So, my personal opinion is that something seems off in both your initial assumptions as well as something seeming off around steps 3 and 4.
However, I am not a physicist. Double however, I know some physicists. If I can have your permission, may I submit your working hypothesis to Chang Kee Jung, who was part of the Super-Kamiokande coalition which won the Nobel prize in Physics back in 2015? He might know a thing or two about gravity, time, and light.
Let me know.
I'm currently making a powerpoint (which I'm going to convert into a picture book called "One Shift, Two Shift, Redshift, Blueshift") to get feedback from some of the physics/metaphysics people that I know from university connections. I found Chang Kee Jung's email with a search as well as pictures of him jumping off a bridge on the same page, so I can submit it to him as well once I've got the information as concise as I'd like it to reduce the odds on it getting skimmed, scanned, and trash-canned.
It's also worth mentioning that I was on Kitt Peak with Dr Probst when the announcement came down that the Alcubierre Drive couldn't work because, mathematically, gravity has to be common to all universes.
Which makes this even more complicated. You may have to deal with gravitational forces from objects which, strictly speaking, don't exist.
Part of the incentive for this model is to reduce reliance on phenomenal phenomena. Without the big bang, there's reduced incentive for belief in massive quantum inflation and the multiverse that would have resulted. With a cosmological arrow for an increased trend in gravity, there's reduced incentive for the negative mass, which the Alciuberre Drive depends on utilizing.
Not too dependant on this model, but related to the Alciuberre Drive: Wormhole theory tends to be around black holes, but if we find the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies, it seems simpler to imagine black holes as being the center of the gravitational force between the objects in the galaxy rather than as being its own physical object, considering there has never been a visual observation of black holes themselves just surrounding effects, near all images of black holes being illustrations or taken from computer simulations/the ones of actual black holes only showing its effect on surrounding space stuff. If gravity is increased and concentrating to a center point within galaxies, I don't think there's any room for the wormhole bijection sign flipping in the case where a black hole is just a massive gravity well formed as a result of surrounding objects' center of gravity. Observational evidence for black holes being centers of gravity and not physical objects, aside from them lacking physical characteristics, may be found in the observation that supermassive black holes are located at the center of almost every massive galaxy as well in explaining the M-σ relation without dependency on an inobservable feedback mechanism.
Will update with peer feedback as it goes, while the emails ping and pong I'll be focusing in on One Shift, Two Shift, Redshift, Blueshift for a solid.
Related, to the elongated U suggesting an increased redshift always at the side of the observing end, a blueshift should occur from the observers in an expanding/decreasing density model similar to if the escalators were decreasing in speed while running up/down them.
Recent Posts
I love it.
