Hey Churchboy, great post as always.
My definition of time is ~ that which allows change to occur.
As you likely know by now, I believe Einstein is wrong, time is not dimensional nor is it relativistic. While I agree time is interwoven with space, unlike space, time does not have vectoral properties. Like the arrow of time, one hears about. Can you point in the direction of the arrow of time? No, I didn't think so.
Time is interwoven with space but so is motion. There is a trinity here. Everything that exists has motion at the atomic level. Everything observable and measurable has an electromagnetic signature. Em has two values; the size of the field and frequency; the smaller the field the higher the frequency, the larger the field the smaller the frequency. It is as they say an inverse relationship. This is the motion of the wave and a wave has three points; the beginning, the middle, the end and it is these three points which define a wave but if there were no time there could not be these three points and therefore no wave. Space has three vectors, height, length and width and these vectors require the existence of time otherwise space would just be a point.
I had never heard of Slypher, but I am familiar with Hubble and Abbes Lemaitre as well as redshift which is a point of contention for some of us.
It was Lemaitre who derived the Hubble Constant, though Hubble himself was not satisfied that Redshift was purely a doppler effect. Lemaitre needed redshift for he had already written his "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom" which later Sir Fred Hoyle would derisively call "The Big Bang" and he(Lemaitre) posited that if his hypothesis is right that there should be some sort of expansion.
Hubble had an assistant by the name of Halton Arp and several decades later Arp published his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies where he showed images of quasars and galaxies with vastly different redshifts attached by bands of matter and energy. He wrote a paper on it as well called Intrinisc Redshifts in Quazars and Galaxies. He proposed that redshift was part doppler effect but also a quality of an object's age. For this heresy, he was blackballed and lost all access to telescopes.
Photo by amateur astronomer David Strange
In the above image is one of his most famous because it took a public outcry on the internet to get it published(peer-reviewed) even though it clearly shows a bridge between two objects with very different redshifts. (Redshift scale is logarithmic) If Arp was wrong, why blackball him? Many scientists are wrong and do not receive such treatment. Was his an inconvenient truth? By the way, Arp was supported by Sir Fred Hoyle who, like myself, do not believe the Big Bang can even be considered a valid hypothesis simply because it is unfalsifiable allegedly being so far in the distant past.
if one takes a good look at the various BB theories the first thing one should see is that it is incredibly weak as a theory. It contains more "variable data" than "verifiable data". If it was a good theory then it would have more verified data than variable data. It is also approved by a Pope as a confirmation of Catholicism. It claims everything from nothing. Creatio ex nihilo as the Pope might put it. This approval by the Pope makes me squirm and think of Gallilee Galileo.
And as for gravity overtaking the universe in a closed system. Gravity is one of, if not the weakest of forces. The electric force is 10^39 times stronger and is actually what I believe drives the universe and gravity is an epiphenomenon of the electric force. Dark Matter don't matter no more.
Cheers to you my friend. Though I do disagree with some of the ideas, it is another well composed post by you.
Peace
#daemon-nice
Hahahaha. It took me a whole there to read your response to my post. As you may have guessed by now, I am not a cosmologist. I am one who is very curious about our Universe. While there are always holes to be picked in the existing theories concerning the beginning of the Universe, I try to discuss them as they are.
However, it is people like you who have independent, out-of-the-way thinking, who do not accept a way of thinking because of whose thinking it is, that help push the frontier of human knowledge ever forward. If everyone of the scientists mentioned here accepted every theory that was handed over to them, advancement would be impossible.
So thank you for sharing your perspective on time, its nature and its beginning. Thank you for your other contributions concerning the nature of our Universe. Perhaps one day, someone may be able to prove time to be separate from space and there would be evidence that you foresaw it to be so. You're appreciated.