### Mass per unit area time

It seems that if I plot the light cone of radiation in a 4-space expanding surface, that the density of matter per unit volume of space is higher as one travels in the time direction away from one's current position. Just for the sake of argument, I will assume that a photon is exiting the first star born after the big bang. It would seem that the path integral of its energy differential and thus its change in wavelength would reflect the transition from a dense space to one less dense and thus experience red shifting due to the difference in gravitational potential energy.

The difference in wavelength of EM is well documented and even used in calculations for gravitational distortion of GPS satellite signals.

So now I will try and quantify the value of gravitational red shift that a photon would experience in the path from a dense space to a more diffuse space.

The sum of the gravitational vectors is dependent on the inverse square of distance. If I integrate the effect over time and ignore the spatial component it would seem to be just as well. It would seem that within time of a locally compressed and expanding space, that anything would experience greater effect from that at the closest temporal position.

It is merely supposition and by taking a model which states that the universe is expanding in time and space from a dense core, the integral of differential in energy would be distorted.

I will devise a python program for this to test what apparent effect it would have and whether it would account for any red shift at all. I suppose one could say that any point in space fall to an equal gravitational potential across the universe, but it does not in time when the material is expanding due to internal forces or when the universal metric itself is changing.

An interesting link that I discovered in the process of looking for pictures is this on TOE. It is an interesting read and relevant to the overall analysis.

Next up, the 3d/4d graph and the equations. I have to decide on how to represent the data so it expresses the relationship in a meaningful way. I may even do a short video captured from my OpenGL modeling program using the red / blue shift and bubbles on a partitioned integral space.

It isn't easy to model, but it appears that light would have no differential from its origin, but the approaching destination would produce an increasing negative gravitational potential in such a way that the light would be traveling out of a gravitational field that it approaches. That is too much for me to consider in a single session and I will leave it there until the model is complete. I think I am beginning to catch on to this. It would not require a big bang or even a confined, open or closed universe. The equations work just as well on an infinite universe of indeterminate age. It wouldn't explain any differences in concentration of heavier elements in time, but it does at least have the general character of what is observed.

This is a messy subject and perhaps the confusion arises from the logical distinction of entity and physical reality of matter. I can group any set of objects and state that they are a set, however this does not confine them in any way physically. It is a logical distinction completely separate from physicality. To apply physics to a logical set is absurd.

It follows from the limited speed of light and the forces in the universe that gravity exhibits the same effects as electromagnetism. The vector directions are different but the effects originate from the same cause. It actually disturbs me somewhat when people take a set of objects and assign them entity as if this endows them with some superluminal and super natural property of coherence beyond the bounds of space and time.

I think I will do the calculation for the "giant" twin paradox. In this case a person has a twin who is 8 light years across and he travels to Alpha Centauri and back at 0.99c. A clock or any instrument requires that there is a physical relationship of the parts and by "objectifying" those parts to a set does not confer supernatural powers. It is a collection of interacting elements and each has its own response to force in its own way. Only a singularity can be "one" and a combination of singularities is nonsensical.