Einstein was right!

[Butch]

We can ignore it completely for now, but how about this a photon created at t-1 would have a wavelength approaching 0 at t0 the wavelength would approach infinity.

Not exactly accurate, at t0 the wavelength would be infinite.

I have a point to plot, it is the time it takes for a photon impacting the retina to become an idea. At this point redshift should be zero. Research indicates this to be about .15secs. t-.15secs. damn, infinity is quite the task master.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Butch

[Butch]

I see a relationship which should prove useful, a photon of a given energy will have a wavelength inversely proportional to its absolute velocity.

[Strange]

Not very useful as the velocity of a photon is always c.

 

This means the wavelength is always inversely proportional energy or momentum or frequency.

[Butch]

Not very useful as the velocity of a photon is always c.

 

This means the wavelength is always inversely proportional energy or momentum or frequency.

In the relative realm, not the absolute realm. Nice to hear from you again.

[Strange]

In the relative realm, not the absolute realm.

 

 

What does that mean?

[Butch]

Everything we are witness to in our universe is relative, we are a part of the expansion I refer to in my hypothesis and cannot witness it directly. I have labeled this the relative and absolute realms.

 

In review (with math):

Gravity is a function of v^2, my hypothesis states that gravity is evidenced as the result of an absolute expansion of space. This expansion must also be a function of v^2.

 

With time as a reference... Rate of expansion = 1/t^2.

 

We cannot witness this expansion, because we are a part of it. The only evidence we have is gravity.

 

Since light has a constant relative v. It holds that photons must accelerate with the absolute expansion. v_photon = 1/t^2. Since the increase in velocity would in itself maintain the relative energy of the photon the frequency of the photon must be redshifted. The redshift would be in proportion to expansion. Therefore redshift would be in proportion to the age of the photon and hence the distance to the entity from which the photon originated.

 

Thanks to Swansont, Mordred and Strange for pushing me, keep up the good work!

 

I need to create some mileposts at this point, perhaps you can help me out...

What is the smallest redshift we can measure and what is the closest object measured via redshift?

Edited December 15, 2016 by Butch

[michel123456]

Everything we are witness to in our universe is relative, we are a part of the expansion I refer to in my hypothesis and cannot witness it directly. I have labeled this the relative and absolute realms.

 

In review (with math):

Gravity is a function of v^2, my hypothesis states that gravity is evidenced as the result of an absolute expansion of space. This expansion must also be a function of v^2.

 

With time as a reference... Rate of expansion = 1/t^2.

 

We cannot witness this expansion, because we are a part of it. The only evidence we have is gravity.

 

Since light has a constant relative v. It holds that photons must accelerate with the absolute expansion. v_photon = 1/t^2. Since the increase in velocity would in itself maintain the relative energy of the photon the frequency of the photon must be redshifted. The redshift would be in proportion to expansion. Therefore redshift would be in proportion to the age of the photon and hence the distance to the entity from which the photon originated.

 

Thanks to Swansont, Mordred and Strange for pushing me, keep up the good work!

 

I need to create some mileposts at this point, perhaps you can help me out...

What is the smallest redshift we can measure and what is the closest object measured via redshift?

Dear Butch

 

I understand where you want to go but you should read again Mordred's post # 130 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100828-einstein-was-right/?p=960586 and post #133 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100828-einstein-was-right/?p=960591

 

You have entered the same mistake again with your statement "Rate of expansion = 1/t^2."

 

IMHO it would be easier to push your idea with the concept of scale factor.

A scale factor is a number without unit.

 

Call Absolute Space [latex] Sa [/latex]

Say the scale factor of the Absolute Space is called [latex] Q [/latex].

 

You would have

[latex] Q=\frac{\dot{Sa}}{Sa} [/latex] where the over dot denotes present time.

Which is a re-interpretation of Mordred's [latex] a(t)=\frac{\dot{R}}{R} [/latex]

 

The next step is to find the acceleration you are looking for. That should not be difficult because under Euclidian Geometry, the acceleration is inherent to the scale factor:

 

If you have this:

Where each number represents a point of Sa (absolute space) and the - represents the Da (absolute distance), after some time you get, with a scale factor of 2

1-2-3-4-5

1--2--3--4--5

1----2----3----4----5

1--------2--------3--------4--------5

1----------------2----------------3----------------4----------------5

 

Do you see the acceleration?

 

Of course, since as you said, everything is relative, the number itself should also be scaled, and the result from its observation would remain unchanged.

It would be

 

The acceleration is also obvious. Coming from a simple number, in this case number 2, the scale factor.

Edited December 17, 2016 by michel123456

[Mordred]

Excellent and well thought out post Michel. In particular the acceleration inherent in Hubbles law in regards to seperation distance. +1

Edited December 17, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

Dear Butch

 

I understand where you want to go but you should read again Mordred's post # 130 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100828-einstein-was-right/?p=960586 and post #133 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100828-einstein-was-right/?p=960591

 

You have entered the same mistake again with your statement "Rate of expansion = 1/t^2."

 

IMHO it would be easier to push your idea with the concept of scale factor.

A scale factor is a number without unit.

 

Call Absolute Space [latex] Sa [/latex]

Say the scale factor of the Absolute Space is called [latex] Q [/latex].

 

You would have

 

[latex] Q=\frac{\dot{Sa}}{Sa} [/latex] where the over dot denotes present time.

Which is a re-interpretation of Mordred's [latex] a(t)=\frac{\dot{R}}{R} [/latex]

 

The next step is to find the acceleration you are looking for. That should not be difficult because under Euclidian Geometry, the acceleration is inherent to the scale factor:

 

If you have this:

Where each number represents a point of Sa (absolute space) and the - represents the Da (absolute distance), after some time you get, with a scale factor of 2

1-2-3-4-5

1--2--3--4--5

1----2----3----4----5

1--------2--------3--------4--------5

1----------------2----------------3----------------4----------------5

 

Do you see the acceleration?

 

Of course, since as you said, everything is relative, the number itself should also be scaled, and the result from its observation would remain unchanged.

It would be

12345-1.JPG

12345-2.jpg

12345-3.jpg

12345-4.jpg

 

The acceleration is also obvious. Coming from a simple number, in this case number 2, the scale factor.

I believe I am pursuing this route, however I have a problem with t0, rate of expansion at t0 is infinite... Can I resolve that? (Please keep in mind, we exist at t-n.) I believe I need 3 points to establish a path. If I am wrong please just keep beating on me, thanks again for all the help. Edited December 17, 2016 by Butch

[strangelove]

Butch maybe you could check my thread on space as shrinking, i fully agree with your theory:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/101821-how-is-time-defined-in-newtonian-physics/

 

myself i concluded independently a model where as radius of space doubles time halves but maybe yours is more accurate i dont know enough physics

 

but i took it that space shrinks in front of mass what is the same than mass inflates in front of space

Edited December 18, 2016 by strangelove

[michel123456]

I believe I am pursuing this route, however I have a problem with t0, rate of expansion at t0 is infinite... Can I resolve that? (Please keep in mind, we exist at t-n.) I believe I need 3 points to establish a path. If I am wrong please just keep beating on me, thanks again for all the help.

 

If everything is relative, then maybe there would not be an absolute t0.

Eventually there could exist a relative t0, that is to mean a time that corresponds to an apparent beginning, not necessarily an absolute beginning.

[Butch]

 

If everything is relative, then maybe there would not be an absolute t0.

Eventually there could exist a relative t0, that is to mean a time that corresponds to an apparent beginning, not necessarily an absolute beginning.

t0 is the absolute present, nothing at this point is relative... Everything is infinite. We do not witness this however, everything we witness is at t-n, that is to say all we witness is at some point in the past.

By the way you are very perceptive, there is indeed an apparent beginning, it is at t-1, the apparent beginning of the Big Bang. Also I have tentatively placed the apparent present at about t-.15seconds.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Butch

[michel123456]

t0 is the absolute present, nothing at this point is relative... Everything is infinite. We do not witness this however, everything we witness is at t-n, that is to say all we witness is at some point in the past.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood.

 

You mean t0 the present. Why is everything infinite at t0? I don't follow.

[Butch]

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood.

 

You mean t0 the present. Why is everything infinite at t0? I don't follow.

Plot the function y=1/x^2 with limits of infinity and you will understand. Btw we cross posted. Edited December 19, 2016 by Butch

[Butch]

The relative realm lies between t0 and t-1 of the absolute realm, that is the area I need to map.

[michel123456]

Plot the function y=1/x^2 with limits of infinity and you will understand. Btw we cross posted.

I still don't follow you thought.

 

The formula you are giving contains the x^2, either for acceleration, or gravity. And indeed, when distance reaches zero, gravity becomes infinite.

 

But as time & distance are concerned, when distance reaches zero, time reaches zero also (and you are in present time). I don't understand what would become infinite (except as stated above)

[Butch]

T- is the past, T0 the present and T+ the future.

The y axis is the spatial expansion rate.

The x axis is absolute time.

We can never witness now, only then.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Butch

[michel123456]

T- is the past, T0 the present and T+ the future.

The y axis is the spatial expansion rate.

The x axis is absolute time.

We can never witness now, only then.

Yes. That sounds corresponding to reality.

 

The expansion concept looks nice at the beginning. Indeed, if every mass expands from its center of mass (for example) then all masses will bump together. IOW mass will agglomerate.

It is good because it explains why mass appear to attract other mass.

The bad thing is that this attraction is a function of the geometry only (distance) and not a function of mass & distance. I mean, following this model, if a lot of mass is concentrated somewhere, or if only a single mass particle is there, the attraction is the same.

And that is the point where it does not correspond to reality. Or do I miss something?

[Butch]

Yes. That sounds corresponding to reality.

 

The expansion concept looks nice at the beginning. Indeed, if every mass expands from its center of mass (for example) then all masses will bump together. IOW mass will agglomerate.

It is good because it explains why mass appear to attract other mass.

The bad thing is that this attraction is a function of the geometry only (distance) and not a function of mass & distance. I mean, following this model, if a lot of mass is concentrated somewhere, or if only a single mass particle is there, the attraction is the same.

And that is the point where it does not correspond to reality. Or do I miss something?

You are very astute my friend! You haven't missed a thing. There is indeed an explanation, for now however I will just mention that according to my hypothesis, the universe would have a tremendous influx of energy, I will leave you with that for now (I figure that is all you will need, you have a great mind!). I am trying to do this in small steps.

[michel123456]

You are very astute my friend! You haven't missed a thing. There is indeed an explanation, for now however I will just mention that according to my hypothesis, the universe would have a tremendous influx of energy, I will leave you with that for now (I figure that is all you will need, you have a great mind!). I am trying to do this in small steps.

You are full of compliments, thank you.

Wish you a Merry Christmas!

And I like to see a spiral-universe in your hat, in your avatar.

[Butch]

I am somewhat surprised that you have not mentioned orbits and Delta v without contact,no matter, there is a singular answer to all... But first let us review and elaborate.

 

Rate of expansion at t0 is infinite, but with no passage of time, after all the universe does not exist at t- or t+... Only at t0.

 

Time and space do not co-exist!

 

The universe dispatches messengers at t0 in the form of photons and such, that we may witness existence.

 

When I place my hand upon an object, it will not pass through said object because of electrostatic fields, the strength of such fields increases with mass density.

 

Please present arguments and/or requests for clarification.

[swansont]

When I place my hand upon an object, it will not pass through said object because of electrostatic fields, the strength of such fields increases with mass density.

 

Please present arguments and/or requests for clarification.

Mass density? No, I think not. Aluminum is a solid and mercury (much higher density) is a liquid. You can pass things through a liquid more easily than a solid.

[Butch]

Mass density? No, I think not. Aluminum is a solid and mercury (much higher density) is a liquid. You can pass things through a liquid more easily than a solid.

You do not pass through them, but rather they pass around you. Glad to see you participating in the discussion! Thanks.

[swansont]

You do not pass through them, but rather they pass around you. Glad to see you participating in the discussion! Thanks.

A difference without a distinction, it depends on your frame of reference. You need to get the physics correct. If anything is based on your incorrect notion, it's invalid.

[Butch]

A difference without a distinction, it depends on your frame of reference. You need to get the physics correct. If anything is based on your incorrect notion, it's invalid.

It is good then that you requested clarification. To be more descriptive, particles never actually make contact because of electrostatic fields. Perhaps you can clarify this point better than I?