Gutentag Hayek.
This is very elegant.
I sometimes wonder where stability comes from and here I think you
have a good model.
Do you also experiment with atomic models?
I would greatly like your feedback on three-signed arithmetic.
If you search within the google groups you will find it.
The Y space that I propose has an interesting property.
I think it coincides with your thinking here.
In that number system a principle of accumulation allows the numbers
to grow larger and larger yet statistically will yield a small value.
This happens via cancellation.
Furthermore a Y X Y space has enough information to yield traditional
space-time.

Hayek wrote in message ...
I recapitulate in short my Big Bang, or better big
shrink model.

The universe comes into being, and the objects in it
start shrinking, caused by gravitational volume
contraction, at first by the masses most local to
themselves. Some prefer to call it inflation, but I
think shrinking is more physically correct.

This shrinking continues, the more gravitation of
the further away masses reaches the local masses and
vice versa.

As it is supposed that 2/3 of the universe has not
made light (photons) contact with the other third,
then this is also the case for gravitational contact.

This means that gravitation (inertia) is still
increasing and that we keep shrinking, and that our
clocks continue to retard more and more.

But where does the red shift come from ? Well, if
you launch an object (mass) from an area who earlier
had lower inertia, and increase its inertia, without
the object falling into the gravitational well, then
the object has to go slower, since it is now in
higher inertia, and its kinetic energy has to remain
the same. This translates for a photon into a red
shift.

In this model of the universe the whole idea of a
recontraction is utterly senseless (thanks YBM).
There is no way the universe can ungravitate the
parts where it now gravitates, in order to return to
the initial condition.

Hayek.

"Timothy Golden" wrote in message
om...
Gutentag Hayek.
This is very elegant.
I sometimes wonder where stability comes from and here I think you
have a good model.
Do you also experiment with atomic models?
I would greatly like your feedback on three-signed arithmetic.
If you search within the google groups you will find it.
The Y space that I propose has an interesting property.
I think it coincides with your thinking here.
In that number system a principle of accumulation allows the numbers
to grow larger and larger yet statistically will yield a small value.
This happens via cancellation.
Furthermore a Y X Y space has enough information to yield traditional
space-time.

Hayek wrote in message
...
I recapitulate in short my Big Bang, or better big
shrink model.

The universe comes into being, and the objects in it
start shrinking, caused by gravitational volume
contraction, at first by the masses most local to
themselves. Some prefer to call it inflation, but I
think shrinking is more physically correct.

This shrinking continues, the more gravitation of
the further away masses reaches the local masses and
vice versa.

As it is supposed that 2/3 of the universe has not
made light (photons) contact with the other third,
then this is also the case for gravitational contact.

This means that gravitation (inertia) is still
increasing and that we keep shrinking, and that our
clocks continue to retard more and more.

But where does the red shift come from ? Well, if
you launch an object (mass) from an area who earlier
had lower inertia, and increase its inertia, without
the object falling into the gravitational well, then
the object has to go slower, since it is now in
higher inertia, and its kinetic energy has to remain
the same. This translates for a photon into a red
shift.

In this model of the universe the whole idea of a
recontraction is utterly senseless (thanks YBM).
There is no way the universe can ungravitate the
parts where it now gravitates, in order to return to
the initial condition.

Hayek.

Expansion in one state is contraction in another state, equal but opposite
reacting. It could not possibly be seen as such though unless the
contractionist states were multiplying to infinity in numbers. Thus no real
contraction but only apparent contraction.

You take a relative finite, x, and multiply relative finites by ten. Then
[the] relative finite, x, is now 1/10th. You again take the relative finite,
x, and multiply relative finites by a thousand. Then [the] relative finite,
x, is now 1/1000th. You again take the relative finite, x, and multiply
relative finites by infinite number. Then [the] relative finite, x, is now
infinitesimal. Throughout this growth in equal but opposite simultaneous
expansionist-contractionist overall state the relative finites (herein) x,
y, z, in it remain, relatively speaking, the relative finites x, y, z.

Brad