### Author Topic: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption  (Read 323 times)

• Known
• Posts: 248
##### Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« on: November 10, 2018, 03:03:38 pm »
I've been thinking about time and space.

A bit of background: The decision that the universe must be expanding started a couple of decades after Einstein's relativity with the observation of a shift in the light spectrum of distant galaxies to be redder. The redshift was attributed to the Doppler Effect, which is where an observer observing the wavelength emissions of an object moving away from the observer sees the object's wavelength's crests as occurring at further apart due to the object moving away from the point where the pulse was emitted in the direction that creates more distance between the object and the observer. If the objects were moving closer together, the Doppler Effect would cause the crests to appear more frequently. So, the redshift was attributed to the Doppler Effect, and the universe was determined to be expanding. As it was discovered that further objects, which were distanced by brightness, shift to be redder faster, it was decided objects in space are not only becoming further apart but are accelerating. To explain the outward momentum of the universe a force setting its expansion into motion, like the big bang, became standard, and to explain the acceleration of the universe, dark energy became standard.

I'm really not partial to that explanation at all, so I thought about what could cause a redshift measurable in every direction other than Doppler effects caused by universal expansion.

Well, here's the main thought process!

1. To estimate the gravitational force within a set, sum up the mass and divide by the distance. Should the mass be spread across a greater distance, the net gravity of that mass would be lesser. If the mass were to be condensing, the strength of its gravitational impact would be increasing.

2. Gravitational time dilation is the effect by which objects pass through time at faster rates when under the effects of less gravity; as well as the inverse, objects pass through time at slower rates when under the effect of more gravity.

3. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, so the net sum of the universe's gravity depends upon the distance between its points. Should the universe be expanding, total gravity ought to be decreasing. If the universe were to be condensing, total gravity should be increasing.

4. If the universe were expanding, total gravity would be decreasing, and the rate at which time passes throughout space would therefore increase. If we were to observe a wavelength undergo a decrease in gravity, its rate ought to increase in correspondence to the increased rate of the wavelength's passage through time.

5. If the universe were condensing, total gravity would be increasing, and the rate at which time passes throughout space would thereby decrease. Wavelengths undergoing an increase in gravity ought to decrease in frequency in correspondence to the decreased rate of the wavelength's passage through time.

If light throughout the universe is becoming redder, the cause for the redshift may be an increase in sum gravity as a result of the universe condensing. Without the expansion of the universe, an event to cause the direction of the universe is unnecessary as so long as there's both mass and distance and no explosive origin, there's an ever-increasing force of gravity bringing it all together.

Well, I'm still thinking about the lot of it as well as perhaps writing a brief book, to organize arguments and evidence for the model as well as explore its implications, but the current stage seemed substantive enough for an initial share
Natural law demands spaghetti to be eaten raw.

#### chaotic neutral observer

• Outlandish
• Posts: 2700
• not a real discordian
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2018, 06:00:53 pm »
I am not trained in physics, so forgive me if my questions are less than apt.  However, your description does not appear to me to be particularly rigorous.

1. To estimate the gravitational force within a set, sum up the mass and divide by the distance. Should the mass be spread across a greater distance, the net gravity of that mass would be lesser. If the mass were to be condensing, the strength of its gravitational impact would be increasing.

A set of what? Masses in a given volume?  Gravity is a force of attraction between two (or more) objects.  The net force of gravity on an object is the vector sum of the gravitational forces exerted on it by all other masses.  So, it's not clear to me what you mean by "gravitational force within a set".  And what is this distance you're dividing by?  How did you derive this particular relation?

Further, the gravitational force exerted by a mass does not depend on its size (how it's "spread out") so I don't see how this "condensing" makes any difference.  Of course, modelling an object as a point-mass is necessarily an approximation, but if something is ten light years away, it's gravitational force on the earth will not change to any significant extent if it is 10 metres across, 20 metres across, or in fact a number of smaller objects separated by a few kilometers.

Two objects need to be quite close to each other (cosmically speaking) before the point-mass approximation of their gravitational attraction becomes inaccurate, and you need to break out the finite element analysis (or however physicists solve this class of problem).

Quote
3. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, so the net sum of the universe's gravity depends upon the distance between its points. Should the universe be expanding, total gravity ought to be decreasing. If the universe were to be condensing, total gravity should be increasing.

What does it mean to sum up the gravity in the universe?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but my intuition is that the sum of the gravitational forces in the universe is zero, regardless of expansion or contraction.  E.g., the sun exerts a pull on the earth, the earth exerts an identical pull on the sun in the opposite direction, and those two forces cancel out exactly.
It took less than a week for this thread to go from “U.S. resistance politics” to “international spray cheese.”  --Brother Mythos

#### nullified

• Known & Noted
• Posts: 1139
• SPAG
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2018, 12:12:56 am »
What does it mean to sum up the gravity in the universe?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but my intuition is that the sum of the gravitational forces in the universe is zero, regardless of expansion or contraction.  E.g., the sun exerts a pull on the earth, the earth exerts an identical pull on the sun in the opposite direction, and those two forces cancel out exactly.

This is incorrect, because gravity doesn’t work that way.

If what you said were true, binary star systems involving two differently sized stars would have a lower mass than either of the stars on their own. This is provably not correct. Gravity works in some mysterious way we don’t actually understand, but the idea of a “field” not unlike an electromagnetic field is close enough that it works.

There is no binary to gravity. There is more or there is less, but there is no negative that we can find, it is always positive. Gravity does not cancel out, anymore than four added to four cancels to zero.

One can imagine the universe’s gravity as being the sum of all massive objects in the universe. From a reasonable distance “outside” of the universe, whatever that means, we could treat it as a single point mass as heavy as everything inside of it. This part of the hypothesis isn’t unsound, it’s actually already used to analyze potential dark energy and similar hypothetical but unobservable things.

Now then.

My problem with this concept is harder to formulate without a lot of research, but I do believe observations contradict it. I’ve done some low effort google searching with crappy parameters, but nothing has come up so far.

On a whim, I also want to say it implies a “Hubble bubble” (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_bubble_(astronomy) ) even if it’s not using the same explanations for the issue as the ones that the term arose from. In particular, why would more distant light be more redshifted than comparatively local (e.g. say, Local Group) light if there weren’t a Hubble bubble? Gravity would by definition need to be higher further away than closer by.

One could posit the comparative homogeneity of gravity in the universe continuously slows the light down further and further but this has problems as well, such as that we are still capable of motion on Earth, under the influence of much higher gravity than light in interstellar space. In a universe like this, stars should be alive forever, and any sufficiently massive rock should be eternally frozen in time. This being clearly false, one can assume that gravity does not continuously decelerate objects within its grasp, and has (at least) a constant value of dilation for a given level of gravity.

So I’m inclined to say at a glance that it either necessitates a Hubble bubble, or it cannot be true. This is not a very rigorous rebuttal (because it isn’t a very rigorous hypothesis) so it’s possible I’ve completely missed the mark. However, I would take a good long look at it, and maybe try to math out if it does need a Hubble bubble (and if so, how dramatic of one and where) to function. The data suggests pretty strongly that we do not live in a local mass underdensity, which would kill the hypothesis if it requires one.

• Known
• Posts: 248
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2018, 12:28:41 am »

A set of what? Masses in a given volume?  Gravity is a force of attraction between two (or more) objects.  The net force of gravity on an object is the vector sum of the gravitational forces exerted on it by all other masses.  So, it's not clear to me what you mean by "gravitational force within a set".  And what is this distance you're dividing by?  How did you derive this particular relation?

Set of any masses, in this case all masses. Gravitational force for two objects = (the gravitational constant * mass of object 1 * mass of object 2)/the distance between object 1&object 2². Right on about the net gravity being the sum of gravitational forces, and gravitational force is denominated by the distance between the objects squared. The relationship this is derived from is called Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. While finding a precise result for the net gravitational force across all objects in the universe is a job best suited to the demon of Laplace, if the goal is just to know how net gravitational force is effected by an expansion or condensation of distance only the denominator needs to be looked at. If the denominator is increasing and the numerator is the same, the quotient (net gravitational force) is decreasing.

What does it mean to sum up the gravity in the universe?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but my intuition is that the sum of the gravitational forces in the universe is zero, regardless of expansion or contraction.

I've never heard of the sum of gravitational forces needing to be zero, it sounds fairly impossible.

Maybe you're thinking of the Zero-Energy Universe theory, which is a proposed solution to how a something-universe could occur without the massive amount of energy cost something like the explosion of a singularity or abrupt existence of space-time would appear to require, the solution being what appears to be somethings sum up to nothing, so we don't get something from nothing we get a set of somethings which sum up to nothing from nothing, proposed by a 'quantum fluctuation' causing a rapid inflation of opposing particle pairs so that all particles have their equal and opposite particle which balances their existence against the force that created them, which is nothing, so that from nothing you can get two something's which sum up to a nothing. The Zero-Energy Universe isn't in the standard cosmological model.

The other need you might feel for a zero-sum gravity game might be from Newton's Third Law, the 'equal and opposite' one? Newton's Third Law goes 'Every action's got an equal and opposite reaction.' As a fundamental force gravitational pulls are more something that just happens than something that's an action. So long as there's mass and space, there's a positive gravitational force, and while you may imagine an object in the position where for each gravitational force acting upon it there's an equal force acting upon it from the opposing direction, something like the point at the center of a sphere, the surface points of the sphere are also interacting with any masses that might be outside of the sphere, and as an object's mass in the formulation of gravitational force is determined by its center of mass, which is synonymous to center of gravity, though the sum of equal and opposite gravitational forces may cause a stationary center of the sphere, the amount of gravity that point exerts is still a positive sum as though gravity may be pulling different directions, the sum is still positive as the sign isn't determined by the position in space. The local mitigation of acceleration due to gravity contributes to the increase in net gravity as opposed to neutralizing the sum of gravitational forces as the center of mass is increased.

E.g., the sun exerts a pull on the earth, the earth exerts an identical pull on the sun in the opposite direction, and those two forces cancel out exactly.

Because the sun has significantly more mass than the earth, the center of mass between the earth and the sun is closer to the sun, resulting in the earth being pulled more towards the sun than the sun is pulled towards the earth. A spaghetti example might help. If the earth is the tramp and the sun is the lady, and they are both monching on the spaghetti, the sun pulling the earth and the earth pulling the sun results in the spaghetti between them decreasing as they are pulled together, not canceling each other out. We aren't heading for a head-on collision because as the gravitational force also causes the centripetal force, which is more an effect of gravity than a force in its own right, but I'm physics'ed out for today.

Natural law demands spaghetti to be eaten raw.

#### chaotic neutral observer

• Outlandish
• Posts: 2700
• not a real discordian
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2018, 01:42:33 am »
What does it mean to sum up the gravity in the universe?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but my intuition is that the sum of the gravitational forces in the universe is zero, regardless of expansion or contraction.  E.g., the sun exerts a pull on the earth, the earth exerts an identical pull on the sun in the opposite direction, and those two forces cancel out exactly.

This is incorrect, because gravity doesn’t work that way.

If what you said were true, binary star systems involving two differently sized stars would have a lower mass than either of the stars on their own. This is provably not correct. Gravity works in some mysterious way we don’t actually understand, but the idea of a “field” not unlike an electromagnetic field is close enough that it works.

There is no binary to gravity. There is more or there is less, but there is no negative that we can find, it is always positive. Gravity does not cancel out, anymore than four added to four cancels to zero.

You didn't understand what I wrote.  I don't know how to add gravity, nor do I even know what that would mean, but I do know how to add up gravitational forces.  I can accept (but will not claim) that there is no such thing as gravity with negative amplitude, but gravity certainly has a direction, and in a case where there are two masses acting on each other, there are two gravitational forces acting in opposite directions, and the sum of those vectors would be zero.
It took less than a week for this thread to go from “U.S. resistance politics” to “international spray cheese.”  --Brother Mythos

#### chaotic neutral observer

• Outlandish
• Posts: 2700
• not a real discordian
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2018, 01:47:43 am »
E.g., the sun exerts a pull on the earth, the earth exerts an identical pull on the sun in the opposite direction, and those two forces cancel out exactly.

Because the sun has significantly more mass than the earth, the center of mass between the earth and the sun is closer to the sun, resulting in the earth being pulled more towards the sun than the sun is pulled towards the earth. A spaghetti example might help. If the earth is the tramp and the sun is the lady, and they are both monching on the spaghetti, the sun pulling the earth and the earth pulling the sun results in the spaghetti between them decreasing as they are pulled together, not canceling each other out. We aren't heading for a head-on collision because as the gravitational force also causes the centripetal force, which is more an effect of gravity than a force in its own right, but I'm physics'ed out for today.

No.  The gravitational forces between the sun and earth are equal, and in opposite directions.  The location of the center of mass has nothing to do with it.  Hell, the forces between me and the earth are equal, and in opposite directions.  The earth is pulling me down with about 162 lbs* of force, and I'm pulling the earth up with 162 lbs of force.

Look at the vector form of the law of gravitation.  The natural (and intuitive) consequence is that F21 = -F12.  What was the sum of a vector, and its inverse, again?

Bluntly, I don't think you even physics.  I see no reason to spend for me to spend further time on this.

*Yes, I know, I'm on a diet, shut up.
It took less than a week for this thread to go from “U.S. resistance politics” to “international spray cheese.”  --Brother Mythos

#### Frontside Back

• Yet another cellural dystopia
• Known & Noted
• Posts: 1360
• Funny posts: 0
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2018, 01:48:46 am »
You base this all on physical laws derived by humans from the data we got by observing the TV-screens aliens put up in the sky. They are designed to almost but not quite to make sense so our top scientists waste infinite amount of time rather than come up with anything useful.

P.S. Wouldn't a lightwave traveling in decreasing gravity be analogous to one climbing up from a gravity well?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 01:50:43 am by Frontside Back »
sqos dnd ou os 'snq ooz uo punos ou

• Known
• Posts: 248
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2018, 02:42:24 am »

On a whim, I also want to say it implies a “Hubble bubble” (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_bubble_(astronomy) ) even if it’s not using the same explanations for the issue as the ones that the term arose from. In particular, why would more distant light be more redshifted than comparatively local (e.g. say, Local Group) light if there weren’t a Hubble bubble? Gravity would by definition need to be higher further away than closer by.

The distant light being more redshifted than the comparative local light could occur without a Hubble Bubble due to the Doppler Effect. While an increase in universal gravity could universally increase a red-shift, the momentum of light sources would still impact the frequency at which we receive the light wavelengths as they do to a degree in the standard model.

The strength of gravity increases as objects condense, so objects further apart are not affected by as much gravitational acceleration as those closer together. In the phase of this gif where the source is moving towards the head, the speed at which the object approaches increases the frequency of its wavelength. While the redshift as a result of increased gravitational time dilation would be stronger than the decrease due to that of gravitational acceleration, objects further apart would experience less gravitational acceleration. The source would approach us slower than sources closer to us approach us, and due to the Doppler Effect, the object approaching us slower would have a greater redshift due to its having less acceleration in our direction.

While
One could posit the comparative homogeneity of gravity in the universe continuously slows the light down further and further but this has problems as well, such as that we are still capable of motion on Earth, under the influence of much higher gravity than light in interstellar space. In a universe like this, stars should be alive forever, and any sufficiently massive rock should be eternally frozen in time. This being clearly false, one can assume that gravity does not continuously decelerate objects within its grasp, and has (at least) a constant value of dilation for a given level of gravity.

The observable redshift doesn't occur until an estimated 1 billion light years apart https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html (I'll start outsourcing some explanations because there's a lot at play here). The theory doesn't place gravity as being homogeneous as the force of gravity is concentrated to the center of mass between objects, which doesn't have to occur within a centralized point. Objects appearing slower as they approach us due to increases in gravity doesn't entail that we are any closer to the center of gravity than any other galaxy for a similar reason those positing a universal expansion in the standard model don't place Earth at its center.

The solution to all objects moving away from the observer under the standard model is explained as raisin bread. As the bread expands, all of the raisins expand further apart from all of the other raisins. This is a very idealistic raisin bread, but its a pretty good metaphor because it isn't the raisins moving towards or away from each other that primarily causes their apparent expansion, its the increase in space between them.

If space is condensing due to increased gravity, the condensing proceeds from the center of mass between objects, not the objects themselves. The observed redshift occurs only when observing objects significantly out of our solar system, so the centers of masses between far away space objects we see undergoing the redshift wouldn't cause crushing, time-stopping gravity here on earth. Gravity doesn't stop increasing, and as the rate at which objects pass through time occurs in conjunction with the gravitational force that object is undergoing, that the universe is increasing in gravity is evidence for objects to not to be stopped in time.

No matter how big a rock gets unless its the only rock in the universe, it will still have gravitational interactions. For example, black holes are thought to have extreme gravity. But black holes are still on the prowl, and it is still possible for objects to be pulled into black holes because they only account for a portion of the total gravitational force. If the universe were to be finite and reached a point of singularity, which would take literally forever as proportional to the increase in gravity as it condenses is the increase in time dilation, it would be safe to say that time has stopped for that singularity. However, the space between the raisins can always be reduced more as space isn't a physical commodity. As for stars being eternal, I'm really not sure what could suggest that.

For gravity, not decelerating objects, my thought is that gravity accelerates objects through spatial distance but elongates time-distance causing the perceived change in their position to occur slower. For a constant level of time dilation, the minimum level of time dilation would be the point in space with the least gravitational force being applied to it. From thereon, time dilation increases directly with the increase in gravitational force being applied.

The observations relating to the redshift don't appear to require a Hubble Effect as they can be explained by the variable rate of approaching objects depending upon their distance due to gravitational acceleration, and I don't see the condensing of the universe running into those observational problems, but the Hubble Bubble is definitely something I'm now thinking about because I'm not a particularly big fan of raisin bread and it may be another way to explain the same thing.

You base this all on physical laws derived by humans from the data we got by observing the TV-screens aliens put up in the sky. They are designed to almost but not quite to make sense so our top scientists waste infinite amount of time rather than come up with anything useful.

P.S. Wouldn't a lightwave traveling in decreasing gravity be analogous to one climbing up from a gravity well?

Agreed, from my perspective we've spent a solid century on explaining the expansion of the universe with only the dimness and hue of light to go on as evidence for it after a point.

Gravity wells are interesting and feed into the idea of a Hubble Bubble caused by gravity wells. Here's what I think about them at this point:

If the center of mass between the distant galaxy and us is the highest point in gravity, the light traveling from the distant galaxy towards us may go over something of a gravity hill. While approaching the half-way point, it encounters increasing gravitational time-dilation, over the hill the light is further from that particular concentration of gravity and may pick up some more speed. I think this is a similar effect to the Hubble Bubble, but it doesn't require a high-density shell. I'm definitely going to think about how gravitational hills between distant galaxies and our own might impact the redshift if it does at all. Because the hill occurs at the center point of mass, there should be an equal amount of uphill slope as there is a downhill slope. So should an effect like the Hubble Bubble be occurring through gravitational concentrations, its impact on the redshift should be mitigated as far as changes in time-dilation resistance. Increasing gravity would still result in increasing heights of the slopes, meaning there is more distance for the light to travel between objects as gravity increases.
Natural law demands spaghetti to be eaten raw.

#### Frontside Back

• Yet another cellural dystopia
• Known & Noted
• Posts: 1360
• Funny posts: 0
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2018, 05:07:12 pm »
2. Gravitational time dilation is the effect by which objects pass through time at faster rates when under the effects of less gravity; as well as the inverse, objects pass through time at slower rates when under the effect of more gravity.

I don't know if I'm just interpreting this wrong, but haven't you got this one backwards? I saw the movie with black holes and shit, and when the astronauts go to the planet near the gravity well, they experience like couple hours of time, while for the dudes waiting on the spaceship it feels like years. So from the point of view of an outside observer time goes by faster under more gravity and slower under less gravity. Maybe there's just a perspective shift, but I'd like to have a clarification.

Also, about those hills. If a wave is traveling on a hill that is stretching/contracting, wouldn't the wave stretch/contract with the hill?
sqos dnd ou os 'snq ooz uo punos ou

#### chaotic neutral observer

• Outlandish
• Posts: 2700
• not a real discordian
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2018, 05:34:08 pm »
So much for not wasting my time, this brain doesn't have an off switch.

Gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by mass.  The gravitational force between two objects decreases as the objects move further apart; however, the spatial curvature caused by each mass is independent of that separation.  So, if the amount of mass in the universe is constant, then so is the "amount" of gravity, regardless of how that mass is distributed.

You can add up the amplitude of the gravitational forces in the universe, and find that as the universe expands, that sum becomes smaller, but I don't see how that value has any meaning.  It's like adding the voltages in a computer power supply.  One rail is at 12V, and another is at 5V, but adding those numbers together to make 17V doesn't make any sense.

My claims, then, are:

1. The vector sum of all gravitational forces in the universe is zero.
2. If the mass of the universe is constant, then the total amount of gravity (space-time curvature) in the universe is constant.
3. Adding up a bunch of scalar gravitational forces is meaningless.
4. Disclaimer:  Claim #2 assumes that space-time curvature adds linearly, and I don't have any justification for that (hence my earlier comment that I don't know how to add gravity).
5. Apples mean trouble.
It took less than a week for this thread to go from “U.S. resistance politics” to “international spray cheese.”  --Brother Mythos

#### Doktor Howl

• Вся ваша база принадлежит нам
• One-Armed Jizz Moppers
• Deserved It
• Posts: 409495
• Horrible Bastard
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2018, 01:04:29 am »
This was certainly a lot of words.
"Wenn Sie in meinem Ort parken will ich euch in den Kopf stechen."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

"You have the right to kiss my ass. In fact, you have the right to kiss my shiny metal replacement ass, which I acquired by losing the
previous one when I turned right instead of left at a fragile moment."
- The late, unlamented Good Reverend Roger

"Shitting in your tub might feel satisfying at first, but when the bathwater gets cold you're always sorry. "
- Me

#### Con-troll

• My guess is that a SPAG is a person
• Known
• Posts: 467
• who isn't aware what SPAG means.
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2018, 02:46:04 am »
Suspiciously many words. He might turn out to be a random word generator.
I'm so repulsive I bursted out of my mom 420mph

• Known
• Posts: 248
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2018, 04:02:01 am »
2. Gravitational time dilation is the effect by which objects pass through time at faster rates when under the effects of less gravity; as well as the inverse, objects pass through time at slower rates when under the effect of more gravity.

I don't know if I'm just interpreting this wrong, but haven't you got this one backwards? I saw the movie with black holes and shit, and when the astronauts go to the planet near the gravity well, they experience like couple hours of time, while for the dudes waiting on the spaceship it feels like years. So from the point of view of an outside observer time goes by faster under more gravity and slower under less gravity. Maybe there's just a perspective shift, but I'd like to have a clarification.

Also, about those hills. If a wave is traveling on a hill that is stretching/contracting, wouldn't the wave stretch/contract with the hill?

I've got it forward, sounds like you do too, so in the movie the guy goes to a higher gravity place, closer to the gravity well, and he passes through time slower than it does for the people on the spaceship, so he passes through time a few hours while the dudes on the spaceship pass through time a few years. If you think of their experience of time like a line, and their trajectories through space-time as a U at an angle so you only see the line, and give the parabolas the same amount of length, the more you stretch pull the U from the center down the less of it you see on the line showing the amount of time the astronaut has experienced.

The wave should stretch/contract with the hill, significantly more than the hill stretches I think, which should account for at least some of the redshifting as the stretching would occur as it travels. The model so far would look like a U where at each end of the U is a galaxy. Galaxy from the end on the left sends a point of light to the end on the right at the same time the left point is moving towards the right point, pinching the middle point further. The heightening of the hill would occur throughout the whole U as it stretches.

The idea might be similar to running up a down escalator and then running down an up escalator, except in this case the acceleration/deceleration is the opposite. I just can't think of an example where something has to go slower to go further. Waves traveling across the hill without the hill stretching would have an effect similar to walking up stairs, since it decelerates moving up and accelerates moving down when you fold the U both of the ends are still at the same point.

If the escalator to be run up starts to go in the down direction, and the escalator to be run down starts to go up at the same constant speed as the down escalator, the U should still fold so that both ends have the same Y-coordinate.

Now, if the escalators are going in opposite directions like the two sides of the gravity hill, but are increasing their speeds at a constant rate, going up the first escalator requires less speed than going down the second escalator. The U for these escalators will fold with the side being traveled to always being higher on the Y-axis than the side being traveled from. This isn't a perfect example because in the case of lightwaves what should be happening is more akin to a fast escalator slowing down and the wave having to maintain a constant speed relative to that escalator so the wave slows down as well, but the effect of asymmetric experience of the distance across the U is equivalent and having to run up down escalators is more relatable.

So while the U may stretch proportionally from one end to the other end from an 'objective' experience, when the wave stretches while traveling the course of the U, the wave has an asymmetric amount of distance to travel as well as an asymmetric experience of time dilation.
Natural law demands spaghetti to be eaten raw.

#### LMNO

• Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
• Deserved It
• Posts: 87681
• Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2018, 01:07:04 pm »
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.

#### chaotic neutral observer

• Outlandish
• Posts: 2700
• not a real discordian
##### Re: Expanding Universe? Redshift Redemption
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2018, 01:23:04 pm »
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.

I can see a number of places this might be headed, and I like all of them.
It took less than a week for this thread to go from “U.S. resistance politics” to “international spray cheese.”  --Brother Mythos