Originally Posted by

**PetTastic**
Don't get me wrong in my personal view. I am still 40% standard cosmology, 30% I do not know what the hell is going on, and 30% this matter shrinking idea preidicts galaxy rotation etc and is very hard to break.

You are on the right track with the idea of shrinking matter. What you need to do is connect it up with relativity and gravitation.

GR took a wrong turn because of the difficulty of the math involved. Einstein went to Hilbert and Levi-Civita for help, who had off-the-shelf software to solve the problem, the theory of Riemannian manifolds (non-Euclidean geometry). They had to tweak it a little to permit the use of the pseudometric tensor g, giving them a theory that gave the right results, but which used more sophisticated methods than necessary.

Had they simply used the existing Newtonian model (absolute space with time flowing uniformly over it), instead of arriving at a theory in which space and time are entangled, with space expanding to permit objects to retain the same size as they move through different levels of gravitational potential, they would have had a theory in which matter expands or contracts, depending on gravitational potential, within an absolute space.

The advantage of the matter expanding/contracting model is that it requires only a single scalar field, s, to contain all the information for which GR uses a 4x4 tensor, the aforesaid g. In GR, on top of g, the Ricci tensor R

_{ab} is constructed and the vacuum equation R

_{ab} = 0 is arrived at. This is the equation for a static equilibrium in the gravitational field, such as surrounds an isolated planet, for example. R

_{ab} is itself typically expressed as a complicated formula involving products and derivatives of Christoffel symbols, which are themselves expressions referencing g and its partial derivatives.

The scalar field, s, represents (coincidentally, incidentally) the "scale" of matter, which is so much expanded or contracted relative to matter at a standard scale. For example, the scale in Hyde Park, London, this morning, could be defined to be 1. The scale increases as you ascend radially into space from Hyde Park. On the contrary, as a rigid object gets sucked into a black hole its scale falls indefinitely, but never reaches zero.

In terms of the scalar scale field, the equilibrium solution at a point is particularly simple, s = dR/dr = (r/R)

^{2}, where r is the curvature of the isoscale surface through the point as "seen" by an observer at the standard scale and R is the curvature as seen by an observer at the point. This leads to the solution R = (r

^{3} + a

^{3})

^{1/3} for an isolated planet, consistent with the Schwarzschild solution in GR, where a is proportional to the planet's mass. (I must point out that there is a simple relationship between scale and potential that eliminates the need for potential as a separate concept.)

For those of you who don't know how GR is typically applied, let me explain some knowledge I arrived at by painfully looking at some papers in this area, notably Schwarzschild's. The researcher has a problem that he wants to solve for a practical situation. He goes to the GR equations and laboriously translates them into a Euclidean coordinate space and time that underlies the "curved spacetime" of GR. He then simplifies these to the point where he has something he can use computationally. Using a scale field and expressing equations in terms of it has the advantage of cutting out the middleman, the GR tensor equations, and at the same time enabling everything to be understood in a simpler and highly visualizable way.

Now, let us consider the possible implications of this for the Big Bang.

Instead of the Big Bang beginning as a point, imagine it beginning as an infinite Euclidean space in which matter is found everywhere in a roughly homogenous manner, but structured much like our space is structured in a hierarchy of matter groupings and voids of varying but comparable sizes, but WITHOUT gravity. Imagine then what would happen if gravity were suddenly TURNED ON. Gravitational waves would spread out from every atom at the speed of light (as measured locally) raising the scale (potential) everywhere it goes, shrinking matter, or, from the opposite point of view, expanding space. However, at any single material body, the gravitational waves arriving are always increasing, being drawn from all bodies within a range that increases as waves from ever more distant bodies arrive. There is a lot of math here that I have not done, but it seems possible that both inflation and accelerating inflation might be consequences of such a model.

Another way to get inflation and accelerating inflation would be if our known universe is falling into a black hole of radius vastly greater than that of the known universe.

All this IMHO.

What has really stimulated me about your posts is the possibility that the rotational speeds of galaxies can be explained also by relativity. I've assumed that this was not a consequence of matter-shrinking relativity because, if it were, the GR guys should have been able to figure that out. The theories are practically the same, just expressed differently. But maybe they are being held back by the greater complexity of working within the curved spacetime paradigm.