captcass

I think I have it. Too tired tonight to finish it tonight, but I really think I have it this time. Beautiful.....

Infinite z is easy enough. At infinity, the dRt = 1 s/s. Therefore: New Frequency = (Original Frequency)*(1 - dRt) = 0

Thank you. I am already familiar with those formulas and what they mean. It was the time factor in Einstein's 4 factor that I was working on and considering when I stumbled across the concept behind the Gravitational Equivalency Constant. I am looking for a different kind of effect. There is also the matter of a Cosmological Constant. I am probably looking at that as a final solution. I see the CMB as most likely being the potential energy of space/time being released, as in my postulates, and as being indicative of the substance of space/time that would account for the constant. Space/time crackles with potential energy created by fluctuations in time and the effects in space. This is why I like some aspects of the VLS theories. They allow for a non-conservation of energy and the release and absorption of energy by space/time itself, which is what I see happening. It also seems to solve the horizon problem, but I don't believe that part is correct. I see a strong possibility that if the universe were a flat sheet, with all objects lying on that sheet, that the most distant galaxies would be interspersed within what we see to be closer galaxies in a fairly isotropic manner. The perception of them being farther away in space being due to them being farther back in time. I believe the universe is most likely eternal and nearly static, though some form of VLS would allow it "pant", and that once we have surveyed it more thoroughly we will find that the energy being absorbed by black holes is being released back into the fabric of space time from their cores, such as Hawking suggests, though I believe it is rather more like the already existent potential energy in the space/time fabric, sub-CMB, At an event horizon, according to what I said above, there is a dRt of 1 s/s. In this I see the closest external frames materializing 1 second before I am. As per my paper, the update in time shifting into the gravity well is updating up gradient frames before it is updating me (my quanta). My frame's update is a superposition of the update and local frame's temporal time. Within our quanta the difference in time, dRt, between the two reduces down to 10^-65 s/s. Thank you again, I appreciate the response, feedback, and suggestions. I am still open to a creation event for the mass in the universe, but know Space/time is perceptually eternal and infinite. Mass events occur within that fabric.If there was a creation event that included high density energy throughout the universe, then time would have been slowed by the energy density. This would have lengthened the length of a meter and frequencies within those lengthened meters would be attenuated (stretched out), giving a red shift to that light. If there was a period of higher density, that would partially explain the Hubble shift we see at great look back times.

I have tried it using just length contraction (the original derivation for Gn-z11 in my paper), just time dilation, both combined, and 3 elements, 2 in time and length. The effect is there in all cases. The problem is in dropping the farthest frames. The effect is so slight there from the point of view of the observer that moving in a frame doesn't alter the effect enough between frames at that distance. Reversing the gradient and working it in from the farthest frame gives the most accurate results, but it is then not possible to drop the farthest frame as it is now the source. I have another approach using infinity that I am considering and will probably stat on it tomorrow. Gotta love this stuff.

Hubble shift. Still working on it. What a mind-bender. Some people think time goes faster as you increase elevation, and keeps going faster and faster. It doesn't. Nearly no one states that the difference in the rates actually decreases with distance from the observer, though this is what it does, until, at infinity, 1 second apparently equals one second of the observer's time. As stated above, this would mean time is going fastest just outside your skin and drops off dramatically in you and me back to 1 sec/sec. and also gradually over distance from us until 1 s/s = 1 s/s again at infinity. . Of course this makes no sense. Vodka, please! This is a dual perspective problem because the observer would experience the same effects at both ends of infinity, looking back the other way in time. Great possibilities here as regards perspectives in time relationships and distance. Just flashes so far for me...... Let's go to some math. Let's look at the differences in the rates of time just outside the Ro (event horizon) and at infinity. Please excuse the number of decimal places, Infinity is of course not infinity, but a distance of 10^47 is used here as that seems to be enough decimal places to prove the point. Infinity - (NOT): Ro/r = (2.3632233436064572597027560494313435272009709331533098180900718904230091785651897*10^15)/(2.3632233436064572597027560494313435272009709331533098180900718904230091785651897*10^47) = 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 To/Tr = 0.999999999999999999999999999999995 dRt = 1 - To/Tr = 0.000000000000000000000000000000005 This is a near parity where 1 sec equals 1 sec. At actual infinity, 1 sec = 1 sec. The obverse of being extremely close to the Ro: Ro/r = (2.3632233436064572597027560494313435272009709331533098180900718904230091785651897*10^15)/2363223343606457.2597027560494313435272009709331533098180900718914 = 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999996 To/Tr = 0.00000000000000000000000000000002 dRt = 1 - To/Tr = 0.99999999999999999999999999999998 This is almost a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time, not a 1 s per 1 sec equality At Ro, To/Tr = 0 dRt = 1 s/s This means at the Ro the difference in the rates of time for the observer vs the the external frame (the external frame overlaying the observer's frame in superpostion) is 1 s/s and the rate of time for the observer is actually 2 s/s. This relates directly to my proposition in my theory that in a time vortex (gravity well), the update recurs nearly immediately at the rate of X*10^-65 s/s and that this equates to C2 in a time vortex. The observer sees time at C refresh at C. 1 s/s becomes 2 s/s. So over distance, the increased rate of the observer is reducing from 2 s/s in a gravity well to 1 s/s over infinity. Because an observer's watch always ticks at 1 s/s, double time is cut in half to the proper time of the observer on the Ro surface and the obverse of seeing time accelerate over distance to 2 s/s at infinity prevails. (I hope this makes sense- it is difficult to verbally describe). Beyond infinity, time continues to slow until events simply disappear. They are red shifted beyond detection. Time does not stop, events simply disappear as time between events passes and the difference in time increases. I am very strongly considering that apparent distance is related to the separation of events in time.....primarily distance in time, not space. We see all objects at distance accelerating away from us at greater speeds the greater the distance; the rising loaf of bread with raisins embedded in it.... This is equal in all directions. This is not a true analogy. Imagine observers at all points around a sphere of infinity looking in at us. We would appear to be accelerating away from all of them at increasing speeds. If one says this is because they are all accelerating away from us equally according to their distance, then we are at the center of the universe, because their acceleration is related directly to distance from us, no matter the direction. The raisins in a rising loaf do not accelerate away form each other equally. They do so according to their distance and relative position from the center of the initial piece of dough. Raisins on the same plane but opposite sides from the center should accelerate away from each other twice as fast as objects on the same plane on the same side of the center. They do so relative to their initial positions within the loaf before it rises. This means we should be able to locate the origin of the BB, but we can't because all objects appear to be accelerating away from us equally in all directions directly in relation to their distance, which is directly related to how far back in time we see them. Soooooo many possibilities here....... As for the Hubble shift, it plots out as a combination of the two perspectives, but describing that mathematically remains elusive. My children will probably commit me.... Because this is a dual perspective problem, an event originating in another gravity well is originating at a rate of time of 2 s/s in its originating frame and we perceive it as occurring at 1 s/s in our own frame. Likewise, in our own 2 s/s frames, we perceive everything outside us to be occurring at slower and slower rates over distance, until they are occurring at an apparent rate of 1 s/s. Vodka, please...... To clarify, a photon emitted from infinity would be emitted by an energy density (mass) that would also have a Ro and would be originating at 2 s/s and the rate of time would appear to equalize at us at infinity.

You are correct if one is using a BB model and an expanding universe. I am using a static universe model where the formula for a stationary, non-rotating, body is To/Tr = Sq root ((1 - (Ro/r)) all the way to infinity. I cannot rationally accept a BB or accelerating expanding universe even though I know ll the evidence seems to indicate that and the CMB seems to fit a BB nearly perfectly. I am looking for other relativistic effects that can explain the perception of a nonexistent BB. I am currently looking at the CMB and might have found an effect just yesterday that, when taken into consideration with other effects in time and space, could explain what we see. I will be working on this as time allows (no pun intended) and hope to find out shortly if it works conceptually and mathematically.

Time goes faster with altitude, but does so at a slower rate the higher one goes until the rates of time equalize again at 1 s/s at infinity. At 17 Gly the difference in the rates is in the 10^-12 order, while nearby it is in the 10^-10 range. Thus time is relatively faster close to us. This is a real head twister. Traveling down the gradient from a distance, time appears to be going faster until it suddenly drops off at the end to be slower than all the reference frames above in our own inertial frame. The closer frames have a higher difference in the rate, so they appear to be faster than both distant frames and our own inertial frame. Thus to the observer on Earth, time seems to be going faster as the reference frames get closer to the Earth until it suddenly drops off to be slower than all elevated frames above. There is no sudden drop off at the infinity end. Time just keeps gradually slowing until the rates equalize. As I am seeing it, to an outside observer at an equilateral distance from both the Earth and the infinite point , the rate of time seems to be the same both on the Earth and at infinity (not another body, just an infinite point). From both the Earth and infinity the rate of time increases with distance, but at a slower rate as altitude increases. From a point midway between infinity and the Earth, the outside observer would see time slowing in both directions as the distance to both the Earth and the infinite point decreases, making the midpoint the fastest rate of time for the outside observer. Time would seem to slow as both infinity and the Earth are approached from the midway point. The infinite point is never reached within the universe due to the other bodies. From both the Andromeda galaxy and the Milky way, the rate of time changes as above until the point between the galaxies where the relative rates equalize (the same rate of time relative to each body), but to an equilaterally placed outside observer, time would seem to slow as the center of each galaxy (gravity well) is approached. I don't know if anyone has proven this from the point of view of the outside observer, but this is how it appears to be to me. Time has to appear to slow as one heads down into a gravity well.

Thanks. I've studied the Hubble expansion and understand how the thermodynamics of the CMB fit. The conclusions, however, are nonsensical so there must another explanation. That is what I am looking for, as are many others. I definitely found an effect that changes over distance, but the change is very small until the distance gets fairly small, too close. I haven't given up. I'm looking for another effect. Today I am looking at the CMB.......turning things around in my mind. Thought for the day, Time is faster with altitude but the difference in the rates decreases with distance until, at infinity, the rates of time equalize again. This means the fastest relative time is just outside your skin above your head.......

The Hubble shift derivation definitely doesn't work at closer distances. Derivations based on both distortions in time and space give a constant of z = 2.72, even at closer distances, which does not agree with observations. There has to be another effect contributing to the shift. I will be revising the paper shortly while I go back to the drawing board. Thanks to all for their time and consideration.

I've worked through derivations for several frames at each end and in the middle and think I might have discovered how the effect is manifested and that I was correct about it being related to the length of a meter. I am seeing the relationships in the rate of change between frames. I am going to finish all the derivations and plot them out and see if it holds true.

Thanks. That will take some time to read through.

I can't explain why those things seem to indicate the BB and expansion. I understand the evidence and why it so strongly indicates that. As I said, I used to accept it until we got to the accelerating expansion. I believe if we can put the expansion to bed, we will find other reasons for the CMB, etc. We do pretty well at making things fit......

Thanks, been there the last few days....made me realize all data these days is based on BB and expansion. Trouble is, everything is now based on expansion and the BB, which, by my reasoning, have to be wrong. Since Hubble, we have been making things fit, even though they lead to ridiculous conclusions. It seems we are getting closer, as in the refinement of Ho, but it is still a forced fit with no ultimate explanations of anything.....just more improbable questions like DE. I'm going to work through these derivations, not based on any distance to any object, just to see how they relate frame to frame. I'm thinking that the different rates of time also effect the elongation, actually shortening it, through each set of frames since closer frames are evolving forward more slowly. I think I'm thinking that, anyway. I am also partially distracted by the energy of a photon these days. E = hv. Being a mystical person, I can't help believing there is something much more significant there than people, including me, realize. The wavelength actually is a time interval between pulses, not peaks......... Playing with concepts in time this last year has greatly increased my perspective of possible lines of inquiry. And given me crossed eyes more than once...... Tks for the reply Love playing with this stuff! If I may ask.....don't know if it is forbidden here, not used to forums and their rules and too lazy to read them....but I like to know something about who I am speaking to. I am a retired sea captain: a Cum Laude graduate of the United Sates Merchant Marine Academy, one of five federal academies. I have been in over 50 countries on every coast of every continent except Antarctica. Turned down the southern trip, I'd already been 600 miles from the north pole and it's a miserable voyage to the south. I tell my kids I was looking for a great conversation and never found one...... I have always been a loner, which is why a career at sea appealed to me. People are just not interested in what I am. Having learned to wash my hands in acid harmlessly when I was 22 because I had "faith", and knowing the difference because I did it without faith, too, and burned my hands badly, I have always had a strong mystical inclination. I won't go into what I have studied in my 27 years at sea here. Quite a list..... At 24, I had an epiphany resulting from my studies looking to increase my faith.......long story, but since then I have lived in the world of light. I see my world being wonderfully created for me in response to my endeavors and desires..I see probability densities acting on my behalf in a totally improbable way. The odds don't fit.....LOTS of things everyone would agree were miracles. Just expecting your arm to end up where you want it when you move it is totally improbable. Why the hell should it do that if all we have for each particle is probability densities based upon previous evolution? I love the quantum world because I see what I see there, too. I understand what we experience and why QM works, and have since I was 24. I totally understand superposition. I have no conflict with dual particle/wave properties. I can see why. I just have never been able to put forth the math that explains it. Still can't, that. The answer is simple, but requires a spiritual belief. Do you brush your teeth regularly? Religiously? If so, you have religion. To me, "religion" has nothing to do with spirituality and the wonder of the world. It is merely what we do, or don't do, for our own health and the health of our communities based upon the wisdom of our ancestors. Spirituality, to me, is in taking the time to love our Greater Self. Although all our lives are constantly miraculous, 99% never see it. Spirituality allows one to see, and enter, a far more miraculous life: the life of the great spiritual teachers and founders of faiths.. Since my epiphany, I have lived in that extraordinary world that is created just for each of us. So, I don't care if you are religious, because I know you are. You might not know it, but I do. Absolutely everyone is. My question is, are you a spiritual person? If so, how can you possibly believe in a BB and accelerating expanding universe.? I am not trying to be confrontational here. I am looking for intelligent conversation with...............well,anyone. I've looked in over 50 countries. If you would like to understand where I am coming from better, Google captcass and look for the symbol of unity site. If you would like further discussion on those things we will have to find another forum, I guess, but I always enjoy that..

Holding your breath? Don't, you were right, the correlation doesn't hold as I visualized it. I finally figured out that all the lookback times I was using were derived using Ho, in an expanding universe so wouldn't correlate. Turns out we really don't know based solely on other observations just how far objects are.. Surprising that the relationship does refine with distance so it works at the farthest visible distance. I am now working derivations for each step in the Ro doubling process to study the relationship. This is not affected by Ho as it begins at only one galactic Ro. I'll let you know if I find anything significant. As you can tell, I'm not a pro. If I was I would have checked at other distances before concluding I was correct. I do appreciate your time. But still no way I accept the BB, etc..... Still, I think I'll go have a piece of humble pie....

Sorry, I found an error this morning so it didn't work. Back to the calculations.

OK. I used a lookback time of 4.268 Gyr.for a redshift of .5, using an Ho of 69.6, an Omega M of 1 and an Omega vac of 0 to compute the lookback time and the derivation works. It is not exact, but close enough that a slight adjustment in the distance by adjusting the Ho, slightly increasing the distance, will come out. What I need to ask, is if you agree with my computation of the lookback time. Tks

I found this table on an edu site. I believe it suits my needs perfectly, considering my concepts, without finding specific galactic data, wich as it happens turns out to be a real pain...... Do yo agree this table is a good basis to work from? Tks Redshifts, Distances, and Look-Back Times Redshift v/c Distance (Mpc) Distance (ly) Look-Back Time (yr)* Age of the Universe** 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 100% 0.05 0.049 222 7.26 x 108 7.08 x 108 93% 0.10 0.095 430 1.40 x 109 1.336 x 109 87% 0.50 0.385 1694 5.52 x 109 4.57 x 109 54% 1.0 0.600 2704 8.82 x 109 6.48 x 109 35% 2.0 0.800 3901 1.27 x 1010 8.10 x 109 19% 3.0 0.882 4616 1.51 x 1010 8.78 x 109 12% 4.0 0.923 5103 1.66 x 1010 9.13 x 109 9% 5.0 0.946 5462 1.78 x 1010 9.35 x 109 7% 6.0 0.960 5742 1.87 x 1010 9.51 x 109 6% 10 0.984 6448 2.10 x 1010 9.75 x 109 3% 100 1.00 8312 2.71 x 1010 1.00 x 1010 ~0% 1000 1.00 8939 2.92 x 1010 1.00 x 1010 ~0% infinity 1.00 9231 3.01 x 1010 1.00 x 1010 0% *Assuming flat geometry ** Percentage of age for present Universe when light emitted (flat geometry) The look-back time in the above table is expressed both in years and as a percentage of the present age of the Universe when the light was emitted. For example, at a redshift of z = 2 we are seeing light that was emitted 8.1 billion years ago when the Universe was only 19% of its present age. Here is a Java calculator that allows you to calculate the recessional velocity, look-back times, and distances from the redshift for arbitrary values of the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter. (The preceding table can be reproduced with this calculator by setting the Hubble constant to 65/km/s/Mpc and the deceleration parameter to 0.5, corresponding to a flat Universe with no cosmological constant.) Sorry, the full table didn't copy, just the text. Didn't want you to have to make sense of it.

Sorry, I phrased that last question all wrong. Sound like an idiot. If the universe wasn't expanding, do we have an estimate of how far we could see visible light? It wouldn't red shift out of the visual spectrum with only Doppler effects. Would it just be a matter of luminosity? And if so, do you know of any estimates? Tks The reason I can't accept that is that I believe in an eternal awareness that finds being alone in the dark not just boring, but extremely unpleasant. Imagine being in total sensory deprivation. No sound, light, taste, touch or smell. Just a sense of self....... Welcome to Divine Discontent. Hate to tell you, but that is what you are. That is your greater self. Like boredom? loneliness? People die from loneliness......the eternal awareness incarnates itself to escape it. And it always gets to die....... Just saying. Any suggestion for two galaxies, one at about z = 5 and one at z = .1? I found the NASA database but need names to search. Tks Do you know a data base, website, where I can find both z and lookback time data for galaxies?

Wow, thanks for this. You say "...Hogg's.....is also highly cited for other redshift works. One is trying to show cosmological redshift as gravitational redshift. (the method requires endless microsteps) the cosmological redshift with corrections is far more flexible and simpler." Are the "endless microsteps" similar to what I am doing but more detailed? Do you know where I can read that attempt? I had wanted to make my determination per meter but couldn't figure out how to do it. Too many microsteps.....just wondering if that was a similar attempt. Sorry about the gibberish. Like I said, I suffer from verbosity compounded by free association, especially if I have an extra glass of wine. I am going to do some more derivations for different bodies at different distances to see if what I am doing is consistent. If not, I'll trash this idea for the redshift. Trouble is, there is no way I can logically accept a universe that expands into a cold dead thing. This can only mean we are making a mistake about what the redshift indicates. There must be another relativisitic effect creating that impression. Thought I had it here, but if the other derivations don't work, I will have to assume I don't. As the diameter of the observable universe is thought to be 46 Gly and I came up with 42.2 in my z =1100 approximation, I am also going to try using 46 in a full derivation to see what I get. I really do appreciate all the time you've given me. I understand the science and reasoning. I used to embrace it. But the conclusions regarding the fate of the universe is just incomprehensible to me so I need to find another relativistic reason for z. I know I am not alone in this endeavor. Lots of people don't like the conclusions. I'll get back to you when I do more derivations. I know this thread is about the Hubble shift, but I would appreciate your ideas on my GEC derivation and the Andromeda derivation I use it for. Thanks. PS It did occur to me that the apparent creation of new space by time dilation would create an expanding universe. I believe this must be offset by another effect. For instance, as the update shifts through space it accelerates the rate of time in the frame it is updating, shortening the length of a meter, so the update appears to be shrinking the size of the universe, or it is absorbed in curvature. Or......? One more question. I have been searching to try to find out at what distance the visible spectrum would redshift to the extent there is no more visible light. Do you know that distance?

Thank you for that. Bed time for me so I'll look at it in the morning. So.....prepare to say, "ARRRRGGGHHHH". I worked it out on the basis of slowing the pulses and it comes out the same as with the length of a meter. I guess that figures as I use the differences in time to determine the length of a meter........ I do appreciate the work you did on that derivation and will look at it in the morning. Where does regular physics have z = 1100 occurring? I'm starting to wonder if my approach might explain just the relativistic visual perspective the normal science manifests. Headache time....... In my theory new space is always being created due to endless time dilation in the time vortices of the funadamental particles. I postulate this new space is absorbed in the spins of the particles, and the curvature of motion of events thru space. Perhaps instead it manifests in the expansion you see.......As time and therefore length (distance) are always relative, it might just always look like this is the way it works. Headache.....

Thanks Mordred, I appreciate this. Been looking at the Weins Displacement law. A few questions; I ran across the limitations of the use of this formula when I began to get into this back when. As far as I can see, though, it works with the length of a meter, which doesn't have the limitations of light, which I why I went with meters. Would you agree with this thinking? If so, it seems all I need to adjust for is the Weins Displacement law, which I am assuming is accounted for in the Cosmological redshift formula I am not using, but looking to replace? When I look up components of the redshift I only get the three. Are there other components in the Cosmological redshift formula I would need to account for re the length of a meter? Please bear with me here. You are probably going to say, "AAAARRRGGGHH". I haven't been working with photons. My assumption is that if a meter lengthens, a photon within that meter will also lengthen by the same percentage. Thus I use meters. Thus it shouldn't matter what wavelength the photon is when it departs Gn-z11 or any other source. Does that mean I still have to account for the Weins Displacement law? I don't know how I can incorporate those factors into my approach, which is strictly visually relativistic based on meter length. The one common element I find is that I am using a null geodesic. See my problem here? I would get the CMBR z = 1100 at about 42.2 Gly Does that ring any bells for you? It could be less than this, which is just an approximation. A thought: A photon has energy E. When we say: E = hv we are not talking about a single sinusoidal wave with so many peaks. We are talking about the frequency of pulses of h energy from the emitting source. In a time dilation field like I am visualizing, as time slows between succeeding sets of frames, the timing of the pulses would also slow, decreasing the frequency.

OK. Thanks. I'll get into that and I'll see where I get.

OK, thanks. What do you suggest? More derivations using other bodies to show it relates? I can't derive the 32 Gly distance as according to my theory it isn't there and the derivation of the 32 Gly is wrong as it is based on a non-existant expansion. How can I make you guys happy?

OK. Looks like I might have lost you guys. If I have, sorry ‘bout that and thank very much for trying to set me straight. I’m sorry if you think I wasted your time. So: Einstein’s 4 vector in determining μ is: μ = √(∆To/∆Tr + ∆X/X + ∆Y/Y + ∆Z/Z) ∆To/∆Tr is the relationship of change in the respective times in the inertial reference frame of the observer and the coordinate frame. The difference in the change in times is due to the different rates of time in the different frames. The differentials in time are determined by time dilation. This relates to the time dilation formula: To/Tr = √(1 – Ro/R) Which is the relationship my derivations are based upon. Ro/R, the relationship of distance (length) over distance (length) relates to To/Tr In the geodesics of Relativity, it is the ∆To/∆Tr relationship that determines the curvature of motion through space. As I stated earlier, I am not talking about this curvature in my paper (not directly anyway). What I am doing is taking a deeper look at the To/Tr relationship and how that shapes space in a different way by changing the length of a meter. We have two points of view being represented here: An expanding universe based upon the assumption that the Hubble shift is caused by recessive acceleration where the universe began as a minute concentrated singularity and will expand at an accelerating rate until it goes cold and dead. I’m sorry but this is just absurd. When the thermodynamics for this theory didn’t work out, we got Guth’s theory of inflation, which sounds nice, but is unproven. Just an idea of what might have happened that might make things work. And….it lets us exceed C! We look at the CMBR and say it is proof of a BB. But it is not what we thought it was. It isn’t homogenous. So we come up with unproven reasons why it is not homogenous. We make it fit like we used inflation to make the thermodynamics fit. So what causes this expansion? Dark Energy = “We don’t know”. The other point of view is a primarily stable universe, pre-Hubble assumptions. Z does not represent recessive velocity, but a relativistic increase in the length of a meter based upon To/Tr. Guth’s inflation can be discarded and the thermodynamics and the CMBR can be re-interpreted in relationship to a nearly stable universe. There is no Dark energy to consider. ∆To/∆Tr is the element in Einstein’s four-vector that determines the curvature of motion through space. Events in space evolve in the forward direction of time. What the heck does that mean? The forward direction of time curves into the Earth? That is what I was pondering when I came upon the concept of the lateral shift in the update: another, relativistic, forward direction of time, and yada yada as per my paper, that derives a Gravitational Equivalency Constant that relates the difference in rates of time per meter to the Newtonian force in Newtons that allows us to see the effects in time dragging everything along with it: a force in time, that lets us derive the mass/energy of the Andromeda galaxy. I know you folks are strongly committed to the BB and all that follows. It seems to be what we see. Relativity tells us that what we see is not what is there. With all the uncertainties and assumptions, can you truthfully say these theories are working? If you turn from the BB and all that to the stationary, relativistic, universe, i am describing, do my derivations work and explain the phenomena we see? Does this satisfy you that I know a thing or two about Relativity and Einstein’s field equations? Does it convince you I know the difference between relativistic effects and the effects I am proposing? C’mon, guys, don’t cut me off here! Give me a hand…… How about this? If you assume a stable universe like I describe, could the CMBR be due to interference, static, due to the interference of solar emanations and the reason it is not homogeneous is that solar density is not homogeneous? Is there another proposition you can think of for the CMBR for a primarily stable universe? Certainly there are other theories that fit a stable universe......I haven't checked it out, and will, but do you know anything that would fit? Can the thermodynamics work for such a universe if we discard inflation? Relatively, can the entropy of the CMBR be offset by the ordering of the CMBR's energy into mass? I see so many possibilities for lines in inquiry here.......Wanna play? Could solar emission interference result in the harmonic undertones of the CMBR? Sorry, I have a problem with verbosity compounded by free association........

How do they derive the 32 Gly? They look at the apparent position and factor in the rate of expansion since 13.4 Gly ago. They don't see it at 32 Gly, They assume it is at 32 Gly based upon the expansion rate they think they see based on z. If the expansion isn't there, it is not where they think it is, it is at 13.4 Gly (not really, because we see it where it was 13.4 G years ago and it has a peculiar motion so it has moved some from the position we see.) It is not angular diameter distance at 32 Gly being used to determine that distance because we can't see it at 32 Gly. The angular diameter distance is used to determine its distance 13.4 Gy ago. Then expansion is factored in to determine the distance now, even though we can't see it at that distance. If I am correct about a nearly stable universe then my derivation works. It is not a matter of mathematically proving the 32 Gly is wrong. It is a matter of whether the universe is expanding or not, a conceptual difference. If I am wrong and z does reflect that expansion, then it is at 32 Gly. If I am correct and the universe is not expanding, then it is (was) at 13.4 Gly and my derivation works. I should add this to try to give you a perspective of my point of view. Because the universe is illusionary, it requires a perceiver. I see us (all life forms) as just different points of view for the same perceiver. We are all one in It. I see the continuum evolving around me, for me, so there is a continuity to events. When I move my arm, the continuum evolves in such a way that my arm ends up in the right place. Forgive me if this somehow violates forum rules or etiquette but I am going to tell a short story here so you can hopefully visualize the continuum I see. I own the world's first and only sea glass museum. I have spent many hours on our glass beaches (yes we have 3 glass beaches) collecting sea glass. I landed at the beach one day in my kayak and found 2 marbles right away right next to each other. They were just plain old marbles, but still, marbles are as rare as reds (1:5000). I talk to the Perceiver within me a lot because things like what follow happen all the time if I do. So I said, "Lord, thank you. I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I've got a blue, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red. Please, Lord?" So I went back picking and put that thought aside After about 2 hours of walking very slowly up and down the beach, looking for the gems among all the other glass, I was tired and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to do, so I decided to just make a quick pass and see if I could spot anything special just lying there on top. Just before the end there is this HUGE red marble. Not just a regular little marble like the other 2 I found that day. It's 15/16ths of an inch. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms A WAVE! (sea glass - remember?) When I bend down to pick up the marble, there are also 2 pieces of jewelry quality RED glass, one on either side of it! Reds are 1 in 5,000 pieces! Anyone care to calculate odds here? In my world, this is the Perceiver telling me the marble was not a co-incidence. I asked for red and got red. When I ask for something, if I get it, it is always much grander than I could have imagined. The reason I believe in the non-substantial evolving continuum is because I have been living in it for the last 42 years and can see it evolving around me, Sorry if I violated........ As per QM, neither the marble nor the red glass was there before I found it. What dimension did Einstein add to the 3 vector to get a 4 vector? The 4th vector is the ratio of what to what? The direction of curvature comes from the differences in what? Sorry, gotta go back to work. I'm out of time.