Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic illusion?

[captcass]

Thanks, Guys.

[Mordred]

your welcome. Lol I just noticed I missed the exponent on the line element in post 181. I applied the correction. Will make more sense now. 👌

 

Corrected form...

 

[latex]ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dl^2[/latex]

Edited September 25, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

 

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.

[Mordred]

While calculus is handy. Another practical study is differential geometry. This will greatly assist in understanding of GR.

 

Photon frame isn't considered a valid inertial frame in GR.

[imatfaal]

While calculus is handy. Another practical study is differential geometry. This will greatly assist in understanding of GR.

 

Photon frame isn't considered a valid inertial frame in GR.

 

And Linear algebra

 

on the Photon frame (which doesn't even work in SR) - is there any work / coordinate system that tries to shoehorn this into GR. Or is a photon frame completely incommensurate with GR - ie do we need an entire new system if we want to consider this?

[Mordred]

I know of no treatment that allows "From the perspective of the photon" or more specifically "rest frame of photon. Even under GR. However we can still handle the wordline apects of the photon path. Specifically light like intervals.

 

This would fall under null geodesic relations.

 

One of the easiest ways to describe this... If we include the rest frame of the photon we are stating v equals zero. However v=c for a photon it is invariant. We can't have two simultaneous speeds for the photon. So this frame is invalid as a rest frame.

 

More importantly it provides a convenient boundary between spacelike and time like intervals. Which will correspond to causally connected and causally disconnected paths.

 

edit another problem with the photon (invalid frame) is that you lose coordinates. 4d coordinates reduce ie coordinate time being zero. So no I don't know of any treatment under coordinate change which can solve this to validate the photon frame as valid for an observation frame.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Mordred

[imatfaal]

I know of no treatment that allows "From the perspective of the photon" or more specifically "rest frame of photon. Even under GR. However we can still handle the wordline apects of the photon path. Specifically light like intervals.

 

This would fall under null geodesic relations.

 

One of the easiest ways to describe this... If we include the rest frame of the photon we are stating v equals zero. However v=c for a photon it is invariant. We can't have two simultaneous speeds for the photon. So this frame is invalid as a rest frame.

 

More importantly it provides a convenient boundary between spacelike and time like intervals. Which will correspond to causally connected and causally disconnected paths.

 

edit another problem with the photon (invalid frame) is that you lose coordinates. 4d coordinates reduce ie coordinate time being zero. So no I don't know of any treatment under coordinate change which can solve this to validate the photon frame as valid for an observation frame.

 

Good - I am quite glad of that. I know these theorists do some pretty hoopy things and I was wondering if...

[captcass]

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

[Endy0816]

They are talking about the galaxy count in the Observable Universe.

[captcass]

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.

[Strange]

Opinions, please. Just recently it was discovered that "the universe is 10 times bigger" than we previously thought, containing trillions of galaxies.

 

 

Nowhere in that article does it say the universe is 10 times bigger. It just says that, in the early universe, there were many more (smaller) galaxies that there are now. This provides valuable information for theories of galaxy evolution.

 

 

 

Are there still, currently, trillions and not hundreds of billions of galaxies. I am having trouble finding this clarification.

 

No.

 

"It appears that when the universe was only a few billion years old there were ten times as many galaxies in a given volume of space as there are within a similar volume today. Most of these galaxies were low mass systems with masses similar to those of the satellite galaxies surrounding the Milky Way.

Prof Conselice said: “This is very surprising as we know that, over the 13.7 billion years of cosmic evolution since the Big Bang, galaxies have been growing through star formation and mergers with other galaxies. Finding more galaxies in the past implies that significant evolution must have occurred to reduce their number through extensive merging of systems.”"

http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2910-a-universe-of-two-trillion-galaxies

 

(BTW, you might get better responses if this had been a new thread rather than tacked on to one that many people won't read.)

[captcass]

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

[captcass]

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.

[michel123456]

On 8/14/2017 at 0:28 AM, captcass said:

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.

If you are correct, doesn't that mean that what we call the Big Bang is in fact a relativistic illusion? A phenomenon  that appears for any observer in the Universe, no matter where he is, no matter when?

[captcass]

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.

     

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by captcass

[captcass]

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

[Strange]

6 hours ago, captcass said:

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

That is a good description of people with no education trying to come up with their own "theories".

But it is so much easier than actually learning the necessary maths and physics.... (The idea that you could have learned enough mathematics to understand GR is 6 months is hilarious.)

[captcass]

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.

 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, captcass said:

You know nothing of my education.

I apologise. My first sentence was intended as mildly humorous comment on some (most?) who come here with their personal theories. I should have left it there and not made it personal. 

[captcass]

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.....

[Strange]

On a more constructive note, it sounds like you are swapping expanding space for a changing "rate of time". My (limited) understanding is that this is a well known coordinate transformation but it is not often used because (for most people) it is a less intuitive model and it can make things more complex (e.g. the speed of light is not constant).

[captcass]

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.

[michel123456]

On 9/18/2017 at 11:42 AM, captcass said:

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.

     

 

 

 

The part Bolded by me. You could use your math skills to explain why the spiral galaxy is spiral. Maybe using the equations together with some principle, like the principle of minimum energy, or the principle of least action. That would be nice.

[Strange]

20 hours ago, captcass said:

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.

I don't mean that the theory of relativity is intuitive; it is not. But some models describing it seem more natural than others. Although it seems that tastes can vary.

Dark matter is required by purely Newtonian models of gravity and so has nothing to do with GR. We can't ignore the evidence and need to find an explanation. The easiest solution seems to be some form of matter (an idea that works with Newtonian and GR) which is reinforced by observations of dark matter through gravitational lensing. But it could still require a change to our model of gravity.

Dark energy is purely a placeholder. It happens that it can be modelled as energy (hence the name) but it could be an indication that we need a new model of gravity.

Quote

We perceive a constant speed of light, but adjust the length of a meter and the duration of a second to keep it constant.

So, as I say, you can change the coordinate system so you have variable speed of light and keep other things constant. But if that is all you do, you still need to explain the effects that are labelled "dark energy". They don't just go away with a new coordinate system.

On 18/09/2017 at 10:42 AM, captcass said:

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.

You need to show, mathematically, that this gives us the observed rotation curves.

[captcass]

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.”.