Butch

I am not trying to over throw anything, I hope to expand our understanding. Actually objects at a distance do indeed appear smaller, we label this "perspective" this is something we accept without further consideration because it is a natural part of our relative universe. I am familiar with 1/d^2, so you need not go there. If you would stay with me while I present some charts.

Could that be one of those errant assumptions? We are doing well Strange, you may never accept my hypothesis, however I believe very soon you will understand it.

And if matter we're a part of this expansion? Notjust being carried along with it, but indeed experiencing the same expansion.

The box I am referring to is relative space time... We are somewhat prisoners of it. call it a different dimension if you wish... But it isn't, indeed the absolute universe is the true "real" universe, what we witness is only a fading shadow of it, the illusion of reality. It is however the reality we each have, but understanding this absolute universe will help us to understand the relative illusion and will uncover errant assumptions. I will post some charts tomorrow that I believe will help, they will also demonstrate the mathematical task at hand to transcribe the absolute to the relative. Strange, we are two minds approaching one another at tremendous velocity! Scale factor? Can you elaborate?

A note to all, if you do manage to peek outside the box and are able to grasp the concept of the absolute universe, I must warn you that it will endeavor to escape you. Here then is an exercise to help you to be able to retain the understanding. Our sense of time is an illusion produced purely by neural delay, therefore a fly would have a much different sense of time. I thought it was described as the redshift of photons being emitted from a source that is receeding (relatively) from us. In my hypothesis, cosmological redshift is produced by expanding absolute space, that includes matter. You are thinking relatively again, as I said, I do have information on the CMB as a function of the absolute universe however commenting on it at this point would be skipping far ahead of ourselves. As I have stated, in the absolute universe photons would be accelerating with the absolute expansion, hence their energy would increase, their frequency would need to decrease to decrease energies to remain constant in the relative universe. I know very well how tough it is to grasp this concept, but I think you are doing a great job now.

Ahh, you are now teetering on the edge of understanding my absolute universe! If expanding space is accelerating photons, they must be redshifted to maintain relative energies. I am saying that in the absolute this spacial expansion is infinite and accelerating... We do not experience this directly because we are constantly aware of a universe that is in the past, also we and all that is the universe is affected by this spacial expansion. I suspect that the Big Bang is an illusion produced because we are observing a point at which the past universe has receeded (relatively) to a point that approaches zero as nearly as our instruments can measure. I also suspect that the greatest portion of the Hubble redshift is actually cosmological redshift and the relative universe is pretty much steady state. I also have ideas tied to this pertaining to the CMB, black holes and multi verses... But I will save those for discussion at a later time.

That would be a problem, but I tripped on something while pursuing this... As I have stated previously, since as T approaches infinity, S would approach zero, em waves would all have wavelengths approaching zero, photons would have to redshift to maintain their relative energies... I am thinking that the spectrum of light would be compressed in line with the redshift, if so, it can be observed and measured and would provide a test for my hypothesis. I am just beginning to look at this and will update, in the meantime if anyone has information in this area please share it with me. Actually cosmological redshift is exactly what I am speaking of! If expanding space affects photons this way, how would it not affect matter?

In trying to resolve the math for my hypothesis, i realize now that I must allow some assumptions... 1) As I have stated earlier in this discussion, the universe is steady state and the Big Bang is an illusion. 2) Bodies are not receeding and redshift is a result of time. Please do not allow these assumptions to dissuade you from following this argument. I will begin by researching bodies that are close enough that their distance can be measured via parallax, but distant enough that redshift can be measured. This method should produce a "smooth" curve defined by y=1/x^2, additionally I suspect the spectrum should expand as described by y= 1/(+-n +x)^2. If anyone knows offhand off some objects that meet the criteria, I would greatly appreciate the assistance, I will begin with Alpha centauri..

Thx

Can anyone comment on this? http://www.setterfield.org/redshift.htm#discrepant

Correction, a steady relative state. I added to my previous post to try to explain the relation of absolute space/time for you, thx for the links... I am not an academic, I am a commercial fisherman. But I am putting in this effort because I think it will contribute to science, I am 62 years and smoke like a chimney... Would just like to light a candle. I am familiar with the distance ladder, and the recent observation of the collision of neutron stars, however the test for my hypothesis would have to rely upon direct measurement or maybe luminosity, because of the nature of the test (detecting redshift as a function of the age of the photon) I have found at least one example of discrepancy in the luminosity method, a body that appears to block radiation from another body which luminosity says is much closer than the blocking body... How accurately can we measure redshift? My problem is how distant will a body need to be for us to measure a red shift? An answer to this will help me to pick a second point of demarcation on my curve, the first being neural delay.

Can you give me some info on the independent ways of measuring distance and some examples of objects measured by those methods? I would greatly appreciate it, I have not been able to find much info... Yes it "absolutely" violates conservation of energy in the relative universe, that becomes a very interesting subject for discussion later. I had an aha moment while working on the math. I am going to have to create some charts, I am working on that presently. Strange, it seems you have missed the concept of the absolute universe, that is not surprising... It certainly is weird science. I hope however you can grasp the idea, regardless if it proves out, elsewise the math is going to escape you. I apologise for not responding to your inquiry to space and time, these are the components of the framework of our relative universe. They are absolute, at any "Time" other than T0 "Space" approaches 0 relative to "Space" @ T0. When we use the term time usually it is relative to space, however in the absolute they do not co-exist, Space approaches infinity at a single instant @ T0 (No time) beyond T0 Space approaches 0 (non-existence) If my hypothesis is correct it could be that the universe evolves from a cooler absolute state and a steady absolute state, but this is not up for discussion at this point. Could you elaborate on the t+10-43s? It might help define a second marker on my curve. Thank you for your input.

Hubble is based upon the red shift caused by bodies that are receding, since we are seeking to measure redshift caused by the age of a photon this would modify Hubble, hence it cannot be used to determine the distance to a body being used for the test of the hypothesis. If you truly do not understand those terms at this point, you never will, however I believe you are able to.

It isn't by current understanding, however if my hypothesis is correct it would be a function of the age of the photon, before you go there, this test will need to be accomplished without Hubble. To understand the math for this hypothesis, we need to get our head around a couple of concepts: 1) In the absolute model of the universe at T-n Space approaches zero, the velocity of photon would approach zero and its wavelength would approach zero. As T approaches 0 Space approaches infinity, the velocity of a hot on approaches infinity and its wavelength approaches infinity. 2) It is neural delay that produces the illusion of time and space co-existing and hence the "illusion" of reality. This is represented by the curve I discussed previously. The task then is to produce the math that marries the two models, absolute and relative... In the case of the photon, we need the math to map the redshift at points between T approaches zero and T approaches infinity. Do you follow me so far? I do apologise if it seems I am taking this to a 3rd grade level, I mean no disrespect. It is a very mind bending concept.

OK, I will give it a shot, the path is a hyperbolic curve, it represents acceleration, being that it is a function of space v time, it represents an accelerating expansion of space over time. We are a part of this expansion, it is not evidenced in the relative universe. The universe you witnessed 1 Ms ago has approached zero... It no longer exists. The universe you will witness 1 Ms from now is approaching infinity. The test: Take the case of the photon, the energy of a photon is defined in the relative universe as a function of its wavelength, if the absolute universe is constantly expanding into existence, the photon would be accelerating with the expansion... For the photon to maintain the same relative energy in the relative universe, it would have to be redshifted. The redshift of a photon then would be a function of its age. To test this we would need to observe an illuminated body at a known static distance and determine if there is a red shift. I have to leave you for now and will return with the math to more succinctly describe this, the math gets a little strange because we are transcribing the absolute to the relative but I think I have my mind around this enough to accomplish it. Thanks again to all of you. Probably, we would need to test that hypothesis.

How does zero relate to infinity? I can think of at least one test and I feel there must be many more, however before I can elaborate you will need a greater understanding of this concept. Please plot the path (with limits of your choosing) Space(y) = 1/Time(x)^2 Please note that all we witness is in the past, so values for Time should be negative. Describe the path and hypothesize on what it represents and we can move on to how it can be tested.

Yes, it is only the framework that the relative universe is built upon, a plan for the relative universe. Without Space/Time nothing "exists" in the absolute universe space and time do not co-exist. It is not binary, binary is a relationship. What creates the relative universe from the plan? I don't think I am being to optimistic, I am sure you have a pretty good head on your shoulders. Try this one on, without relativity, the absolute is meaningless.

You are overthinking it, as long as the tires have the same profile, it does not matter.

The only math in the absolute universe is zero and infinity, the math we are familiar with applies to the relative universe. Perhaps you begin to understand my use of the term "absolute"? Try plotting the path with limits of x= 13.7 billion years to x=150 msec. Now math works and the path becomes a hyperbolic curve. I believe it is best for you to discern the following on your own, then I can be sure we have the same understanding... If x is time and y is space, what then does this curve represent? I will get back as soon as I can, thanks for following.

7/infinity. How close to zero is 7 compared to infinity?

I am trying to introduce the concept at a pace that allows me to see responses and and answer without skipping points. Actually my hypothesis is disprovable, just not easily disprovable. It can also be tested... We will get to that. By "absolute" my meaning is simple, the realm of this universe is absolute, if a quantity in this realm does not approach infinity it approaches zero. Try plotting the path of y=1/x^2 with x having limits of infinity. You should get a right angle . This is because any quantity less than infinity approaches zero, ergo with limits of infinity... y=1/x^2 has the same meaning as "As x approaches zero y approaches infinity.".

The relative universe is the best evidence for the absolute universe, their are many relationships that must rely on an underlying framework, the relative mass of elementary particles for example. I am sure all of you can think of many more yourselves. Is it enough to say " It is what it is."? The newest sciences are seeking to reach an understanding of this framework, it must be ultimately simple... I am making some assumptions, time and space are infinite for one. Well, thank you for making an exception. I understand completely were you are coming from.

Now is subjective, we cannot witness absolute T0. Science is the art of defining the relative universe. Understanding the absolute universe might help us to define the relative universe. In fact reality can be said to be an illusion, a result of delays in our ability to experience... For example the time it takes a photon to travel from it's origin to our retina and the time it takes for that to be processed by our nervous system. All that we experience is at T-n. The delay produces from the absolute universe of @T0 S=infinity the relative universe where S= 1/T^2.

And what framework produces the rules? The past persists in our minds, when we all grasp the basic concept of this framework I can explain how the relative universe is built upon it. No, I am not referring to solipsism, the mind transcribes the relative universe from the absolute universe.

We have to give folks the opportunity to over think it.