Einstein, “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”.

That is a primary problem. "Intuitive" does not work. "Intuitive" based on GR gives us Dark Matter and Dark Energy and an illogical Big Bang accelerating expansion of the cosmos. We see ourselves moving "through" space instead of as being within an evolving quantum continuum with no actual depth. We perceive a constant speed of light, but adjust the length of a meter and the duration of a second to keep it constant. Einstein showed us that it is not intuitive, but simply relativistic. If you post again it will take me some time to reply as I am off to work after being gone for a week and have much to catch up on.

OK, thank you. My first attempt at incorporating my initial insight was a total flop, as was pointed out to me here. A real embarrassment driven by a wild enthusiasm. So I understand where you are coming from. If I can be disproved in this current attempt I will accept it and go back to school again, though I don't know where I could go....... or what else I could study.....

You know nothing of my education. I am a Cum Laude graduate of the USMMA at Kings Point, NY (where I received an award at my 45th reunion last week). I already had a strong math and physics background. I just needed to learn tensor calculus to read and understand Einstein's original paper on GR. My education is extensive. Instead of insults, try posting something that would actually disprove what I have posted. Einstein learned calculus, a new math in his time, so he could describe what we see in the solar system, and he does that fine. But he does not explain rotational velocities in flattened spiral galaxies because GR was developed to describe events in stellar systems which are spherical, not flat. All he was doing in GR was incorporating the difference in the rates of time in SR to equations of apparent motion. One needs to understand the continuum as described by quantum physics to truly understand GR. One also has to accept Einstein's remark that, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one". There is no invariant mass, only relativistic mass. We only consider it invariant for convenience in our calculations, the same reason we use Newtonian formulas instead of Einstein's field equations. Anyway, if you would comment, please let's make it a respectful debate on the concepts, not an insult fest.

One has to ask if one is playing with one's self.

Yes. We only experience the present within us. Even the lens of the eye is only perceived in the past as light is moving in from the lens to the central consciousness. We, meaning all life forms, experience the universe as though we are leading the evolution of the continuum, no matter where we are. All external frames are perceived as being older and slower in time. Each of us is the center of our own universe, which is Einstein's inertial frame of reference, and what we perceive is reality for us. There is not another reality, what we each perceive is our reality. There is no other way to see it. As per quantum physics, there is no solid reality. What we are experiencing is the evolution of the spacetime continuum and the events within it , as perceived from our inertial frame's point of view.. In "events" I include all "particles" of relativistic and apparently invariant mass. Everything we experience is the evolution of events manifested within the spacetime continuum. This is Einstein's "illusion". It is just an evolving energy field. We are not moving "into" space. As the spacetime continuum evolves forward, it appears that events are moving "through" and "into" a pre-existing space, but that is an illusion . The apparently empty space is also evolving forward. Depth and distance are manifested through time dilation and the subsequent attenuation, i.e., stretching, of photons. This is not an actual stretching of the photons, it is a stretching of the interval in time between photons due to the slower rates of time in external frames. This lowers the apparent frequency and we get the red shift. Very beautiful and elegant. In the inertial frame, where we experience a 1 s/s rate of time, the forward evolution is a straight line, as in Einstein's fundamental metric. Gravity is the apparent flow of the next instant down the time dilation gradient. To an outside observer, the next instant appears to manifest first in the fastest rate of time frame, and seems to flow down the gradient. That flow evolves events down gradient, diverting them from the straight line trajectory. This manifests Einstein's geodesics in a spherical system, but it does not act the same when acting across the broad flat surface of flattened spiral galaxies. In a spherical system the apparent flow evolves events forward sequentially in a spherical time dilation pit. The progressively increased velocities of the events deeper in the gradient are due to the deepening of the time dilation pit. In a flattened galaxy, events are evolved forward all at once cross the broad, flat, disk so they have the same apparent velocity. There is no Dark Matter. Each of our universes are reality and overlap. They are harmonized so we can share experiences. Spacetime comes from the awareness of being "here" (space), "now" (time). There is a single awareness that exists only because it is aware of time passing. No light, no senses. Just "I Am That I Am". This is a horrible state of being. Fortunately it can imagine light and manipulate that light through time dilation to create worlds it can incarnate itself into, "losing" itself to escape its eternal loneliness. We are just different points of view, different perspectives, for it. We are all one in it and we are all its children. This is why the universes overlap and are so perfectly harmonized. I develop all this in greater detail in my paper.

Hi guys. Well, I went back to school and reviewed calc, then took a course in quantum mechanics using MIT open courseware and read a book taking a different tack, and then studied tensor calc so I could read Einstein in the original. I believe I was correct in the relativistic approach aspect, but had it all wrong, which I again thank you for pointing out. I have posted another paper on Vixra detailing my new approach. Didn't need any new math. It is just a new interpretation of General Relativity. I actually had it all backwards. Turns out that since all events (bodies) are constantly accelerated in time and space, that older frames have slower rates of time the older they are and this creates a time dilation gradient just like a black hole. As the difference in the rates of time at both ends of the spectrum, looking into a black hole or out to ~14Gly, lateral velocity approaches 0 while recessional velocity approaches C. Because we are constantly accelerated, the farther the distance, the faster objects appear to accelerate away from us. A difference in the rates of time between of 1 s/s is the boundary between time-like and space-like. I know I can't post an external link here, but the title of the paper is "Understanding the Limit of Relativity, Dark matter, and the Hubble Shift". I don't intend to pursue this here in this thread, but wanted to update you on my progress. I will most likely start another thread on all this when I get some time as the summer winds down. Thanks again.

OK. My confusion is that all the stories I've read all say the universe is "10% bigger".

I know that. But the observable universe is always "what was" to us, not what is. There were apparently many more, smaller universes back then, in the same space, but they have merged to form fewer, larger, galaxies today. I am also thinking about what this means re elliptical galaxies being the result of galactic collisions. It seem to me that with so many more collisions we should see far more elliptical galaxies.

Opinions, please. Just recently it was discovered that "the universe is 10 times bigger" than we previously thought, containing trillions of galaxies. This is based on Hubble data showing many more small galaxies at 13.7 Gly. Energy density hasn't changed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/10/14/the-universe-may-have-10-times-as-many-galaxies-as-we-thought/ How is it "bigger" if the size and density is the same? Also, we are seeing the galaxy density back then. Are there still, currently, trillions and not hundreds of billions of galaxies. I am having trouble finding this clarification. Also, how do you think this effects the thermodynamics as currently understood? Tks

I "A'sd" calculus in both high school and college, easily. But that was a long time ago. I must confess I need a refresher other than I have done recently as I honestly confess I do not know how to work d/dRo intro the formula. I know it is a derivative, but do not know how to use it or apply it. Guess I gotta go and do a refresh. Like I said, been a long time.....40+ years before I got into this. No, I don't expect a calc course here. I can pick it back up online. Just saying. As you know, I can't accept the singularity or the cold, dark end. I think the solution to all of this has to be simple, so even if I have a simple approach, it will work. it shouldn't take complex mathematics to describe it so even an amateur like me can find it and express it. A photon does not "experience" distance or time. So from the perspective of the photon, it is at both the originating source and the observer's frame at the same time. This means distance is an illusion. There is no distance for the photon, but we perceive the photon traveling over distance. The reason has to be different perspectives in time. So I will be thinking about that for awhile. Why is it that objects that appear to be in faster time also appear to be back in time and at a farther distance? We say it is due to the light travel time of the photon, that experiences neither space nor time. There are local and non-local effects occurring. There are deeper effects here that we're not seeing yet. To me it is only evolving light, but I will keep after the mathematical way to try to prove it.

Thanks, Guys.

Thanks guys, You've been great and very patient. Can't believe I fell for the edu site. Should of known when I couldn't find it again. That is the effect in the how the difference in the rates changes. The rate of change decreases by half as the distance doubles (doing what I was doing). How I let myself get twisted I do not know. Too much wine? By dRt I mean the difference in the rates of time between 1 set of frames. From our inertial frame rate of 1 s/s, at a higher frame if To/Tr = .99999999whatever, then the difference in the rates in s/s between frames, is = 1 - .99999999whatever. Back to go with the shift, it seems...... You said "The radial coordinate - r (I have more recently called it r_0 to link it to t_0 ) is simplisitically the distance from the centre of mass of the black hole. Remember these are vacuum solutions to the EFE and thus are not immediately interchangeable into real word situations - but the Schild Solution (around a non-rotating black hole) is very close to describing test masses around a central planet or sun. So in these more real world approximations r is the distance of the observer from the centre of the sun/earth/etc" This tells me it can be used to derive the difference at distance, at least for shorter distances. Or am I misunderstanding? If we relate r to distance from the center we can determine the difference at that distance? Took a nice crow out of the freezer for dinner tonight.

OK. I see what you are saying. This is what I originally thought but then came upon an edu site that said the rate of time reduced to 1 s of our time at infinity. This has caused me to conflate. I still end up with a 2 s/s difference at infinity, but I need to rework what I am saying. It is actually better for me as I do not have to make such a reach to get the 2 s/s difference....I think. I need to spend some time looking at it again. Please look at the diagram on the bottom right of the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#/media/File:Orbit_times.svg The green gravity speed up is the effect I see myself as describing and it plots out similar though I haven't compared the two to scale. Time goes faster with altitude, but the rate of change of the dRt halves with a doubling of the distance. Since we never get to infinity the rate of change never = 0 so time keeps going faster. Likewise it keeps going slower towards the center of the mass, in what I am saying are the time vortices of our quanta. This has been driving me nuts for over a month. I was researching all this and ran across an edu site that said the difference in rates decreased to 0 at infinity, That started me applying what is the difference in the rate of change per frame with the difference in the rates.....I think. I won't comment on the rest of what was said above until I re-evaluate my work. Thanks for your time and input.

Position of the observer from the center of the mass? Also, what would be the fastest time at infinity? Infinitely fast?