If gravitational interaction can propagate from within the black hole it can also propagate from points past the visible universe and have an affect on the redshift effect. If this is true, then there must be another dimension through which this information propagates(information dimension).

While it does seem true that gravity can come from invisible sources, (black holes and dark matter) and we can see they affects in that it bends the light around these sources, or causes things to orbit quickly about them, this is not the source for the redshift readings.  Otherwise all galaxies would have a redshift, but this is not the case.  Some are actually coming towards us. (Blue shift.)

I don't see a logical connection between this:

Primordial:

If gravitational interaction can propagate from within the black hole ...

... and this ...

it can also propagate from points past the visible universe ...

That is, on the basis of the first statement alone, one cannot infer the truth of the second. It may be true, but it is not indicated to be -- much less required to be. To state that it's true draws an equivalence between black holes and another universe, at least in this regard. That would be difficult to demonstrate.

As a matter of conjecture, I think it's interesting to think about other universes and about what happens to matter as it crosses the event horizon of a black hole. So far, we have zero evidence of the nature of the matter inside a black hole -- except that it continues to exist (as we can tell by the gravity of the black hole). For now, I'll continue to treat these two ideas separately.

Primordial, 

What evidence is there for your supposition?

Dave Mitsky

DaveMitsky : How can a determination be made as to the total matter in the universe if we can only examine the visible universe? Was the mass and energy that is now past our visible part of the universe part of the big bang? Did it not also affect the curvature of spac-time after it formed mass that built galaxies that are now past our visible universe? What was the cause of the anomilies in the acceleration of the universe we assign the name inflation? Thank you for your time. 

My point (possibly also Dave's) is that this has nothing to say about different universe(s).

While it is tempting to think that gravity from another universe, if such exists, might affect our own, there is no direct line of falsifiable reasoning that leads to either (a) the existence of such universe(s) or (b) the idea that gravity transcends a universe.

I take your point that considering only the visible universe can lead to incorrect conclusions.

chipdatajeffB : Thank you for your replies. So the visible universe is all there is?

Primordial:

chipdatajeffB : Thank you for your replies. So the visible universe is all there is?

That depends on how you define "visible". I take it you mean 'detectable by humans by any means possible' ... is that right? If so, I agree.

What I do NOT mean is "optically detectable at wavelengths visible to humans." That is, I do NOT mean exclusively the "white light universe."

If we want to be scientific about it, we can't include the "string/brane/cyclic" menage of ideas because they are not falsifiable. We (well, a select few of us, not including me) can talk about those philosophically, of course, and even mathematically.

Quote: 

While it does seem true that gravity can come from invisible sources, (black holes and dark matter) and we can see they affects in that it bends the light around these sources, or causes things to orbit quickly about them, this is not the source for the redshift readings.  Otherwise all galaxies would have a redshift, but this is not the case.  Some are actually coming towards us. (Blue shift.)

End quote:

Dusty,

I am not aware of any galaxies at the edges of our visible Universe that show a Blue shift?

If I'm not mistaken, only galaxies in the local group or, others nearby just outside our local group show a blue shift,  The red shifting Doppler effect is valid  and not in question at short ranges and so is the blue shift data, but at the extreme distances of the visible Universe, or roughly 13 BLY out, the cumulative effects of Dark Matter, and gravity, or some other unseen forces, may be skewing the Long range red shifts that we see.

Dennis

chipdatajeffB : Thank you JeffB, for your help.

You are correct sir.  The blue shift is only from nearby galaxies that are approaching us.  The rest are redshifted.  If we are to infer that redshift is a measure of gravity, perhaps from dark matter, then we can also infer that redshift is also a measure of mass.  (As mass generates gravity.)  We know that the further galaxies exhibit a higher redshift, and that the farther you are away, the higher the redshift.  Does this then infer that the further away a galaxy is, the more massive it is?  Is our galaxy then the lightest one in the universe?  Do the blueshifted galaxies have a negative mass?

The only point that I am making is that redshift is not a measure a gravity, but of acceleration in a certain direction. 

Hi Dusty,

I totally agree with what you are saying except for one simple fact,  You are only using the mass or dark matter that is associated with the observed galaxy, what I am trying to say is, that these extreme redshifts may be the cumulative effect of what is in between us and, the observed  galaxies that are not associated with our local group.

Since there is matter out there that we cannot see, just how much dark matter could be out there between us and these far off galaxies?  The Pioneer probes have obviously shown that there is something responsible for their slowing down, this problem to me, may indicate that we really are not sure of the density of baryonic and non baryonic matter just out side our Local solar system.

Bottom line is we need more data, I except the BBT for now, but I am also aware that it has some problems that can only be resolved with more instruments. data and time, before I buy it as an actual scientific fact.

It's been a very interesting thread, and I have throughly enjoyed communicating and reading any ideas that have been brought forth.

Dennis

DaveMitsky : Thank you Dave for your response, what amount, and in what category of proof would you require?

Dave I would like to expalin, so don't take me as a wise guy, if you understand the photon, we could take a for example scenario e.g. a gamma photon is released from an event 12.5 billion light years away it consists of energy sufficient to producea a particle pair on the order of the proton and antiproton in a location located at this 12.5 light year location in space-time, now because the photon transverses( you may wish to use propagates) this time span in the form of a wave function it can only become relativistic mass after it has this event at the distance of 12.5 billion light years, so during this 12.5 billion years the only thing that is making this transition is a massless wave function that upon interaction with the columb field becomes two particles that at this time in the event displays a change in the gravitational field of the frame of reference in which this even occured and at the same instant in time 12.5 billion light years away the source reference frame of this transition would undergo a wave function colapse and a change in its gravitational field.

Before I go on do you have questions at this point? This thing is very long. In a simple form just look at my original post .

Hi Dusty,

When I stated that maybe some unknown baryonic or non- baryonic matter may be skewing the redshift, I did not mean just friction as a cumulative force all alone.

When I think about baryonic matter, to me, it is the stuff that creates gravity, since all the planets and stars and matter that we do see, is baryonic matter of some sort,  so my implications were not discarding gravity, I was including gravity, via the term, (baryonic matter) and, along with it, dark matter, all of it as a cumulative force, acting together at the cosmological scale. 

As far as dark matter not effecting light, I don't believe we know enough about this stuff to make any concrete conclusions to discard it completely just yet.

I'm inlcined to down scaling of photon frequency as a consequence of integrable Weyl Geometry.

This connects the Pioneer anomaly with the Hubble parameter via conformal geometry, and in a sense does away with the need for an assumed expansion of space in favor of a local "down-scaling" of photon frequency, an effect similar to tired light, but originating in the geometry of spacetime rather than as a higher-order gravitational effect

To me, Cosmology, seems to me to be standing at the edge of another shocking realization, one just as exciting as when we first discovered that the universe was full of other galaxies.  I can hardly wait to read and hear more about all the new data that is scheduled to come our way, with all the new instruments we now have at our disposal.

I can not help but remember the days, when the whole idea of  just being able to actually observe or even detect an exo-planet was out of the question, look at were we are now. these implications alone, can truly change our views of the Cosmological picture.

Dennis 

Primordial:

DaveMitsky : Thank you Dave for your response, what amount, and in what category of proof would you require?

Citing some peer-reviewed journal papers would be a start.

Dave Mitsky

DaveMitsky : Would "Cosmos" by Astromomy collectors edition dated January 16, 2007 be acceptable reference for an explanation of Hubble Volume? If yes proceed to this question, does gravity slow the speed of light or does it just change its relativistic energy between inertial observers? 

Hi Dusty.

What is Weyl Geometry ?

In 1915, Einstein constructed a Geometrical model of the gravitational field,since then many others have also tried to give the electromagnetic field a similar geometric role.

This possibility is simply suggested by the fact that gravitation and the electromagnetic field are both long range forces.

In 1918 A mathematician named Weyl came up with an elegant attempt at  a geometrical unification of both that was later improved upon by Dirac.

Since the only two long range forces, are the gravitational and the electromagnetic  and the gravitational field is very well explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity for which it's accounted for geometrically by the curvature of space.

Weyl proposed a more general space than the Reimannian one of Einstein's theory in which the Electromagnetic field also played a Geometric role, here is a link to a paper that explains it well, zoom in on the paper so you can read it and please read the whole thing!  http://www.scribd.com/doc/11379707/Dark-Energy-and-Pioneer-Anomaly-from-Weyl-Geometry-

Dennis