Post by: timey on 01/06/2015 16:32:23
This thread is about a model of the universe that I have been developing for the last 5 years, having been inspired by Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics".
This alternative hypothesis relies on a theory of inverted time dilation for "coordinate time". (Please note this inversion theory is not applied for time dilation due to motion. ie: "proper time").
To summarise:
My model of the universe relies only on "confirmed" observed data and negates the necessity for Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. This model also gives cause for the Big Bang and the Big Crunch.
This model depicts the universe as a cyclic phenomenon in a closed system - inside of which the considerable energy to both end and begin the cycle is found within the system.
This model recognises all "confirmed" physics post Big Bang and contradicts no "confirmed" working hypothesis apart from several aspects of SR and GR for which it attempts to make alternative explanation.
On the basis that the maths for GR break down in black holes and that there is yet to be discovered a unifying theory of gravity concerning GR and Quantum Theory, I feel justified in my exploring alternatives.
Due to the fact that I am juggling concepts that are so closely related with SR and GR, a reader may be tempted to conclude that I am the victim of a series of misconceptions. Please note that all deviations from current thinking are intentionally derived for the purpose of my model and not because I have not understood SR or GR. If you bear with me - the logic holds. (It is appreciated that this does not mean my model is viable :) )
I will get straight into the nitty gritty of how this model differs from SR and GR and how I envisage, as far as I am able, the mathematical considerations associated being equivalent or symmetrical to existing space time mathematics before going on to explain how inverting time dilation affects certain perceptions of the universe.
My model differs from SR and GR on three counts:
1) Time dilation due to gravity field is inverted.
2) Light has no relativistic mass
3) Without the notion of relativistic mass, the concept of the speed of light as a "universal" constant is redefined and relocated exclusively under the remit of the equivalence principle.
It is an observed fact that clocks tick faster in elevation - it is thought that they do so because they are ticking in a weaker gravity field. My theory of inverted time dilation looks at the possibility that clocks are observed ticking faster in elevation for an alternative reason. We'll come back to that.
Whereas current theory sets the theoretical "fastest" rate in the change in time due to gravity field at 0 gravity field, my model sets the theoretical "slowest" rate in the change of time to a 0 gravity field. The concept of time dilation for coordinate time is inverted, so coordinate time now runs fast in a black hole and slow out in space.
It occurs to me that the Lorentz Transformations can be used to calculate this theory. The inverse transformations of velocities or "the metric" "may" perhaps be directly transferrable for calculating inverted time dilation.
Looking at the Pound Rebka experiment and light travelling with a lower frequency as it moves away from a gravity field and a higher frequency as it moves towards a gravity field. Without the concept of relativistic mass attached to light, I introduce the notion that light travels at lower frequencies when moving away from a greater gravity field, through progressively weakening gravity fields - not because it has relativistic mass that is being gravitationally affected - but because it is moving through reference frames that are experiencing slower rates of coordinate time. Travelling into a gravity field, light is moving into reference frames that are experiencing faster rates of time and the lights frequency is escalated.
Taking this notion through logical progression, the concept of a speed of light that is constant is now compromised. We know that the speed of light is constant when measured in a given reference frame, therefore we "may" now consider the possibility that the speed of light must only be a constant to its own ratio in relation to the length of a moment. The speed of light then being variable over reference frames of variable lengths of moment.
Now before you fall off your chair to ROTFL... let's just take these concepts to the event horizon of a black hole and consider them. With gravitational time dilation inverted, the trajectory of mass or a rocket falling into a black hole will not slow to infinity never to reach the event horizon, (not in coordinate time at least). It will be the opposite, as we do rather "observe" mass to behave near black holes from our reference frame. The person in the rocket that is falling into the black hole "will" experience from the rockets reference frame a slowing of its time, but this being due to time dilation due to motion under the terminology of "proper time".
The equivalence principle now states that as the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, the speed of light is only a constant to its own ratio relative to the length of a moment. Time is going very fast in the black hole. We now have a greatly escalated speed of light to plug into e=mc2 that "may" explain the energy of a black hole more comprehensively. I will come back to the black hole phenomenon in more detail later on.
Returning to the Lorentz Transformations and the inverse transformation of velocities that I conceptually adapted to calculate inverted time dilation. These equations produce distances that increase between coordinates with distance from mass. I suspect that these distances can be equated with the lengths of variable reference frames moments expanding in weaker gravity fields. The measure of this distance "may" perhaps be (inversely cubed?) to create 3 dimensions of a geometric space and a consequent curvature of these spaces. However these measures of distance are not actual distances, they are distances in "coordinate time" and we will call them "coordinate distances".
The concept of there being an "actual distance" and an "actual time" in relation to a "coordinate distance" in a "coordinate time" being relevant.
"Coordinate time" being the time "at" the coordinates of a reference frame. "Actual time" being the time one experiences "in" a reference frame dependent on that reference frames circumstances. Actual time will include considerations of coordinate time, "changes" in gravitational relationships between mass in close proximity and time dilation due to motion, this being "proper time"
"Coordinate distance" being a distance that is "experienced" by a reference frame in coordinate time. "Actual distance" being the "real" and "actual" distance between coordinates in space. (It is appreciated in view of GR's complicated tensor maths that a case of inversely cubing distances that are progressively increasing to create curvature may be somewhat of an oversimplification :)
The physical dimensions and curvature of space are now "filled out" with reference frames of progressively slower "coordinate times" producing progressively longer "coordinate distances".
To analogise: Taking 2 ball bearings and placing them on a rubber sheet a distance apart, we can see that the "actual distance" between the ball bearings is one length, and the "coordinate distance" of the curve in the rubber between the ball bearings is another longer length. The "actual distance" of space is shorter than the "coordinate distance" of space, we will come back to this.
Having calculated that a greater radius from mass produces a longer length of moment and having determined by how much moments are lengthened progressively over reference frames of progressively greater radius to each other, we are now in a position to create a scale of the ratio of the speed of light to the lengths of these variable lengths of moment.
Clearly having a scale of the variable speeds of light would be useful but to create a tensor equation on the basis of variable speeds of light would be of greater use. I have no idea how to do this :) but I can see that it "is" possible and that it "would" be a simplifying factor in certain types of mathematics.
Now we shall return to clocks ticking faster in elevation:
We have explored the possibilities of an inverted time dilation theory and how light slows when traveling into weaker gravity fields when we do not attribute light a relativistic mass. The light is not slowed by the gravitational field but by the longer lengths of moment that are caused by the weakening gravitational field.
A clock in elevation and its associated mass "is" located in a weaker gravity field, but it "is" also in a gravitational relationship with and affected by the mass of the earth. The gravitational effects of each body of mass upon each other, the mass associated with the clock and the mass of the earth, in respect to the gravity field induced effects of local coordinate time dilation will equally and oppositely cancel each other out...leaving the observed faster time difference of the elevated clock entirely due to the "change" in gravitational relationship caused by the distance between these bodies of mass.
If observing the reference frame of the elevated clock and the reference frame of the earth from another separate reference frame, we "might" observe that it is in fact earths clock that has started running slower because it is feeling less of a gravitational field due to the mass associated with the clock now being positioned at a distance in a weaker gravity field relative to the mass of the earth, than it did when this mass associated with the clock was positioned on the earth.
The gravity field for the mass associated with the clock being upheld as more uniform to the collective mass of itself and the mass of the earth because it is the smaller body and is more greatly affected by the bigger body.
In other words, although the clock is ticking in a reference frame of a weaker gravity field, it's mass is not "experiencing" a lesser force of gravity field.
Ground level experiments with clocks also observe the more elevated clock ticking faster. A clock on a mountain, a tall building or a clock placed on a shelf at a metre above another clock "may" all tick faster due to an increase in gravity field, not a decrease.
I'm not sure what tests have been carried out in this sphere other than those that have been reported. It would be telling to place an atomic clock on an area of the earth that is not in an elevated position but that we know to be of a very dense consistency.
Ok...despite the fact that of course no observations of our universe are actually changed in any respect, inverting time dilation for coordinate time and having a variable speed of light does make for a "very" different universe in some respects. The observations that we observe require alternative explanations.
Firstly let us consider the beginning and the end of the universe. The Big Bang and the Big Crunch.
We are looking at a universe that is filled with reference frames of variable lengths of "coordinate distance", in variable lengths of "coordinate time." Time goes fast in the black hole and slow in space.
It is a popular theory that there were no black holes in the early universe. Black holes being the product of stars reaching critical mass and imploding. Therefore it follows that the universes mass has clumped together from small to large.
Looking around my model of the universe for a phenomenon that has enough energy to end and begin the cycle of my model, the black hole phenomenon has now become the most likely candidate.
Every galaxy is considered as having a black hole at its centre, but there are a few rogues that are less certain in their trajectories!
Considering that black holes are "observed" (loosely speaking) as consuming mass, jetting particles and merging with each other into one bigger black hole, we "may" consider that as the progression of the black hole phenomenon takes it course throughout the universe, it is conceivable that black holes "may" start consuming more condensed/clumped mass than can be produced by star formations.
To analogise: The black hole phenomenon in relation to the phenomenon of mass, being a predator prey scenario... As the black holes take over the universe, meeting each other too closely they will merge and as this process progresses we "may" end up with a singular massive black hole - with all the mass of the universe inside it. Coordinate distance will be at its shortest and coordinate time will be running at its fastest.
Taking the speed of light in relation to this uppermost fastest length of moment and plugging this uppermost fastest speed of light into the equation e=mc2, we now have enough energy for the Big Bang.
The singular massive black hole jets out the mass of the universe across distance in particle form. A gravitational equilibrium is achieved and the black hole winks out of existence leaving a sea of particle plasma strewn across distance in space.
During the Big Crunch/Big Bang scenario, inside the black hole coordinate time is at its upper limit and coordinate distance is at its lower limit.
I have made a table (loosely speaking :) ) of the balance between coordinate time, coordinate distance and actual distance below in relation to the extremes.
(Please note that "actual time" has "not" been represented here. Actual time can only be determined from the perspective of an observer "in" the reference frame when the gravitational relationship of the associated mass of an observer and any motion related time dilation aspects of "proper time" are considered - or when determining how a reference frame of mass moves in relation to a reference frame of coordinate time.
"Actual distance" on the other hand, although relevant to an observer in the reference frame, "is" actually a physicality in the absence of an observer status!!!)
BIG CRUNCH/BIG BANG BLACK HOLE
Coordinate time - fastest
Coordinate distance - shortest
Actual time - ?
Actual distance - shortest
SEA OF PARTICLES
Coordinate time - balanced - slower
Coordinate distance - balanced - longer
Actual time - ?
Actual distance - longest
SPACE REGION - ABSENCE OF MASS IN DISTANCE
Coordinate time - slowest
Coordinate distance - longest
Actual time - ?
Actual distance - balanced - lower scale shorter
REGION OF ORDINARY MASS
Coordinate time - balanced - faster
Coordinate distance - balanced - shorter
Actual time - ?
Actual distance - balanced - upper scale longer
Looking at the sea of particles, imagine a pile of logs and then imagine that pile of logs put through a wood chipper with regards to how much space each will take up in relation to each other. Now imagine all the mass in the universe reduced to particle form. I put it to you that the distance in space "may" be nothing more than the areas that have been vacated by these particles clumping together. Could the perceived vast distances of space be partly a product of "coordinate distances"?
If coordinate distances can be thought of as an "ether type" scenario, and "actual distances" as constant, then bodies of mass in the universe "may" be closer together than we think.
Let's look at what is involved when viewing events that are occurring in reference frames that are of a faster time or slower time than the reference frame we are them observing from.
To analogise, a camera's shutter speed in relation to a motion shot. The faster the shutter speed the less light in the picture. ie: Observing a black hole from earth.
For the purpose of creating a visual picture we can say the same of a black hole that is running a slow time or a fast time... Now take into account the fact of time running either slow or fast in the vast distances of the space we are viewing the black hole through. How we are viewing what we are viewing "may" be analogised, in the case of fast time in space, to a light cone type structure that has coordinates comprised of shutter speed filters that let less light into the picture. In the case of slow time in space this will be an inverted light cone structure, to the same effect...
In respect to gravity lensing, light moving over faster time frames near large bodies of mass will appear to bend because the ratios of moments between the light bending and the observational reference frame of earth become more closely aligned with each other and the picture is letting in more light.
So... we "may" have the possibility that light sources in outer space are closer than we believe.
But hang on! We are an expanding universe aren't we? Let's look at this. My model has already stated the metric expansion as time related not distance related. We have established "coordinate distances" and we have re- established redshift as variable speeds of light over coordinate distances...
The gravitational coordinate time relationship between two bodies of mass in space is such that each body of mass is travelling into the future faster than the space in-between them is. Our universe "may" only be expanding in "coordinate time" and "coordinate distance", not in "actual distance".
I will quickly end with the concept that in a 0 gravity field time does not happen at all, it comes to a halt and without time existence cannot exist.
Also I suspect that my inverted time dilation theory "may" allow us to behold what lies behind the cloud of the "uncertainty principle".
I have, for the purposes of my model, more detailed explanations for quantum, gravity lensing, galaxy rotation, and for the Bullet cluster amongst other considerations, (you'll notice that I haven't mentioned Lorentz contractions :) ) ...these considerations include a theory on how the universe may have transpired from zero into the cyclic phenomenon that I have described above... but I reckon this post is probably long enough already :).
If I was a mathematician I would have attempted to calculate my model before "sharing" it. However, I'm not a mathematician! I understand what is going on when these types of maths are explained on a white board. Maybe if I keep on watching The Theoretical Minimum, I might just get it together one day. In the mean time, if you are a mathematician or have a computer program that you can plug these parameters into that would calculate this theory and you are interested, I'd dearly love to "know" if my model is viable..!
I thank you for reading this alternative hypothesis through to the end and wish you well.
Vikki
Post by: David Cooper on 01/06/2015 19:47:14
Quote
Whereas current theory sets the theoretical "fastest" rate in the change in time due to gravity field at 0 gravity field, my model sets the theoretical "slowest" rate in the change of time to a 0 gravity field. The concept of time dilation for coordinate time is inverted, so coordinate time now runs fast in a black hole and slow out in space.
Let's dangle a clock on a long cable so that it's held at the event horizon of a black hole. This clock will stop ticking. Let's put another clock far away from the black hole. This other clock will record time passing (perhaps not recording all of it, but it is certainly registering some). How fast is your coordinate time ticking at these two locations relative to the two clocks, and how fast is your "actual time" ticking at these two locations relative to the clocks?
Quote
In the mean time, if you are a mathematician or have a computer program that you can plug these parameters into that would calculate this theory and you are interested, I'd dearly love to "know" if my model is viable..!
You need to spell out exactly how time and space work in your model before it can be simulated.
Post by: timey on 02/06/2015 01:05:55
Ok... By inverting time dilation for "coordinate time", this being time dilation due to gravity field, time in my model runs fast in a black hole.
So a clock near the event horizon of a black hole would, according to those coordinates and the time that is running at those coordinates, not halt or run slow. It would instead be running incredibly fast.
However a clock has mass, so let's look at the situation with a light clock. Note that in my model the concept of relativistic mass for light is eliminated. Light has no mass. Building ourselves an "impossible" light beam mechanism that also has no mass, a beam of light is sent vertically down an arm towards the black hole, it hits a mirror at bottom of arm and travels back up. Along the arm at regular intervals there are sensors that record the lights frequency. These sensors record that the lights frequency steadily increases on its way down and steadily decreases on its way back up the arm. The light has no mass, it is not gravitationally affected, it is being affected by gravitational time dilation and light retains a constant ratio of its speed, the speed of light, to the ratio of a length of a moment. It is traveling through reference frames of progressively changing lengths of moments, the speed of light being variable to the length of variable lengths of moment.
(I am going to start talking about the relationships between mass next. A rock weighs less on the moon than it does on earth because it feels a lesser force of gravity. When you see me adding and subtracting masses, I am referring to the force of gravity that mass feels in that coordinate system)
Now let's look at the clock situated near the event horizon that is dangling on a cable. In fact let's imagine that the cable has a hook on it and it has been lowered into the black hole and has picked up one of two identical clocks from inside the black hole, (another impossibility), and the clock is now dangling in a position near the event horizon. This clock is an atomic clock. The clocks coordinate position's time "coordinate time" is running fast. The clock has associated mass. The mass of the clock is in a relationship with the mass of the black hole. It "was" in a closer relationship with the black hole before its coordinate position changed with distance. The clocks mass was more gravitationally affected inside the black hole than it is at its new position. The gravitational field of the black hole is now weaker by minus the mass of the clock in its original position, plus the mass of the clock in its new position.
The gravitational field of the clock is the mass of the clock in its new position, plus the mass of the black hole, plus the clocks mass in its original position, minus the clocks mass of its new position. The clock that is in elevation from the black hole is ticking fractionally faster than its counterpart left inside the black hole.
Now let's take the perspective of a rocket falling into the black hole. We will record its time at the same coordinates as the previous clock. This mass is in a gravitational relationship with the mass of the black hole. The mass of the rocket is an "added" mass and speeds up the time in the black hole fractionally. The rockets time will run fractionally faster than the black holes by the same means as the dangled clock.
However, the rocket is in motion and is experiencing time dilation due to motion. We have to establish "proper time" considerations...
I have indicated that the Lorentz Transformations that establish proper time - which in their inverse form are "the inverse transformations of velocities" - "may" be used to calculate inverted time dilation for coordinate time. Using these equations in their original form to produce coordinate distances, (that we may have inversely cubed as to be the geometrical dimensions of space) we can see that the rocket is not only travelling through reference frames that are experiencing progressively faster time, but that these reference frames also comprise of progressively shorter coordinate distances. The rocket is travelling at say 1000 miles per earth hour. This speed will be lesser in a faster time frame and become progressively lesser as it travels closer to the black hole. But the coordinate distances are also becoming progressively shorter and the rate of time gets progressively faster, so the speed of the rocket will appear to uniformly increase, apart from within the rocket. The rocket will experience a slowing of its proper time due to its motion. This proper time is calculated in exactly the same equations that I have conceptually used in their inverse form for calculating inverted time dilation due to gravity field which "also "are the equations calculating the change in distance between coordinates.
Calculating the "actual time" for the rocket at the same coordinates as the dangled clock would involve, the mass of the rocket according to the gravity field in its coordinate position, plus the mass of the black hole, establishing the time dilation factor for the gravitational field of these combined masses, minus the proper time.
Time in space runs slow. Using coordinate time we can work out what the rate of time is at any coordinate in the universe purely from the strength of the gravity field. This comprises us an inertial reference frame from which the universe can be measured for coordinate time, coordinate distance, actual distance, and by working out the gravitational relationship of mass in close proximity with other mass, or mass moving in coordinate time, we can calculate the actual time experienced by said mass.
Hope this helped... Vikki
Post by: David Cooper on 02/06/2015 21:47:53
With your kind of coordinate time you appear to have something very different happening, because if we run the same experiment with a clock being lowered and raised from a hovering spaceship, the clock that's lowered and raised would record 80 units of time during the 100 units of normal coordinate time while perhaps 120 units (that's a guess) of your weird coordinate time go by for it, and, during the same 100 units of normal coordinate time, the clock in the hovering rocket would record 90 units of time going by while perhaps 110 units of your weird coordinate time go by for it. What sense does it make to call your weird "coordinate time" coordinate time when it doesn't serve as coordinate time at all? What use are the coordinates that you get from your coordinate time if you try to plot the events out on paper? You'll have the two clocks starting at coordinate time zero and being reunited with event-meshing failure as the time coordinate for one of the clocks at the meeting point is 110 and the time coordinate for the other clock at the meeting point is 120. I don't know what your "coordinate time" is or what it's for, but it can't serve as a coordinate time and should be called something else.
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/06/2015 23:04:43
Post by: timey on 03/06/2015 00:41:27
"The formal definition of proper time involves describing the path through spacetime that represents a clock, observer, or test particle, and the metric structure of that spacetime. Proper time is the pseudo-Riemannian arc length of world lines in four-dimensional spacetime.
From the mathematical point of view, coordinate time is assumed to be predefined and we require an expression for proper time as a function of coordinate time. From the experimental point of view, proper time is what is measured experimentally and then coordinate time is calculated from the proper time of some inertial clocks."
Unfortunately David maybe I have interchanged terms. I'm sorry if this is confusing.
I am using the term "coordinate time" to describe the time at any coordinate in the universe according to its gravity field. I am calculating this coordinate time using "the metric" Lorentz transformations which are the inverse velocity transformations.
The inverse velocity transformations in their non inverse form are the equations used to calculate time dilation whereas time is getting faster in space as with SR and GR...I don't use this equation for time dilation in my model.
I use the inverse velocity equations twice. Once to calculate time dilation due to gravity (time gets slower in space by the same amount that distances get longer) and using these equations again, taking these increasing distances and inversely cubing them to create the geodesic structure of space.
From this basis we have an "observer independent" reference frame from which we can measure the universe once we have determined the mass involved.
If the Lorentz Transformations that calculate time dilation due to motion are in fact the same equations, "the inverse velocity transformations"? I am then using this equation again, if not then I'm using whatever Lorentz Transformation "is" used to calculate time dilation due to motion usually, which (I may have this wrong) are the same equations used to calculate length contraction except in their inverse form.
I have been referring to a time consideration of time dilation due motion as "proper time". I'm sorry, this I realise is confusing but I can't go back and edit it all so we'll have to live with it... To clarify... in my model of the universe:
"Coordinate time" is time dilation due to gravity field. (This time dilation departs from SR and GR in that it has been inverted. An increase in gravity field speeds time up)
"Proper time" is time dilation due to motion. (Motion slows time down).
"Actual time" needs coordinate time and proper time as a function to determine actual time. Taking coordinate time (predetermined by strength of gravity field) and subtracting proper time (determined by velocity) from it. Then, unless we are talking about light, the mass that is in motion through coordinates needs to be taken into consideration in relation to other mass in the vicinity and this other masses affect on its force of gravity field and added into the equation.
David...are the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to motion that are inverted for length contraction the same equations as the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to gravity that are inverted for velocity transformations? In that they hold the same values?
Post by: timey on 03/06/2015 02:02:36
You would have to invert relativistic gamma in order for this to work. Although you say you ignore relativistic mass you can't in fact do that unless it is due to a constraint that you are applying upon the system for some reason. The other major issue is the fact that this would cause relativistic mass to decrease with velocity meaning it would get easier to accelerate the nearer to light speed a mass was traveling. I can't accept that one I'm afraid. The only way this could work would be at a turning point of some kind. It may be useful to study your theory with respect to the ergosphere of a black hole. However I am not sure what the results would be as I would need to work it out.
Hi JeffreyH
Thanks for your reply :)
You say that relativistic gamma would have to be inverted. I've looked this up and it seems relativistic gamma is something to do with the Lorentz transformations. Does anything I've said in post above gel?
Also:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu › tdil
"The increase in relativistic effective mass makes the speed of light c the speed limit of the universe."
You have said that I'd need a constraint to ignore relativistic mass... Does making the speed of light constant only to the ratio of the length of a moment over reference frames of variable lengths of moment rendering the speed of light coordinate variable constitute such a constraint?
Thank you very much for the positive ergosphere of black hole comment and nice to meet you.
Vikki
Post by: jeffreyH on 03/06/2015 23:38:50
We can integrate this:
Since the term GM is a constant we can rewrite as
-GM
Then as
-GM
This can then be integrated as
-GM
This then changes the sign
So like escape velocity the direction is away from the source. Since escape velocity for a black hole is c we we can divide by this velocity to obtain the minimum velocity required to remain stationary near the horizon.
I have attached a graph of the results for an earth sized mass. The tidal forces are so strong that the effects on time are to slow it down.
Edit: Normally we would end up with
where C is the constant of integration. I am assuming a value of zero for C so it vanishes.
Post by: David Cooper on 04/06/2015 00:01:23
I am using the term "coordinate time" to describe the time at any coordinate in the universe according to its gravity field.
So in the scenario I presented in my previous post, I have a normal coordinate time ticking out 100 ticks while the hovering rocket only experiences 90 ticks of proper time (meaning its own time) [if you count that as proper time - it's running at a slowed rate due to gravity rather than movement], and you have it undergoing perhaps 110 ticks of your own special kind of coordinate time. I want to understand how that faster ticking rate of this special coordinate time relates to anything that's going on where the rocket is. It certainly can't be measured as 110 ticks by the rocket, and it doesn't show up as 110 ticks to any observer of the rocket, so what is this special kind of time actually doing? Who can measure it and how? If it can't be measured but is important for something, what is its role? What is it useful for?
Quote
I use the inverse velocity equations twice. Once to calculate time dilation due to gravity (time gets slower in space by the same amount that distances get longer) and using these equations again, taking these increasing distances and inversely cubing them to create the geodesic structure of space.
I can't follow this without seeing some actual numbers being put to specific events. What are these distances that are getting longer? What are these distances between and what do you have to be doing to make them appear longer?
Quote
...are the same equations used to calculate length contraction except in their inverse form.
I need to see worked examples of what you're doing - I can only follow something like this when the numbers are put in front of me.
Quote
"Coordinate time" is time dilation due to gravity field. (This time dilation departs from SR and GR in that it has been inverted. An increase in gravity field speeds time up)
It sounds as if you should have two kinds of proper time - one which clocks record when they're moving in deep space and another which clocks record when they're in a gravity well, but I can't work out whether you count that one at all, because your strange coordinate time which deals with "time dilation" due to gravity field does not tell you what a clock will record in a gravity well as it does the opposite, asserting that time is faster when the clock is ticking slower and that time is slower when the clock is ticking faster. This is making it difficult to understand your model because you haven't pinned down what the different kinds of time are in it and you haven't named them correctly.
Quote
"Actual time" needs coordinate time and proper time as a function to determine actual time. Taking coordinate time (predetermined by strength of gravity field) and subtracting proper time (determined by velocity) from it.
Again I need to see a worked example or two with the actual numbers for some situation/event/scenario which I can visualise.
Quote
David...are the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to motion that are inverted for length contraction the same equations as the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to gravity that are inverted for velocity transformations? In that they hold the same values?
I don't use the Lortentz transformations, but work everything out through trigonometry instead. I get a value for time dilation and length contraction by the following method: speed = 0.866c --> arcsin 0.866 = 60 degrees (the angle that light will actually travel at if a moving light clock is lined up across the direction of travel) --> cos 60 = 0.5, so 0.5 is both the time dilation and the length contraction for that speed. There is no inversion involved for calculating either of them. The way(s) of calculating time dilation under gravity look quite different and I don't know if they can be shown to be equivalent in any way. I'm looking at one in which proper time for an object in a gravity well is calculated by taking coordinate time from some distant clock and multiplying it by the square root of 1-(2GM/rc^2) taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation). Clearly this formula will give you proper time under gravity and not your special kind of coordinate time, so if you're wanting a formula for the latter, you can use whatever you find fits your needs. Then you need to explain what your special kind of coordinate time is useful for in some way that will help me get the point, because at the moment I'm at a complete loss as to what it's for.
Post by: timey on 04/06/2015 08:58:21
I am using the term "coordinate time" to describe the time at any coordinate in the universe according to its gravity field.
So in the scenario I presented in my previous post, I have a normal coordinate time ticking out 100 ticks while the hovering rocket only experiences 90 ticks of proper time (meaning its own time) [if you count that as proper time - it's running at a slowed rate due to gravity rather than movement], and you have it undergoing perhaps 110 ticks of your own special kind of coordinate time. I want to understand how that faster ticking rate of this special coordinate time relates to anything that's going on where the rocket is. It certainly can't be measured as 110 ticks by the rocket, and it doesn't show up as 110 ticks to any observer of the rocket, so what is this special kind of time actually doing? Who can measure it and how? If it can't be measured but is important for something, what is its role? What is it useful for?QuoteI use the inverse velocity equations twice. Once to calculate time dilation due to gravity (time gets slower in space by the same amount that distances get longer) and using these equations again, taking these increasing distances and inversely cubing them to create the geodesic structure of space.
I can't follow this without seeing some actual numbers being put to specific events. What are these distances that are getting longer? What are these distances between and what do you have to be doing to make them appear longer?Quote...are the same equations used to calculate length contraction except in their inverse form.
I need to see worked examples of what you're doing - I can only follow something like this when the numbers are put in front of me.Quote"Coordinate time" is time dilation due to gravity field. (This time dilation departs from SR and GR in that it has been inverted. An increase in gravity field speeds time up)
It sounds as if you should have two kinds of proper time - one which clocks record when they're moving in deep space and another which clocks record when they're in a gravity well, but I can't work out whether you count that one at all, because your strange coordinate time which deals with "time dilation" due to gravity field does not tell you what a clock will record in a gravity well as it does the opposite, asserting that time is faster when the clock is ticking slower and that time is slower when the clock is ticking faster. This is making it difficult to understand your model because you haven't pinned down what the different kinds of time are in it and you haven't named them correctly.Quote"Actual time" needs coordinate time and proper time as a function to determine actual time. Taking coordinate time (predetermined by strength of gravity field) and subtracting proper time (determined by velocity) from it.
Again I need to see a worked example or two with the actual numbers for some situation/event/scenario which I can visualise.QuoteDavid...are the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to motion that are inverted for length contraction the same equations as the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to gravity that are inverted for velocity transformations? In that they hold the same values?
I don't use the Lortentz transformations, but work everything out through trigonometry instead. I get a value for time dilation and length contraction by the following method: speed = 0.866c --> arcsin 0.866 = 60 degrees (the angle that light will actually travel at if a moving light clock is lined up across the direction of travel) --> cos 60 = 0.5, so 0.5 is both the time dilation and the length contraction for that speed. There is no inversion involved for calculating either of them. The way(s) of calculating time dilation under gravity look quite different and I don't know if they can be shown to be equivalent in any way. I'm looking at one in which proper time for an object in a gravity well is calculated by taking coordinate time from some distant clock and multiplying it by the square root of 1-(2GM/rc^2) taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation). Clearly this formula will give you proper time under gravity and not your special kind of coordinate time, so if you're wanting a formula for the latter, you can use whatever you find fits your needs. Then you need to explain what your special kind of coordinate time is useful for in some way that will help me get the point, because at the moment I'm at a complete loss as to what it's for.
David, to clarify, in my model a gravity well has a faster rate of time because an increase in gravity field makes the frequency of stuff faster. It makes the frequency of light faster, the cessium atoms frequency runs faster. Gravity is compressing the length of everything, including the length of a moment. Of course it would be stupid to think that time runs faster when a clock is telling you that it is running slow or the opposite.
My model states that clocks tick faster in elevation because they are experiencing a greater gravity field because of the relationship of their associated mass in relation to earths mass.
Apart from clocks ticking faster in elevation, there is no other reason to think that an increase in gravity field slows time down and there is, within the Pound Rebka experiment every reason to think that it doesn't.
What is my universes coordinate time for? Ok... well, let's start from the end results of making the changes that my model makes from current theory and work backwards.
The end result of the changes that I make to current thinking renders the universe as a closed system, non expanding, cyclic phenomenon.
My goal is to be able to measure "this" universe from an "observer independent" reference frame as well as from an observers reference frame.
I am inverting gravitational time dilation because my model needs to find the energy to both end and begin the cycle within the system relying only on observed data. With time running "fast" in a black hole, the black hole phenomenon "has" that energy.
By using "the metric" equations to invert gravitational time dilation I am linking the concept of gravitational time dilation to the concept of distance (both in space and within mass itself). You realise that this means that as these distances increase in space (an absence of mass in distance) that the length of a moment will be "massively" increased. In a black hole the length of a moment will be "massively reduced".
We then have a problem with the speed of light as outlined by JefferyH above. However my model, having eliminated the notion of relativistic mass for light, now views the change in the frequency of light as time related and has consequently redefined the speed of light as only being constant to the ratio of a length of a moment. I believe that solves this problem. (Am I right JefferyH?)
What we have as a result is a system by which to measure the universe that has a lot more scope, a lot more scale to operate with and this is good news indeed because the maths for GR break down in black holes and the cloud of the "uncertainty principle" hangs over quantum. Planck's constant h, this being a quantity with dimensions of an "action" of an energy multiplied by a time, or a momentum multiplied by a distance, would also be rendered as only constant to the ratio of the length of a gravitationally time dilated moment, then giving the microscopic region more mathematical scale to work in.
Space time has 3 dimensions of space and one of time. In the maths these are 3 positives and 1 negative of time. My model adds that time has 4 functions, 1 of gravity, 1 of motion and 2 of distance. Gravity, motion and distance expansion are positive and length contraction is negative.
So David, this is what I see my models "coordinate time" and it's subsequent "coordinate distance" , as opposed to "actual distance" being useful for.
However, what is abundantly clear is that we can see that the maths for GR work very well in the lower to midrange scale of gravitational field so we can deduce that there "is" a lot that is right about them. I am attempting to realign the concepts behind the equations by rotation (not really sure if rotation is the right word :) )
...for instance - if I am now using the inverse velocity transformations to calculate time dilation, then the relativistic gamma equations are relevant elsewhere. These as per SR/GR (correct me if I'm wrong) describe gravitational time dilation that causes clocks to tick faster in space. I now look at this relativistic gamma quantity as being relevant to the gravitational relationship between the associated mass of that elevated clock in relation to the mass of the earth and an increase in the clocks gravity field...and so on.
P.S I just noticed as I'm posting this reply JefferyH that you have also made a reply, I'll have to get my head round that one later on.
Post by: David Cooper on 04/06/2015 23:13:46
David, to clarify, in my model a gravity well has a faster rate of time because an increase in gravity field makes the frequency of stuff faster. It makes the frequency of light faster, the cessium atoms frequency runs faster. Gravity is compressing the length of everything, including the length of a moment.
This is what I'm trying to understand. If you put your caesium atom deeper into the gravity well, it will lowerthe frequency and the clock slows down.
Quote
Of course it would be stupid to think that time runs faster when a clock is telling you that it is running slow or the opposite.
So why think it?
Quote
My model states that clocks tick faster in elevation because they are experiencing a greater gravity field because of the relationship of their associated mass in relation to earths mass.
So are you saying they're deeper in the gravity well the further out of the gravity well they get? You also say that time (this strange kind of coordinate time, I think) runs slower in deep, empty space, so it appears that you're saying that when a clock is raised out of a gravity well, it's actually going deeper into a gravity well and it ticking faster because the greater gravity of being in less gravity speeds up your coordinate time, and yet time further out in space where there is no clock will run slower because it really is further out of a gravity well due to the lack of a physical clock there. The problem I see with that is that a clock is just a special case of the speed of light, and light moving through deep space is not slower than light moving through a light clock.
Quote
Apart from clocks ticking faster in elevation, there is no other reason to think that an increase in gravity field slows time down and there is, within the Pound Rebka experiment every reason to think that it doesn't.
If you have two identical clocks hovering over a planet (so they aren't orbiting the planet), both reading the same time and ticking at the same rate, you can lower one of them and leave it there for a long time, then lower the other clock to the same altitude later on. Any effect caused by the movement of the clocks will be the same for both and will thus cancel out. You will find that the clock which spent more time lower down has ticked less. There are clocks that could do this experiment in a lab just by moving one of them down from a high shelf to a low shelf, though because the planet is going round it might be necessary to move the lower one about from side to side to make sure they are both moving exactly the same distance through space.
Quote
I now look at this relativistic gamma quantity as being relevant to the gravitational relationship between the associated mass of that elevated clock in relation to the mass of the earth and an increase in the clocks gravity field...and so on.
The mass of the elevated clock is infinitesimal, and radically different masses of clock perform the same (one gram versus one ton), so what relevance does it have when it makes no detectable difference in the time recorded by different masses of clocks?
If your theory has legs, it should be able to make sense in the context of the above experiments. I want to see it fit, but it doesn't look as if it can.
Post by: timey on 04/06/2015 23:33:51
If we take the equation for gravitational acceleration:
We can integrate this:
Since the term GM is a constant we can rewrite as
-GM
Then as
-GM
This can then be integrated as
-GM
This then changes the sign
So like escape velocity the direction is away from the source. Since escape velocity for a black hole is c we we can divide by this velocity to obtain the minimum velocity required to remain stationary near the horizon.
I have attached a graph of the results for an earth sized mass. The tidal forces are so strong that the effects on time are to slow it down.
Edit: Normally we would end up with
Hi JefferyH
Ok...as I am a non-mathematician trying to transpose visualised concepts into mathematical concepts, well ...there are inherent problems to say the least :)
I'm recognise the mathematics, I think (scratches head :) )...but I'm not sure what you are relating them to. To a greater force of gravity slowing time down? To the escape velocity of mass? Or light?
I'm afraid that I'm a bit in need of a white board narrative that explains what the objective is and then walks me through the process. I'm not sure which bit of what your saying relates to which bit of what I'm saying, other than that you are calculating a strong gravity force and that a strong gravity force slows time down.
I'm not getting how the maths are deriving a stronger gravitational force as being "responsible for" or "connected to" a slowing of time rather than an increase in the rate of time.
Other than the massless photon being given relativistic mass and the fact that clocks tick faster in elevation and that this is currently attributed to the fact of the clock being located at a coordinate in a weaker gravity field, (whereas the associated mass of the clock and its relationship with the mass of the earth is not currently accounted for) ...I can see no other reasons given in physics to support the concept that a stronger gravity field slows time down. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
Post by: timey on 05/06/2015 00:02:42
I think it better if I dispense with trying to identify these equations by name and just describe what they are doing.
With regards to gravitational time dilation. The theoretical minimum (being time stopped) is set at a 0 gravity field. The equations that produce progressively increased distances are what I see as calculating this increase in the length of a moment.
(if this is not viable then I'd be looking at this time dilation being subject to the inverse square law proportional to distance from mass)
The equations that produce progressively longer distances also being used to produce my "coordinate distance", this being not an "actual distance" but a distance of/in time.
If it is possible to create a matrix from the 4 functions of time, gravitational time dilation, time dilation due to motion, space expansion and length contraction, I'd be looking for some balancing factors...
This giving your rockets travelling through space a balanced ratio of time to distance factors, no matter what velocity you move them at through whichever strength of gravitational field.
Post by: timey on 05/06/2015 15:16:13
Having created our time matrix of time to distance ratios we are now in a position to look at this in relation to velocity with regards to our variable speeds of light. These will be significant factors in the rockets progression through space with regards to time dilation due to motion and length contraction and how these factors relate to moving through progressively gravitationally lengthened time dilated moments in my progressively lengthening time related "coordinate distances". Time dilation due to motion and length contraction are both motion related and are now part of another sliding scale in relation to velocity and variable speeds of light.
The coordinate time and coordinate distance of any reference frame are unaffected by the upper speed limit (the speed of light) of that reference frame but time dilation due to motion and length contraction will be affected. How do we view this?
Clearly we have set the theoretical lower limit, or longest moment of gravitational time dilation (this being time stopped) at a 0 gravity field, this being 0 coordinate time and the theoretically shortest coordinate distance (this being equal to the fastest coordinate time) at 0 distance. Length contraction is at 0 and time dilation due to motion is also at 0.
When a rocket takes off from earth, to plot our course through space and these reference frames of slower time, do we view time dilation and length contraction as starting at 0 from this point, or do we have to work out by how much the earths time is being dilated and length contracted and start our journey plotting from those parameters?
Well... we must now remember that we have calculated our progressively increasing distances using the speed of light relevant to earths reference frame. We have set the parameters of our coordinate time and coordinate distance calculations using earths reference frame as a "key " so our "balancing factors" are slanted, however...our time dilation due to motion and length contraction factors are also calculated using the same speed of light, so by setting our velocities to miles per earth hour we will counteract this slanting, re-balancing our factors. This means that we "must" set our time dilation and length contraction parameters at 0 when calculating from the reference frame of an observer travelling through space.
Here we have the makings of another matrix whereas we have the speed of light, length contraction and "actual distance" as negatives with velocity being the positive. This matrix is symmetrical to the time matrix and now you can calculate your rockets journey.
(remember that an "actual distance" is shorter than a coordinate distance. I'll get into that ratio sometime, not today)
To create a visual picture of this, imagine a rocket travelling through progressively longer moments at x miles per earth hour, this speed being a progressively faster speed in reference frames of progressively slower time. The upper speed limit of the speed of light per reference frame reduces progressively and as a result of this the percentage of your length contractions will be shorter than your coordinate distances and the percentage of your time dilation due to motion will be producing longer moments than your coordinate time.
Your journey's "actual time" length in relation to the "actual distance" will be longer and will get even longer if you go faster.
If you travel at progressively slower speeds through reference frames of progressively slower time and then progressively faster again through reference frames of progressively faster rates of time...ie: moving from a stronger gravitational field into a weaker gravitational field and then back into a stronger gravitational field...the "actual time" length of your journey will be reduced to the time it would take you to travel the "actual distance" at the x miles per earth hour you started out at.
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/06/2015 19:25:48
Hi JefferyH
Ok...as I am a non-mathematician trying to transpose visualised concepts into mathematical concepts, well ...there are inherent problems to say the least :)
I'm recognise the mathematics, I think (scratches head :) )...but I'm not sure what you are relating them to. To a greater force of gravity slowing time down? To the escape velocity of mass? Or light?
I'm afraid that I'm a bit in need of a white board narrative that explains what the objective is and then walks me through the process. I'm not sure which bit of what your saying relates to which bit of what I'm saying, other than that you are calculating a strong gravity force and that a strong gravity force slows time down.
I'm not getting how the maths are deriving a stronger gravitational force as being "responsible for" or "connected to" a slowing of time rather than an increase in the rate of time.
Other than the massless photon being given relativistic mass and the fact that clocks tick faster in elevation and that this is currently attributed to the fact of the clock being located at a coordinate in a weaker gravity field, (whereas the associated mass of the clock and its relationship with the mass of the earth is not currently accounted for) ...I can see no other reasons given in physics to support the concept that a stronger gravity field slows time down. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
If you don't understand the mathematics and how they were derived then I can't see how you can develop a new theory. The mathematics as they stand have been verified experimentally and do not agree with your theory. They model spacetime in a verifiable way. There are an awful lot of results from experimentation that back up both SR and GR. You need to understand both of these theories at least in a basic way before you can proceed. There are plenty of text books that give a description of both. Just ask in the main Astronomy/Cosmology forum and someone will give you examples.
Post by: David Cooper on 05/06/2015 19:52:04
I'm sure you know what you mean, but it's all getting tied up in knots in my head. I need to see specific worked examples with numbers so that I can begin to build up an understanding of this and have something solid to pin all your technical terms to. Until you do that, it's just too impenetrable. I want to see enough detail to make it possible to write a computer program to simulate a small part of it - for a theory to be taken seriously, it has to provide that level of detail and not just be a pile of confusing words.
Post by: timey on 05/06/2015 21:53:23
Hi JefferyH
Ok...as I am a non-mathematician trying to transpose visualised concepts into mathematical concepts, well ...there are inherent problems to say the least :)
I'm recognise the mathematics, I think (scratches head :) )...but I'm not sure what you are relating them to. To a greater force of gravity slowing time down? To the escape velocity of mass? Or light?
I'm afraid that I'm a bit in need of a white board narrative that explains what the objective is and then walks me through the process. I'm not sure which bit of what your saying relates to which bit of what I'm saying, other than that you are calculating a strong gravity force and that a strong gravity force slows time down.
I'm not getting how the maths are deriving a stronger gravitational force as being "responsible for" or "connected to" a slowing of time rather than an increase in the rate of time.
Other than the massless photon being given relativistic mass and the fact that clocks tick faster in elevation and that this is currently attributed to the fact of the clock being located at a coordinate in a weaker gravity field, (whereas the associated mass of the clock and its relationship with the mass of the earth is not currently accounted for) ...I can see no other reasons given in physics to support the concept that a stronger gravity field slows time down. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
If you don't understand the mathematics and how they were derived then I can't see how you can develop a new theory. The mathematics as they stand have been verified experimentally and do not agree with your theory. They model spacetime in a verifiable way. There are an awful lot of results from experimentation that back up both SR and GR. You need to understand both of these theories at least in a basic way before you can proceed. There are plenty of text books that give a description of both. Just ask in the main Astronomy/Cosmology forum and someone will give you examples.
Well... In a sense you are correct JefferyH one cannot develop a "theory" without understanding the values behind the current mathematics. Therefore what I have developed here is not a theory as such but a piece of logic.
You disappoint me in your response as I had thought that you were "engaging" in this piece of logic, (experimentally of course). You stated that relativistic gamma would have to be inverted for my theory to work. I pointed out that this relativistic gamma is used within the Lorentz transformations and how I saw a different equation, the equation that describes distances increasing progressively, (also a Lorentz transformation equation) being used for the purpose of inverting gravitational time dilation.
You also stated that inverting gravitational time dilation would result in more easily achieving the speed of light, that it would run into velocity problems. I asked you if my models relocation of the speed of light to the remit of the equivalence principle as being only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment would solve this.
Without answering these responses, you then post me the equation that describes the event horizon of a black hole and tell me that the manipulation (how was this relevant to my model?) that you made (for the purpose of and under what objective?) produces stronger gravitational tidal waves which slow time down. I already watched Professor Susskind's no:8 lecture on GR at event horizon.
I then ask you to explain what reason is given in physics, other than clocks ticking faster in elevation (which my model makes alternative explanation for), to support the notion that an increase in gravity field slows time down. You don't answer.
I am well read in physics across the board, including at least 5 or so books that include SR and GR, plus 3 books that dealt with it exclusively, and Einstein's own papers on the subject. Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics" gives concise description of exactly what is experimentally verified and what is not and where in physics current thinking does not mesh between GR and Quantum.
...I'm sorry to say JefferryH that I find this last post of yours to be a bit of a cop out tbh, but nice to meet you anyway. :)
((Edit)...actually I offer an apology on 1 count because I suspect I have wrongly stated concerning your equation in relation to the event horizon of black hole. I did say that I am a non-mathematician, therefore any equations do really need to be explained in words as well for me to understand what is happening. (This won't actually be true for very much longer :) ))
Post by: timey on 05/06/2015 22:01:38
Hi Vikki,
I'm sure you know what you mean, but it's all getting tied up in knots in my head. I need to see specific worked examples with numbers so that I can begin to build up an understanding of this and have something solid to pin all your technical terms to. Until you do that, it's just too impenetrable. I want to see enough detail to make it possible to write a computer program to simulate a small part of it - for a theory to be taken seriously, it has to provide that level of detail and not just be a pile of confusing words.
Aw...David :)... Well, I have identified the Proffesor Susskind lectures that I need to study further and I reckon I'll be able to give you some values in a few weeks (or so...) ...and Thanks !!!
Post by: timey on 06/06/2015 14:03:28
- In exactly the same way that musicians can compose music without being able to script notation.
DavidCooper - in response to your saying that my words are confusing (and I do understand your complaint from your own personal point of view):
- I do believe that a physicist of a pioneering mind set, also in possession of a degree in advanced mathematics... "Could" ...in fact decipher the overview of the conceptual mathematical considerations that I have posted, not without difficulty on account of my terminology, but the parameters are all present.
The problem being David, that to establish actual numerical values from these parameters I suspect that new tensor equations need to be established and THAT is going to be a difficult task for me.
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/06/2015 16:56:19
EDIT: The only way to check this is via galaxy survey data. Looking for galaxies isolated in the voids to see if they have any anomalous features.
Post by: David Cooper on 06/06/2015 20:01:27
Okay - looking forward to seeing numbers once you've found out how to calculate them. I just want to see how to calculate the numbers for the different kinds of time at different locations and how to calculate the local speed of light and the lengths of objects, etc. - all the stuff required to write a program to simulate a simple scenario. Once you can demonstrate how your theory works and fits the known facts, then it'll be easier for me (and other people) to explore it further.
Post by: timey on 06/06/2015 20:40:39
Your statement of increasing distance from a source of gravitation being an explanation for your logic is basically saying that spacetime 'relaxes' with radial distance from a source. This does not imply that time slows down with radial distance, as the force applied to an object will also 'relax' in proportion to distance. It is like the difference between wading through mud as opposed to water. Your 'relaxed' spacetime is the water and an intense gravitational field is the mud. Think of the voids between galaxies. With your logic time should be at its slowest in these regions. One way this could work is via the expansion of the universe. However, mass must also expand to compensate for the change in spatial dimensions. In which case you arrive back at the status quo with no change from GR.
EDIT: The only way to check this is via galaxy survey data. Looking for galaxies isolated in the voids to see if they have any anomalous features.
Oh goodly good, your back! (rubs hands together :) ) ... I am pleased!
Ok...so regarding:
"Your statement of increasing distance from a source of gravitation being an explanation for your logic is basically saying that spacetime 'relaxes' with radial distance from a source. "
Yes... and that's a good way of describing it!
"This does not imply that time slows down with radial distance, as the force applied to an object will also 'relax' in proportion to distance."
Ah yes... :) . But now we get into the fact that my model of the universe is not expanding and these progressively increasing distances are "time related".
Let us imagine a distance from one body of mass in space to another of exact same mass. Across the space in between these bodies of mass the progressively increasing distances will stop increasing mid point and start decreasing. The non time related "actual distance" between these bodies of mass can be arrived at by taking the increased portion of each increased distance, adding these up and subtracting this sum from the sum total of the increased distances. (Edit: it's not clear to me if it is the result or the remainder of these increased distances that is relevant, the perhiliion of Mercury is pertinent here) This is your "actual distance", therefore there will be no relaxing of any force for an object travelling through or into slower time because the expanded distance is time related.
In fact the velocity of the craft, as per miles per earth hour - in relation to the upper speed limits (which will be progressively reducing) of the reference frames it is passing through - will progressively increase... which is where time dilation due to motion and length contraction then become important factors.
Over to you :)
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/06/2015 04:23:23
Post by: timey on 07/06/2015 12:21:41
I have to agree with David here. There are self-contradictions in your wording. I will have to wait until you have figures that justify what you say. If what you say were true it would be much easier to achieve relativistic velocities within the voids between galaxies without extra effort. That I can't accept.
Ok...but before I get stuck into another Professor Susskind marathon I shall:
a) Buy myself some biscuits or cake, that dude is always munching and it makes me jealous :)
And
b) Explain to you this:
Current thinking has these expanding distances getting so greatly expanded that the speed of light (as it's current constant ) does not travel fast enough to keep up with this expansion and therefore it is thought that we will eventually loose visual contact with these far flung light sources of galaxies across these voids.
My model is not expanding. These voids in between far flung galaxies are filled with slow time and these far flung distances of an absence of mass in between these far flung galaxies are time related not "actual distances".
In my model, in the depths of these voids between galaxies, the upper speed limit, the speed of light, is proportionally lower, proportionally in relation to these expanded distances, (and this is where I believe you believe I am contradicting myself). The velocity of a craft travelling into this void will not be "relaxed" as it travels into this void of "relaxed time" because (unlike the speed of light) the craft is subject to an "additional" force of energy propelling it. (by additional I mean not naturally occurring)
Its velocity in relation to the reduced upper speed limit of the void will be proportionally higher, perhaps the percentage may even reach 86.6% of "this" reduced speed of light. (I think this is the percentage you use David?) It is now experiencing its own time as being slowed by 50% and is experiencing a 50% length contraction of its journey, however this will be a 50% slowing of its gravitationally dilated time and a 50% reduction of this time related distance, not the "actual distance".
This is creating a 4 way manifold of the time related factors of this void that are then related back to the time aspect of the "space time" manifold (this being the "actual time") and the expanded time related distances related back to the "actual distance" of the space time manifolds 3 dimensions of space.
The fact of my implementing this system of variable speeds of light acts as a constraint to the system... (I think...scratches head :) )
Alrighty...I'm off to buy biscuits...hmmm....and a cake I think, why not aye? :D... All the best to you 's.
Post by: David Cooper on 07/06/2015 18:43:43
Post by: timey on 08/06/2015 00:17:00
If you're going to have the speed of light slow down in deep space, that's going to cause strange optical effects wherever you stick a galaxy in the way, because it will have to speed up as it passes through or close to that. That would result in a lensing effect opposite to gravitational lensing, and the effect would be dramatic if the difference between your slowed "coordinate time" is significantly different from a normal kind of coordinate time. If these two kinds of time are ticking at a similar rate though, your reduction in the scale of the universe won't be significantly different from its apparent size. So, how big a difference do you think there will be between these two kinds of time, e.g. for a clock running on the Earth and another clock running in deep space perhaps five billion lightyears from any galaxy? Do you have a rough estimate such as 2x, 10x, or 100x?
Let's do the last bit first...
Although I have in fact opened the biscuits, I haven't actually been studying Prof Susskind today...lol...so I can't tell you exactly by what means these progressively increased distances are calculated yet...
However, (I think?) I can say (earth parameters being our "key"), that if you start these distances off from 0 at the point of the middle of the earth, by the time we get to the edge of the earths crust we have "a distance" and we have the earths speed of light to relate to this "distance" these being the parameters at edge of earths crust.
Then with the next increased distance, the speed of light is slowed to the same proportion as the proportion that this distance is increased and so on. So the speed of light and time dilation due to gravity field will slow to the same proportion that the distances are increased. Yes... the time differences will be massive between a density of mass, such as a black hole, and deep space.
Ok, gravitational lensing:
My model is a non expanding closed system universe. One of the main arguments of opposition to our universe being a closed system has been that the universe would be flooded with light.
Let's look at what is involved when viewing events that are occurring in reference frames that are of a faster time than the reference frame we are observing them from.
To analogise, a camera's shutter speed in relation to a motion shot. The faster the shutter speed, the less light in the picture. ie: Observing a black hole from earth.
For the purpose of visualisation we are now looking at the scenarios of either fast or slow time in space. Both will produce exactly the same visual results...
How we are viewing what we are viewing "may" be analogised, in the case of fast time in space, to a light cone type structure that has coordinates comprised of shutter speed filters that let less light into the picture. In the case of slow time in space this will be an inverted light cone structure, to the same effect...if we were to observe events in a much slower time or faster time reference frame from our reference frame that we observe from, events would appear fragmented. What we are "seeing" of light sources across space are just fragments.
In respect to gravity lensing, light moving over the faster or the slower time (theory dependent :) ) reference frames near large bodies of mass will appear to bend because the ratios of the variable length moments of the reference frames where the light appears to be bending and the observational reference frame of the earth become more closely aligned with each other and the picture is letting in more light.
Post by: jerrygg38 on 08/06/2015 02:00:50
Einstein's theory are excellent but not perfect.My Doppler space time is only an approximation as well because it is just too complex. The best we can do is best fit or engineering approximations.
Each theory we devise is an attempt to produce a best approximation to measured reality. However true reality has more unmeasurable qualities than measurable qualities. I can only work with my simple algebraic equations of the universe which shows me how gravity and the universe works. The various theory which depend upon scientific measurements can never really account for the truth of existence. All you get is little bits and pieces of reality as measured by our instruments. We get the trees but not the forest.
Post by: David Cooper on 08/06/2015 18:16:16
Yes... the time differences will be massive between a density of mass, such as a black hole, and deep space.
If you have a massive slowing in the speed of light in deep space, you will end up with gravitational lensing opposite to what we see. When we look past other galaxies we would see background galaxies stretched out in line with it instead of seeing things being stretched into rings around them. We would also be able to measure these distortions when watching the background of space past Jupiter. If you can work out how to put figures on the speed of light as you move away from Jupiter, you'll be able to work out what lensing there should be, and then you'll be able to disprove your theory and move on to doing other things.
Quote
How we are viewing what we are viewing "may" be analogised, in the case of fast time in space, to a light cone type structure that has coordinates comprised of shutter speed filters that let less light into the picture. In the case of slow time in space this will be an inverted light cone structure, to the same effect...if we were to observe events in a much slower time or faster time reference frame from our reference frame that we observe from, events would appear fragmented. What we are "seeing" of light sources across space are just fragments.
You appear to be suggesting that if you look into a gravity well from another gravity well you will see more light coming from it than someone half way in between the two because their slower "coordinate time" (which isn't coordinate time) is preventing them from seeing all of it, but what experimental evidence do you have for this? All that is seen is a reduction in frequency caused by proper time running slower in a gravity well, but if you send one photon at a time you would expect to lose some along the way, but you would always detect more of them at the midway position than you would from inside the other gravity well. Your faster "coordinate time" cannot magically increase the amount of light that is visible any more than your slower "coordinate time" can hide the amount of light from an observer further out of a gravity well.
Post by: timey on 08/06/2015 21:24:41
Yes... the time differences will be massive between a density of mass, such as a black hole, and deep space.
If you have a massive slowing in the speed of light in deep space, you will end up with gravitational lensing opposite to what we see. When we look past other galaxies we would see background galaxies stretched out in line with it instead of seeing things being stretched into rings around them. We would also be able to measure these distortions when watching the background of space past Jupiter. If you can work out how to put figures on the speed of light as you move away from Jupiter, you'll be able to work out what lensing there should be, and then you'll be able to disprove your theory and move on to doing other things.QuoteHow we are viewing what we are viewing "may" be analogised, in the case of fast time in space, to a light cone type structure that has coordinates comprised of shutter speed filters that let less light into the picture. In the case of slow time in space this will be an inverted light cone structure, to the same effect...if we were to observe events in a much slower time or faster time reference frame from our reference frame that we observe from, events would appear fragmented. What we are "seeing" of light sources across space are just fragments.
You appear to be suggesting that if you look into a gravity well from another gravity well you will see more light coming from it than someone half way in between the two because their slower "coordinate time" (which isn't coordinate time) is preventing them from seeing all of it, but what experimental evidence do you have for this? All that is seen is a reduction in frequency caused by proper time running slower in a gravity well, but if you send one photon at a time you would expect to lose some along the way, but you would always detect more of them at the midway position than you would from inside the other gravity well. Your faster "coordinate time" cannot magically increase the amount of light that is visible any more than your slower "coordinate time" can hide the amount of light from an observer further out of a gravity well.
Ok David...again, last bit first.
I don't think you are quite grasping my mechanics of the filtering of a light source due to viewing it through the ratios of variable lengths of moment.
Try to imagine a whole bunch of rotary fans set inline on a long rod. At the far end of this rod we have a light beam pointed back through the inline rotary blades. All the rotary blades are in the same position. As we look along the rod from the front view we can see 3 blades and we can see 3 spaces in between these blades that light is passing through.
We start rotating the blades. First we rotate all the blades at the same speed. The light source is now flickering but still bright. Then we rotate the middle blade slowly with the series of rotary blades inline to the front and the back of the assembly line each rotating slightly faster than the last. Now we will see less light. (this being equally true if the middle blade is rotated fast to the outer blades running slow). Now set the ratios of the speeds of the rotary blades more closely aligned to each other. You will see more light.
Viewing events of a moment of time that is running significantly faster or slower than the rate of a moment where you are viewing from, you will quite simply not have "the time" to view the events in. You will not be viewing the entire picture. (ie: black holes, quantum)
Right, gravity lensing. The mechanics I have described above will indeed make Einstein rings. As the body of mass comes inline between us and the light source, the light speeds up in the vicinity of this gravitational field of an escalated ratio of moment.
Our rotary blades in the middle of the rods rotary blade assembly are now running faster than the blades in between the middle and each end with the blades at the very ends rotating fast as they were before. This will let more light through and, I believe, in the case of time ratios, absent of the physicality of rotary blades, this will cause a ring of light and is in fact synonymous to a magnification.
I believe that you would be correct in believing that slow time would cause a trailing of light effect when viewing deep space, but only in an expanding universe. There is no stretching going on in my model. It's not expanding.
Post by: timey on 08/06/2015 21:46:48
I read some of your post. I gave up on Einsteinian space time long ago. In my "Cosmology of God and the Universe" (c) 2015 book I rewrote my chapter from "Doppler Space Time" (c) 2000. Einsteinian space time is good for orbital motion whereas the root mean square of the Doppler Equations equals Einsteins equations. Doppler space time has no clock paradox problem. One thing for sure there is no such thing as equivalent reference frames. No two reference frames in the entire universe is equal to any other reference frame. The measured speed of light will vary depending upon the gravitational field density, the speed of the spaceship, the speed of the Earth, the sun, and the galaxy. The maximum speed of light or ideal speed in pure outer space will be slightly higher than as measured here. In addition if you null the measuring instrument upon this Earth, it will not null in pure outer space.
Einstein's theory are excellent but not perfect.My Doppler space time is only an approximation as well because it is just too complex. The best we can do is best fit or engineering approximations.
Each theory we devise is an attempt to produce a best approximation to measured reality. However true reality has more unmeasurable qualities than measurable qualities. I can only work with my simple algebraic equations of the universe which shows me how gravity and the universe works. The various theory which depend upon scientific measurements can never really account for the truth of existence. All you get is little bits and pieces of reality as measured by our instruments. We get the trees but not the forest.
Hi Jerrygg38
Thanks for your reply. I found your comment on the root mean square of the Doppler equations being equal to the Einstein equations really interesting and I have downloaded your PDF to read later.
I agree that it would be hard to measure every quantity of the universe, there are so many immeasurable qualities, however we should at least be able to measure gravity, space, black holes and quantum by now.
Obviously my thoughts are that the maths aren't complete and don't reach far enough. :)
Post by: David Cooper on 09/06/2015 19:19:04
I don't think you are quite grasping my mechanics of the filtering of a light source due to viewing it through the ratios of variable lengths of moment.
I think you're describing something impossible.
Quote
Try to imagine a whole bunch of rotary fans set inline on a long rod. At the far end of this rod we have a light beam pointed back through the inline rotary blades. All the rotary blades are in the same position. As we look along the rod from the front view we can see 3 blades and we can see 3 spaces in between these blades that light is passing through.
We start rotating the blades. First we rotate all the blades at the same speed. The light source is now flickering but still bright. Then we rotate the middle blade slowly with the series of rotary blades inline to the front and the back of the assembly line each rotating slightly faster than the last. Now we will see less light. (this being equally true if the middle blade is rotated fast to the outer blades running slow). Now set the ratios of the speeds of the rotary blades more closely aligned to each other. You will see more light.
If you have one of these fans at every point in space and they're running at lots of different speeds, on any given path it is highly unlikely that any light will be able to get through at all on any path. If you're looking from an area with a fast fan through a whole lot of areas with slow fans towards another area with a fast fan, you will see nothing of it. That means when you look past a black hole, the blackness would extend out for a very long way past the event horizon.
Quote
Viewing events of a moment of time that is running significantly faster or slower than the rate of a moment where you are viewing from, you will quite simply not have "the time" to view the events in. You will not be viewing the entire picture. (ie: black holes, quantum)
You would have to get rid of the idea of fans blocking light and replace it with something that involves some light not being detected where time is running at a slower rate than the place where the light was emitted while the light is actually still there, but there is no evidence of any light going missing in the first place - if you measure it from a place where there is less gravity, you simply see the same amount of light but with a lower energy, and that energy should be missing because the light was generated by a slowed mechanism and not a faster one.
Quote
Right, gravity lensing. The mechanics I have described above will indeed make Einstein rings. As the body of mass comes inline between us and the light source, the light speeds up in the vicinity of this gravitational field of an escalated ratio of moment.
And if the light speeds up there, you've got the wrong kind of lens - a concave one instead of a convex one (to use terminology that's more appropriate to a lens made of glass). Such a lens cannot create rings of light.
Quote
Our rotary blades in the middle of the rods rotary blade assembly are now running faster than the blades in between the middle and each end with the blades at the very ends rotating fast as they were before. This will let more light through and, I believe, in the case of time ratios, absent of the physicality of rotary blades, this will cause a ring of light and is in fact synonymous to a magnification.
I don't think the fan idea helps at all. A better mechanism for bending light the right way would involve a contraction of space in the absense of gravity in order to allow light to travel faster past a galaxy further out from it, but then you'd have an even faster apparent speed of light within the contracted space, which is the opposite of what your theory says.
Quote
I believe that you would be correct in believing that slow time would cause a trailing of light effect when viewing deep space, but only in an expanding universe. There is no stretching going on in my model. It's not expanding.
It has nothing to do with whether it's expanding or not - the lensing effect would be the opposite of what we see in the real universe.
Post by: timey on 09/06/2015 22:57:18
I don't think you are quite grasping my mechanics of the filtering of a light source due to viewing it through the ratios of variable lengths of moment.
I think you're describing something impossible.QuoteTry to imagine a whole bunch of rotary fans set inline on a long rod. At the far end of this rod we have a light beam pointed back through the inline rotary blades. All the rotary blades are in the same position. As we look along the rod from the front view we can see 3 blades and we can see 3 spaces in between these blades that light is passing through.
We start rotating the blades. First we rotate all the blades at the same speed. The light source is now flickering but still bright. Then we rotate the middle blade slowly with the series of rotary blades inline to the front and the back of the assembly line each rotating slightly faster than the last. Now we will see less light. (this being equally true if the middle blade is rotated fast to the outer blades running slow). Now set the ratios of the speeds of the rotary blades more closely aligned to each other. You will see more light.
If you have one of these fans at every point in space and they're running at lots of different speeds, on any given path it is highly unlikely that any light will be able to get through at all on any path. If you're looking from an area with a fast fan through a whole lot of areas with slow fans towards another area with a fast fan, you will see nothing of it. That means when you look past a black hole, the blackness would extend out for a very long way past the event horizon.QuoteViewing events of a moment of time that is running significantly faster or slower than the rate of a moment where you are viewing from, you will quite simply not have "the time" to view the events in. You will not be viewing the entire picture. (ie: black holes, quantum)
You would have to get rid of the idea of fans blocking light and replace it with something that involves some light not being detected where time is running at a slower rate than the place where the light was emitted while the light is actually still there, but there is no evidence of any light going missing in the first place - if you measure it from a place where there is less gravity, you simply see the same amount of light but with a lower energy, and that energy should be missing because the light was generated by a slowed mechanism and not a faster one.QuoteRight, gravity lensing. The mechanics I have described above will indeed make Einstein rings. As the body of mass comes inline between us and the light source, the light speeds up in the vicinity of this gravitational field of an escalated ratio of moment.
And if the light speeds up there, you've got the wrong kind of lens - a concave one instead of a convex one (to use terminology that's more appropriate to a lens made of glass). Such a lens cannot create rings of light.QuoteOur rotary blades in the middle of the rods rotary blade assembly are now running faster than the blades in between the middle and each end with the blades at the very ends rotating fast as they were before. This will let more light through and, I believe, in the case of time ratios, absent of the physicality of rotary blades, this will cause a ring of light and is in fact synonymous to a magnification.
I don't think the fan idea helps at all. A better mechanism for bending light the right way would involve a contraction of space in the absense of gravity in order to allow light to travel faster past a galaxy further out from it, but then you'd have an even faster apparent speed of light within the contracted space, which is the opposite of what your theory says.QuoteI believe that you would be correct in believing that slow time would cause a trailing of light effect when viewing deep space, but only in an expanding universe. There is no stretching going on in my model. It's not expanding.
It has nothing to do with whether it's expanding or not - the lensing effect would be the opposite of what we see in the real universe.
Well...perhaps you are right about the fan analogy that I devised as a pictorial visualisation of the mechanics of a filtration of light...it's just an analogy.
You are correct that such a filtration system would indeed block out the majority of the light, but miss the fact that these light sources are, in my model, much closer to us than current thinking believes. These two facts in conjunction with each other kind of cancel out your argument.
Because my model is a closed system, if it wasn't for this filtration of light in space, the whole universe would be completely flooded with light.
Also...it would be impossible for any gravitational lensing to become the "opposite" of what we observe. In my model the light is not "bending" because light has no mass and time ratios will not act in the same way as concave glass. The light simply passes through the gravitational field of the inline body of mass faster, in reference frames of faster time which are more aligned to ours and then back into reference frames of slower time. This creating the appearance of a ring of brighter light around the body of mass. (Edit: because the ratio of time between the reference frame of the inline galaxy and the observation reference frame are more aligned, the light is in effect "closer" to us in "time". Looking at star displacement - we have a scenario whereas the light source is behind the moon and the star is behind the sun. All of the reference frames in between these inline masses will be experiencing an escalation of gravitational force and be running faster time than before. This escalation of time in these reference frames causes the star behind the sun to appear "closer" to us.)
Now David, having read some of your subject matter, I rate you as being a "clever chap".
You think it impossible that the difference in extreme time ratios over space could act as a light filtration system?
Hmmm...and the alternative, that the whole universe is being expanded, some of it faster than the speed of light by a mysterious force of "dark energy" actually "is" possible? :)
Post by: David Cooper on 10/06/2015 21:02:30
Well...perhaps you are right about the fan analogy that I devised as a pictorial visualisation of the mechanics of a filtration of light...it's just an analogy.
Yes, but even if you somehow allow all the light to get through so that it will show up further away were the local "coordinate time" is faster, you still have the problem that all the light can be detected in an area where the "coordinate time" is running slower - none of it goes missing and there is no fragmentation.
Quote
You are correct that such a filtration system would indeed block out the majority of the light, but miss the fact that these light sources are, in my model, much closer to us than current thinking believes. These two facts in conjunction with each other kind of cancel out your argument.
I don't see how.
Quote
Because my model is a closed system, if it wasn't for this filtration of light in space, the whole universe would be completely flooded with light.
The light is not going missing. It is not being absorbed by fans or anything else.
Quote
Also...it would be impossible for any gravitational lensing to become the "opposite" of what we observe. In my model the light is not "bending" because light has no mass and time ratios will not act in the same way as concave glass.
Then you've disproved your theory again because it doesn't fit the reality of the universe.
Quote
The light simply passes through the gravitational field of the inline body of mass faster, in reference frames of faster time which are more aligned to ours and then back into reference frames of slower time. This creating the appearance of a ring of brighter light around the body of mass.
It isn't a mere ring or brighter light - it's a distorted image of a background object with the light following curved paths.
Quote
(Edit: because the ratio of time between the reference frame of the inline galaxy and the observation reference frame are more aligned, the light is in effect "closer" to us in "time". Looking at star displacement - we have a scenario whereas the light source is behind the moon and the star is behind the sun. All of the reference frames in between these inline masses will be experiencing an escalation of gravitational force and be running faster time than before. This escalation of time in these reference frames causes the star behind the sun to appear "closer" to us.)
It doesn't appear closer, and there's nothing magic about alignments to ramp up your "coordinate time" either.
Quote
You think it impossible that the difference in extreme time ratios over space could act as a light filtration system?
You're describing an imaginary universe which would be better suited to a science fiction novel set under different physics from our universe - that could be worth exploring.
Quote
Hmmm...and the alternative, that the whole universe is being expanded, some of it faster than the speed of light by a mysterious force of "dark energy" actually "is" possible? :)
The expansion in any given place is tiny. Different parts of the universe which are far apart are moving apart at a speed faster than light, but there's no reason why they shouldn't because the speed of light is only a speed limit for things moving through the fabric of space and it does not apply to the fabric of space moving through something external.
Post by: timey on 10/06/2015 22:52:06
Well...perhaps you are right about the fan analogy that I devised as a pictorial visualisation of the mechanics of a filtration of light...it's just an analogy.
Yes, but even if you somehow allow all the light to get through so that it will show up further away were the local "coordinate time" is faster, you still have the problem that all the light can be detected in an area where the "coordinate time" is running slower - none of it goes missing and there is no fragmentation.QuoteYou are correct that such a filtration system would indeed block out the majority of the light, but miss the fact that these light sources are, in my model, much closer to us than current thinking believes. These two facts in conjunction with each other kind of cancel out your argument.
I don't see how.QuoteBecause my model is a closed system, if it wasn't for this filtration of light in space, the whole universe would be completely flooded with light.
The light is not going missing. It is not being absorbed by fans or anything else.QuoteAlso...it would be impossible for any gravitational lensing to become the "opposite" of what we observe. In my model the light is not "bending" because light has no mass and time ratios will not act in the same way as concave glass.
Then you've disproved your theory again because it doesn't fit the reality of the universe.QuoteThe light simply passes through the gravitational field of the inline body of mass faster, in reference frames of faster time which are more aligned to ours and then back into reference frames of slower time. This creating the appearance of a ring of brighter light around the body of mass.
It isn't a mere ring or brighter light - it's a distorted image of a background object with the light following curved paths.Quote(Edit: because the ratio of time between the reference frame of the inline galaxy and the observation reference frame are more aligned, the light is in effect "closer" to us in "time". Looking at star displacement - we have a scenario whereas the light source is behind the moon and the star is behind the sun. All of the reference frames in between these inline masses will be experiencing an escalation of gravitational force and be running faster time than before. This escalation of time in these reference frames causes the star behind the sun to appear "closer" to us.)
It doesn't appear closer, and there's nothing magic about alignments to ramp up your "coordinate time" either.QuoteYou think it impossible that the difference in extreme time ratios over space could act as a light filtration system?
You're describing an imaginary universe which would be better suited to a science fiction novel set under different physics from our universe - that could be worth exploring.QuoteHmmm...and the alternative, that the whole universe is being expanded, some of it faster than the speed of light by a mysterious force of "dark energy" actually "is" possible? :)
The expansion in any given place is tiny. Different parts of the universe which are far apart are moving apart at a speed faster than light, but there's no reason why they shouldn't because the speed of light is only a speed limit for things moving through the fabric of space and it does not apply to the fabric of space moving through something external.
Well clearly David, you have not disregarded my analogy of fans in space as discussed. I do not suggest that there are fans of any sort in space, and furthermore you have introduced this new phenomenon called "magic" into the equation. Funny how this word crops up at the first mention of "dark energy"..,lol.
My model is a non expanding universe that appears expanded because time and distance are linked in time. Slow moments make for long distances in time. Any escalation of these moments due to greater gravity field shortens these distances in time, to the point that these distances become small inside clumped mass and minuscule when mass is compressed in a black hole. A universe of reference frames of "uniform" time would be a sea of particles at roughly the same distance apart. When mass is clumped, time goes faster in the clumped area and slower in the areas vacated of these now clumped particles. It is "time" that is expanding space in my model. It's different, I'll admit :) , but it's a simple enough concept.
However, I'm glad that you have brought up this additional phenomenon of "magic". This "magical" phenomenon being useful to explain why it is that although time is supposed to slow and stop in a black hole, we observe stuff happening really fast around them.
Oh yes, and this "magical" dark energy that expands this "magical" invisible cloak of the fabric of an expanding space that "magically" stretches faster than the speed of light far away, but "magically" manages to only stretch a little bit close up, all the while stretching itself through this "magical", invisible and unknown quantity of "something external".
Yes, alrighty...and it is definitely a most "magical" quality that obscures the view of the quantum world behind the uncertainty principle, and relativity just "magically" disappears the possibility of measuring from anything other than an observer dependant reference frame. Not forgetting that the Big Bang just "magically" happened out of a really, really, tiny "magical" nothing.
With regards to my model, if your eyes have glazed over my dear, then well...that is fair enough, no problem. But based on all the "magical" phenomenon surrounding current theory, you "might" excuse me for exploring my idea?
P.S. My maths skills are improving :)
Post by: jeffreyH on 10/06/2015 23:31:56
Post by: timey on 11/06/2015 00:12:07
What you fail to understand is the difference in magnitude of time dilation in any two points in the 'normal' parts of the universe. They are insignificant when compared to extremal environments. There are two extremal environments. The first is near a black hole and the other is at infinity. Since we cannot be at infinity then we can observe only 1 extremal environment. Anywhere else in the universe the differences are inconsequential. I think pmbphy said it right, and I paraphrase, when he said in most of the universe gravity is absent. This is because it is far too weak to have any significant effect. You appear to have ignored this altogether.
Well... JefferyH... I think maybe I would be using the right terminology when I say that I am taking a more Newtonian view on the force of gravity, but seeing as I am completely useless at terminology, I will explain.
In my non expanding universe, whereas all distance has been achieved during Big Bang and space is just a vacation of particles clumping together. As mass clumps, the motions of the clumps bump, clump and fall into rotations of themselves and into centrifugal forces with other clumps. Progressing into what we see today. As earth is in a gravitational relationship with other planets, gas giants and then sun, the sun is in gravitational relationship with other stars, the gas giants of galaxy, all of galaxy is in relationship with galaxies black hole and galaxies are in a gravitational relationship to each other. Any shift or change in any gravitational relationship anywhere in the universe will have an effect on a gravitational relationship somewhere else in the system. Butterfly effect.
So no, I'm not ignoring areas of extremely weak or non existent gravitational field, I'm placing them at the edge of the universe.
I do not fail to understand that because clocks only tick a minuscule bit faster in elevation to earth, that consequently "normal" time dilation is inconsequential apart from within the extremes. These maths break down in the one extreme we can observe.
My model gives time dilation a much broader scope and reins in actual distance in favour of distance in time. This should give the maths I'm trying to come up with more "reach".
Post by: David Cooper on 11/06/2015 20:43:57
Well clearly David, you have not disregarded my analogy of fans in space as discussed. I do not suggest that there are fans of any sort in space, and furthermore you have introduced this new phenomenon called "magic" into the equation. Funny how this word crops up at the first mention of "dark energy"..,lol.
I said "It is not being absorbed by fans or anything else". It is not being absorbed - all the light that should be there is there and it can be detected as being there from any depth or height in a gravity well.
I also said "there's nothing magic about alignments to ramp up your "coordinate time" either", and the point was that the alignments don't make any difference to the local speed of light. If you have planet B half way between planets A and C, the gravitational effect on the speed of light at B caused by A and C will be the same as in a case where A and C are still equidistant from B but not in line.
Quote
My model is a non expanding universe that appears expanded because time and distance are linked in time.
How spread out is your universe and when did it stop expanding to switch to your model of pretending to expand while no longer doing so?
Quote
Slow moments make for long distances in time. Any escalation of these moments due to greater gravity field shortens these distances in time, to the point that these distances become small inside clumped mass and minuscule when mass is compressed in a black hole.
What use are these short moments when the actual behaviour of stuff behaves in completely the opposite way, becoming progressively more frozen still by high gravity?
Quote
A universe of reference frames of "uniform" time would be a sea of particles at roughly the same distance apart. When mass is clumped, time goes faster in the clumped area and slower in the areas vacated of these now clumped particles. It is "time" that is expanding space in my model. It's different, I'll admit :) , but it's a simple enough concept.
Quite apart from not working optically (which you'll be able to see once you've done the maths), you don't appear to have a mechanism to go on producing apparent expansion because your mechanism as described so far will be identical for a piece of space that shows no sign of expanding and for a piece of space which appears to be expanding (and for a piece of space which appears to be contracting).
Quote
However, I'm glad that you have brought up this additional phenomenon of "magic". This "magical" phenomenon being useful to explain why it is that although time is supposed to slow and stop in a black hole, we observe stuff happening really fast around them.
There is no contradiction between things happening fast and time being slowed for them - a clock held at the event horizon will not tick, but all manner of events may happen to it with particles knocking microscopic chunks out of it, all spread out over a million years.
Quote
Oh yes, and this "magical" dark energy that expands this "magical" invisible cloak of the fabric of an expanding space that "magically" stretches faster than the speed of light far away, but "magically" manages to only stretch a little bit close up, all the while stretching itself through this "magical", invisible and unknown quantity of "something external".
It works with sound waves travelling through a piece of elastic which is being stretched, so what's your problem with it?
Quote
Yes, alrighty...and it is definitely a most "magical" quality that obscures the view of the quantum world behind the uncertainty principle,
There's a partial view through into it, which is more than can be said for your "coordinte time" which no clock can measure.
Quote
and relativity just "magically" disappears the possibility of measuring from anything other than an observer dependant reference frame.
No magic required there - it's just a necessary consequence of mathematics that if you have a speed limit which governs all clocks, you can only run a clock outside of that governance by placing it outside the universe.
Quote
Not forgetting that the Big Bang just "magically" happened out of a really, really, tiny "magical" nothing.
Anyone who calls it nothing is venturing into philosophy and talking beyond their competence.
Quote
With regards to my model, if your eyes have glazed over my dear, then well...that is fair enough, no problem. But based on all the "magical" phenomenon surrounding current theory, you "might" excuse me for exploring my idea?
I have no objection to you exploring your theory, but it would be good if you could recognise the points where it doesn't work and stop pushing it as if they do work when they don't.
Quote
P.S. My maths skills are improving :)
That'll help.
Post by: timey on 12/06/2015 00:08:54
Well clearly David, you have not disregarded my analogy of fans in space as discussed. I do not suggest that there are fans of any sort in space, and furthermore you have introduced this new phenomenon called "magic" into the equation. Funny how this word crops up at the first mention of "dark energy"..,lol.
I said "It is not being absorbed by fans or anything else". It is not being absorbed - all the light that should be there is there and it can be detected as being there from any depth or height in a gravity well.
I also said "there's nothing magic about alignments to ramp up your "coordinate time" either", and the point was that the alignments don't make any difference to the local speed of light. If you have planet B half way between planets A and C, the gravitational effect on the speed of light at B caused by A and C will be the same as in a case where A and C are still equidistant from B but not in line.QuoteMy model is a non expanding universe that appears expanded because time and distance are linked in time.
How spread out is your universe and when did it stop expanding to switch to your model of pretending to expand while no longer doing so?QuoteSlow moments make for long distances in time. Any escalation of these moments due to greater gravity field shortens these distances in time, to the point that these distances become small inside clumped mass and minuscule when mass is compressed in a black hole.
What use are these short moments when the actual behaviour of stuff behaves in completely the opposite way, becoming progressively more frozen still by high gravity?QuoteA universe of reference frames of "uniform" time would be a sea of particles at roughly the same distance apart. When mass is clumped, time goes faster in the clumped area and slower in the areas vacated of these now clumped particles. It is "time" that is expanding space in my model. It's different, I'll admit :) , but it's a simple enough concept.
Quite apart from not working optically (which you'll be able to see once you've done the maths), you don't appear to have a mechanism to go on producing apparent expansion because your mechanism as described so far will be identical for a piece of space that shows no sign of expanding and for a piece of space which appears to be expanding (and for a piece of space which appears to be contracting).QuoteHowever, I'm glad that you have brought up this additional phenomenon of "magic". This "magical" phenomenon being useful to explain why it is that although time is supposed to slow and stop in a black hole, we observe stuff happening really fast around them.
There is no contradiction between things happening fast and time being slowed for them - a clock held at the event horizon will not tick, but all manner of events may happen to it with particles knocking microscopic chunks out of it, all spread out over a million years.QuoteOh yes, and this "magical" dark energy that expands this "magical" invisible cloak of the fabric of an expanding space that "magically" stretches faster than the speed of light far away, but "magically" manages to only stretch a little bit close up, all the while stretching itself through this "magical", invisible and unknown quantity of "something external".
It works with sound waves travelling through a piece of elastic which is being stretched, so what's your problem with it?QuoteYes, alrighty...and it is definitely a most "magical" quality that obscures the view of the quantum world behind the uncertainty principle,
There's a partial view through into it, which is more than can be said for your "coordinte time" which no clock can measure.Quoteand relativity just "magically" disappears the possibility of measuring from anything other than an observer dependant reference frame.
No magic required there - it's just a necessary consequence of mathematics that if you have a speed limit which governs all clocks, you can only run a clock outside of that governance by placing it outside the universe.QuoteNot forgetting that the Big Bang just "magically" happened out of a really, really, tiny "magical" nothing.
Anyone who calls it nothing is venturing into philosophy and talking beyond their competence.QuoteWith regards to my model, if your eyes have glazed over my dear, then well...that is fair enough, no problem. But based on all the "magical" phenomenon surrounding current theory, you "might" excuse me for exploring my idea?
I have no objection to you exploring your theory, but it would be good if you could recognise the points where it doesn't work and stop pushing it as if they do work when they don't.QuoteP.S. My maths skills are improving :)
That'll help.
You said:
""I said "It is not being absorbed by fans or anything else". It is not being absorbed - all the light that should be there is there and it can be detected as being there from any depth or height in a gravity well.""
I did not say any light was being absorbed. In an open system expanding universe light will just carry on going. In a closed system non expanding universe the light does not carry on going, it stays. A closed system universe will be "flooded" with light. The extreme difference in gravitationally dilated/contracted time ratios renders us unable to observe the whole picture of what we are viewing, therefore my closed system universe is not observed as flooded with light. We observe only the light source itself, this being the brightest point and furthermore we will view this point of a light source, not in its true position, but in its time distance position due to the curve of slower time frames in space.
""I also said "there's nothing magic about alignments to ramp up your "coordinate time" either", and the point was that the alignments don't make any difference to the local speed of light.""
Exactly what would you render relative to this scenario in order to check... ?
Seismic activity on earth "is" emphasised during major planetary alignments.
""How spread out is your universe and when did it stop expanding to switch to your model of pretending to expand while no longer doing so?""
I'd have to work out the gravitational force of all the mass of the universe inside a black hole, determine what the speed of light is and then plug this escalated speed of light into e=mc2 to determine the force of energy. Then explode the mass in particle form with this energy to determine distance. My model doesn't "pretend" to further expand. It does further expand, just not in distance.
""What use are these short moments when the actual behaviour of stuff behaves in completely the opposite way, becoming progressively more frozen still by high gravity?""
Pound Rebka experiment. Light has higher frequency coming into gravity field and lower frequency going out. Compressed gas particles become more active when compressed. The "fine particles" of sand become more active when compressed. Gun powder explodes when compressed. Matter that is being compressed from more than one direction gets hot. Atoms don't compress, they rearrange more efficiently under compression. Maybe they do explode under extreme compression, what are those jets observed racing away from a black hole into space?
Seems to me that compressing stuff gives it more energy not less.
""Quite apart from not working optically (which you'll be able to see once you've done the maths), you don't appear to have a mechanism to go on producing apparent expansion because your mechanism as described so far will be identical for a piece of space that shows no sign of expanding and for a piece of space which appears to be expanding (and for a piece of space which appears to be contracting).""
Actually it would only be an absence of mass in distance that would be expanding in time. The length of a moment for the particles would be contracted in accordance with the magnitude of their now collective mass.
""There is no contradiction between things happening fast and time being slowed for them - a clock held at the event horizon will not tick, but all manner of events may happen to it with particles knocking microscopic chunks out of it, all spread out over a million years.""
Of course there is a contradiction. Firstly "we" observe that mass falls into a black hole in an escalated fashion, but time is supposed to slow towards the greater gravity field. Let's say that time stops beyond the event horizon. You say a clock stops ticking but somehow events (being ripped apart) can still happen, albeit incredibly slowly. What sort of time are these events happening in? Non-existent time?
Ok, I get it from an observer travelling with the clocks reference frame. Time due to motion is slowing time down from the perspective of the observer travelling with the clock. But you say time from the perspective of the reference frame of the black hole has stopped? Please..tell me, how could anything happen there? ...and stuff is happening there independently of any observer, right?
""It works with sound waves travelling through a piece of elastic which is being stretched, so what's your problem with it?""
Ok, I can accept that sound waves "may" be analogised to gravity waves but what are you analogising the elastic to? We have evidence of gravity, where is the evidence of this elastic? The "elastic" is a supposition, not a fact and is based on suppositions, not facts, concerning redshift, whereas the elastic becomes necessary to explain observation based on our suppositions of redshift.
""There's a partial view through into it, which is more than can be said for your "coordinte time" which no clock can measure.""
Yes there is a partial view into quantum, fragmented I believe. We can't see where something is and how fast it is going at the same time. Pieces of the picture are missing.
You miss the point, we don't need a clock to tell us how fast my "coordinate time" (time dilation due to gravity field) is running. The strength of the gravity field will do that for us. Our concerns then as an observer travelling through a gravity field being time dilation due to motion and length contraction.
""No magic required there - it's just a necessary consequence of mathematics that if you have a speed limit which governs all clocks, you can only run a clock outside of that governance by placing it outside the universe.""
Why would you want to place a clock outside of that governance? If you know what the length of a moment is where you are and how these lengths of moment change over the distance that you travel, and how they change the perception of the distance that you travel...and then you work out by how much your time is slowed by your velocity and by how much the perceived length of your journey has contracted according to your velocity. These are the only aspects of an "actual" or "absolute" time that you need and you take this time back to your space time matrix as the time aspect in conjunction with your "actual distances" of three dimensional space. (In my non expanding model that is, it wouldn't work for current expanding universe theory)
""Anyone who calls it nothing is venturing into philosophy and talking beyond their competence.""
The only reason that you refer to this "nothing" as philosophy is because we haven't "got" the physics for it. The idea of a unified theory is that it has the physics to get behind the Big Bang.
""I have no objection to you exploring your theory, but it would be good if you could recognise the points where it doesn't work and stop pushing it as if they do work when they don't.""
Well really David, on the basis that current theory has glaring points whereas it does not work and that people both here and everywhere else push these theories as if they do work when they don't, and are proven not to, I think that you are being a tad unfair.
I don't believe any of my ideas are as fantastical as some proposed by current theory and I have given far more explanation of causality for my ideas than current theory affords it's suppositions.
Furthermore, I'm not pushing my idea as a theory that works, ie: is viable...what I am doing is expressing this model as a piece of logic. You never know David, different strokes for different folks, something I say may gel with someone somewhere. Lee Smolin said he wanted a new theory of time... All that is required is to look at the observed data from a different perspective.
My maths skills? Yes, indeed. In fact my journey into maths is proving more interesting and compelling by the day. :)
Post by: David Cooper on 12/06/2015 19:36:32
I did not say any light was being absorbed. In an open system expanding universe light will just carry on going. In a closed system non expanding universe the light does not carry on going, it stays. A closed system universe will be "flooded" with light.
What stops it being flooded with light then if the light isn't absorbed? Where is it going?
Quote
The extreme difference in gravitationally dilated/contracted time ratios renders us unable to observe the whole picture of what we are viewing, therefore my closed system universe is not observed as flooded with light.
But we see all the light regardless, so we're not missing any of the picture.
Imagine an experiment in which you have a light source deep in a gravity well. You have a detector over it which has a square area of X. It also has a hole in it of area X. Every photon that hits the detector is detected. You have another detector higher up which will detect every photon that goes through the hole. It registers the same number of photons hitting it, but their frequency (energy) is taken to be slightly lower (until you allow for the emitter running at a slower rate than normal due to its depth in a gravity well, at which point you can see that no energy has been lost at all). There is nothing being hidden from any of these locations - all the light is seen.
Quote
Seismic activity on earth "is" emphasised during major planetary alignments.
Have you ever heard any warnings on the news predicting earthquakes on the basis of planetary alignments? They can't even do it for the moon which puts astronomically greater forces through the Earth's crust as the planet rotates.
Quote
Pound Rebka experiment. Light has higher frequency coming into gravity field and lower frequency going out.
...which means that it is generated at different frequencies. There is no viable alternative explanation for this.
Quote
Compressed gas particles become more active when compressed. The "fine particles" of sand become more active when compressed. Gun powder explodes when compressed. Matter that is being compressed from more than one direction gets hot. ... Seems to me that compressing stuff gives it more energy not less.
Energy is being added in and that causes the heat. Leave it for a while and the heat energy is radiated away, so you have more stuff there but no extra movement.
Quote
QuoteQuite apart from not working optically (which you'll be able to see once you've done the maths), you don't appear to have a mechanism to go on producing apparent expansion because your mechanism as described so far will be identical for a piece of space that shows no sign of expanding and for a piece of space which appears to be expanding (and for a piece of space which appears to be contracting).
Actually it would only be an absence of mass in distance that would be expanding in time. The length of a moment for the particles would be contracted in accordance with the magnitude of their now collective mass.
My question was about what causes the apparent expansion in your model - you need a direct equivalent of dark energy to drive it.
Quote
QuoteThere is no contradiction between things happening fast and time being slowed for them - a clock held at the event horizon will not tick, but all manner of events may happen to it with particles knocking microscopic chunks out of it, all spread out over a million years.
Of course there is a contradiction. Firstly "we" observe that mass falls into a black hole in an escalated fashion, but time is supposed to slow towards the greater gravity field. Let's say that time stops beyond the event horizon. You say a clock stops ticking but somehow events (being ripped apart) can still happen, albeit incredibly slowly. What sort of time are these events happening in? Non-existent time?
This needs two different answers to deal with it from the perspective of different theories. In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is only an apparent slowing of time caused by gravity, so a clock that is slowed or stopped by it is only measuring an apparent time while real time races on at full speed. In Einstein's theory it may be more problematic, but that isn't my problem: any amount of events can go by for an object in as short a time as you like - the events just happen closer together in time, and for a clock suspended at the event horizon that means that an infinite number of events can pass for it in zero time (and if that sounds impossible, the get-out clause for GR is that it's impossible to suspend a clock at the event horizon).
Quote
Ok, I get it from an observer travelling with the clocks reference frame. Time due to motion is slowing time down from the perspective of the observer travelling with the clock. But you say time from the perspective of the reference frame of the black hole has stopped? Please..tell me, how could anything happen there? ...and stuff is happening there independently of any observer, right?
You ask about time due to motion slowing, so that's another case - if a space ship could travel at the speed of light, it could travel many lightyears while recording zero passage of time, and yet it could be systematically eroded away by collisions with dust. Again there are two explanations for this for LET vs. SR, and again SR has a get-out clause in that it's impossible for a space ship to reach the speed of light (while LET again has no trouble handling the impossible case).
Quote
QuoteIt works with sound waves travelling through a piece of elastic which is being stretched, so what's your problem with it?
Ok, I can accept that sound waves "may" be analogised to gravity waves but what are you analogising the elastic to?
I was comparing the sound waves to light. The speed of a wave through a fabric is limited by the fabric's ability to transmit it. If the fabric is moving, the wave will still have its speed controlled relative to the fabric, so in an expanding fabric it can be faster relative to light going in the same direction in a different part of the fabric.
Quote
We have evidence of gravity, where is the evidence of this elastic? The "elastic" is a supposition, not a fact and is based on suppositions, not facts, concerning redshift, whereas the elastic becomes necessary to explain observation based on our suppositions of redshift
The fabric of the universe isn't necessarily being stretched like elastic, but could be acquiring new "material" to enable its extension. Where that might come from is unknown and it is certainly a puzzle, but we do see an expansion, so we have to accept that there is some kind of extension going on. (Some people think they can avoid the problem by not having a fabric, but that's a mistake and it doesn't actually fix anything.) Whatever is going on though, you have to be able to account for the same evidence with your theory.
Quote
QuoteThere's a partial view through into it, which is more than can be said for your "coordinte time" which no clock can measure.
Yes there is a partial view into quantum, fragmented I believe. We can't see where something is and how fast it is going at the same time. Pieces of the picture are missing.
We're trying to see something using tools which interfere with what we're trying to see - that's all.
Quote
You miss the point, we don't need a clock to tell us how fast my "coordinate time" (time dilation due to gravity field) is running. The strength of the gravity field will do that for us. Our concerns then as an observer travelling through a gravity field being time dilation due to motion and length contraction.
If we do use a clock, it shows the opposite of what your theory suggests. Your theory merely asserts that there is a special kind of time doing the opposite of what measurable time does, and there is no useful role for this proposed, undetectable kind of "time" (other than to account for the inability to see light that goes missing even though no light goes missing).
Quote
QuoteNo magic required there - it's just a necessary consequence of mathematics that if you have a speed limit which governs all clocks, you can only run a clock outside of that governance by placing it outside the universe.
Why would you want to place a clock outside of that governance?
If you want to be able to work out how an absolute time is behaving, you can only identify it by freeing yourself of the governance of the lightspeed-restricting fabric in which you are operating. So long as you are operating within that fabric, you are unable to tell if a any clock is slowed by movement through that fabric.
Quote
If you know what the length of a moment is where you are and how these lengths of moment change over the distance that you travel, and how they change the perception of the distance that you travel...and then you work out by how much your time is slowed by your velocity and by how much the perceived length of your journey has contracted according to your velocity.
How can you work out your velocity? You can't tell if you're moving or not.
Quote
These are the only aspects of an "actual" or "absolute" time that you need...
You can't access all of them unless you can place a clock outside of the fabric and find a way to read it.
Quote
QuoteAnyone who calls it nothing is venturing into philosophy and talking beyond their competence.
The only reason that you refer to this "nothing" as philosophy is because we haven't "got" the physics for it. The idea of a unified theory is that it has the physics to get behind the Big Bang.
I call it philosophy because it is beyond the reach of science - we don't know what it is and when people assert that it is "nothing" they are bringing bad philosophy into science. A unified theory though does not need to account for every aspect of reality. (A theory of everything does though.)
Quote
QuoteI have no objection to you exploring your theory, but it would be good if you could recognise the points where it doesn't work and stop pushing it as if they do work when they don't.
Well really David, on the basis that current theory has glaring points whereas it does not work and that people both here and everywhere else push these theories as if they do work when they don't, and are proven not to, I think that you are being a tad unfair.
There are mainstream theories which have been invalidated and which should be dropped too, but the big problem with yours is that you have proposed an undetectable kind of time which has no useful role because it supposedly explains the disappearance of light which isn't going missing in the first place.
Quote
I don't believe any of my ideas are as fantastical as some proposed by current theory and I have given far more explanation of causality for my ideas than current theory affords it's suppositions.
You've given lots of incomplete explanations which keep failing to spell out what your theory is and what it does. You don't seem to be able to provide figures for anything.
Quote
Furthermore, I'm not pushing my idea as a theory that works, ie: is viable...what I am doing is expressing this model as a piece of logic. You never know David, different strokes for different folks, something I say may gel with someone somewhere. Lee Smolin said he wanted a new theory of time... All that is required is to look at the observed data from a different perspective.
If it was expressed as a thorough piece of logic, that would be great, but it's a broad wash of ideas which keeps avoiding the specifics. It is still not possible to program a model of the simplest little bit of it because you won't provide the vital information to enable that. All I'm asking to see at the moment is a demonstration of a useful role for your horribly misnamed "coordinate time" to see exactly what it does to the missing light that isn't missing.
Post by: timey on 13/06/2015 14:02:23
""What stops it being flooded with light then if the light isn't absorbed? Where is it going?""
Nowhere...we just don't see all of the "time" that the light is happening in.
""But we see all the light regardless, so we're not missing any of the picture.""
If you consider that the universe is an open system expanding universe then yes you are right. If the universe is a closed system non expanding universe then no, there is a "lot" of missing light.
""Have you ever heard any warnings on the news predicting earthquakes on the basis of planetary alignments? They can't even do it for the moon which puts astronomically greater forces through the Earth's crust as the planet rotates.""
Lol, lol, lol. The news? Bah! And yes they can regarding the moon, it's called "high tide" and "spring tide"...
""...which means that it is generated at different frequencies. There is no viable alternative explanation for this""
Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass. Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?
""Energy is being added in and that causes the heat. Leave it for a while and the heat energy is radiated away, so you have more stuff there but no extra movement.""
And the black hole adds no energy to the action of its fundamental compression abilities because it's time has stopped and all energy and information concerning it and the mass it consumes are now "lost"?
""My question was about what causes the apparent expansion in your model - you need a direct equivalent of dark energy to drive it.""
Goodness me! It is "time"... gravitationally induced time dilation/contraction that causes the appearance of an expanded universe in my model. Gravity and velocity affect both time and distance on a sliding scale and in balance with each other. Therefore the "absolute" or "actual" time of the "original Minkowski space time matrix" can be deduced by calculating both types of time dilation and their affect on each other to establish the "absolute/actual" time of the traveler or the mass involved. The parameters of the 3 distance factors, ie: the 3 dimensions of space in the "original Minkowski space time matrix" are predetermined and not withstanding any shift in gravitational relationship within the sytstem, can be considered as "constant". The fact of the variable speeds of light, whereas the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment, acts as a constraint on the system. Your rockets time factors will always mesh no matter what gravity field you travel them in, at whichever velocity.
"Time" is the cause of the further expansion in my model.
""This needs two different answers to deal with it from the perspective of different theories. In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is only an apparent slowing of time caused by gravity, so a clock that is slowed or stopped by it is only measuring an apparent time while real time races on at full speed.""
What is the causality of this "real time" ?
""You ask about time due to motion slowing, so that's another case - if a space ship could travel at the speed of light, it could travel many lightyears while recording zero passage of time, and yet it could be systematically eroded away by collisions with dust. Again there are two explanations for this for LET vs. SR, and again SR has a get-out clause in that it's impossible for a space ship to reach the speed of light (while LET again has no trouble handling the impossible case).""
How does LET handle this impossible case?
""I was comparing the sound waves to light. The speed of a wave through a fabric is limited by the fabric's ability to transmit it. If the fabric is moving, the wave will still have its speed controlled relative to the fabric, so in an expanding fabric it can be faster relative to light going in the same direction in a different part of the fabric.""
My point being: what evidence do we have of this fabric? It's all very well saying such and such would happen if there were such a fabric...in any case, just how sound waves can be analogised to light waves in that situation is beyond me.
""The fabric of the universe isn't necessarily being stretched like elastic, but could be acquiring new "material" to enable its extension. Where that might come from is unknown and it is certainly a puzzle, but we do see an expansion, so we have to accept that there is some kind of extension going on. (Some people think they can avoid the problem by not having a fabric, but that's a mistake and it doesn't actually fix anything.) Whatever is going on though, you have to be able to account for the same evidence with your theory.""
My theory states time dilation due to gravity field as responsible for the appearance of an expansion of distance, which is actually not an expansion of distance but an expansion of time. (There is no associated puzzle attached to this explanation)
""We're trying to see something using tools which interfere with what we're trying to see - that's all."
No, the maths that you are using to determine what you are seeing do not have enough "reach" to understand what it is that you are seeing.
""If we do use a clock, it shows the opposite of what your theory suggests. Your theory merely asserts that there is a special kind of time doing the opposite of what measurable time does, and there is no useful role for this proposed, undetectable kind of "time" (other than to account for the inability to see light that goes missing even though no light goes missing).""
If you do use a clock, you have an associated mass, the relationship of which relative to the main body of mass, the earth, not being taken into account in the current equations. (Please someone correct me if I'm wrong)
Yes, :D... No light goes missing! We just can't see it. We don't have the "time".
The role for gravitationally induced time dilation/contraction is that it gives an observer independent time frame to work from.
""If you want to be able to work out how an absolute time is behaving, you can only identify it by freeing yourself of the governance of the lightspeed-restricting fabric in which you are operating. So long as you are operating within that fabric, you are unable to tell if a any clock is slowed by movement through that fabric.""
Not if you have a determined gravitationally induced length of moment to work your calculations our from through your movement through reference frames of variable lengths of moment. "Time" being this "fabric" of space.
""How can you work out your velocity? You can't tell if you're moving or not.""
Of course you can tell if your moving or not. Why would you think otherwise, that's stupid. You can work out what speed you are going by taking your x miles per earth hour and adding on the same percentage of itself per reference frames across space as the percentage by which the length of a moment in those reference frames increases""
""You can't access all of them unless you can place a clock outside of the fabric and find a way to read it.""
The fabric of space that you refer to, in my model...this fabric is time and how can you place time outside of time?
Why would you consider the physics behind the Big Bang to be inaccessible to science? In my model the black hole phenomenon is responsible for both the Big Crunch (although not in the reversal format) and the Big Bang. If my inverted time dilation due to gravity field maths pan out, these maths should explain the whole scenario. It is only the "way" that you are thinking about the universe that affords you this attitude of "acceptable" unexplained-ness.
""There are mainstream theories which have been invalidated and which should be dropped too, but the big problem with yours is that you have proposed an undetectable kind of time which has no useful role because it supposedly explains the disappearance of light which isn't going missing in the first place.""
Again, goodness me! I have told you how to detect time dilation due to gravity field. From the local gravity field :D . I've told you what it's use is. To measure time and distance in time. I've told you that these differences in time ratios across distance will filter out the light that is flooding this closed system universe. The light is not missing, it's there but we don't see it. Our length of moment is too short to view all of the length of a longer moment, therefore we will not "see" everything that is going on.
I think you are becoming confused and muddling my model up with the current model. No light is going missing in the current model because everything is very far apart and still expanding in actual distance. Please note: in a closed system non expanding universe, light does not have anywhere else to go, savvy?
""You've given lots of incomplete explanations which keep failing to spell out what your theory is and what it does. You don't seem to be able to provide figures for anything.""
It is true that I have not provided figures, however my piece of logic is incredibly simple and I have given good explanation of its parameters. These parameters being absent of any concept that is not already found within our observed data. Fact is you just can't visualise the concept of a moment of shorter length not being able to fully observe a moment of longer length or that a longer length of moment will produce a longer distance in time that is not an actual distance.
""If it was expressed as a thorough piece of logic, that would be great, but it's a broad wash of ideas which keeps avoiding the specifics. It is still not possible to program a model of the simplest little bit of it because you won't provide the vital information to enable that. All I'm asking to see at the moment is a demonstration of a useful role for your horribly misnamed "coordinate time" to see exactly what it does to the missing light that isn't missing.""
Time dilation/contraction due to gravity field it is then. :)... found at every coordinate "in" my model of the universe. It's use is described above.
Again, it does not do anything to the light. A closed system universe being flooded with light is not my concept, it's been used as an argument against the universe being a closed system. In my closed system model this light is not apparent even though it's there because we cannot view the entirety of a longer length of moment from within a shorter length of moment.(Stop confusing my model with other models David, this might help no end, it would certainly save you from having to type that bit "the missing light that isn't missing" again.)
Can you give me some indication as to what you need to program "one little bit of it"?
From what I understand there are computer programs in operation designed for messing around with the parameters of mass, gravity field, time dilation and other factors found in our universe. One can simply change the settings and press "go" and it simulates what would happen.
I have "given" an existing equation, the equation that produces these progressively increasing distances as the change in the settings of these parameters with time stopped being set at 0 gravity field. I understand that you need more precise figures, ie: percentages of the speed of light. As the speed of light is variable in my model, and I have already explained this, I suspect that I'd need to create new tensor maths for my model in order to provide you with the exact figures you'd need.
""If it was expressed as a thorough piece of logic, that would be great, but it's a broad wash of ideas which keeps avoiding the specifics.""
My model of the universe is the "only" model that I have ever heard of that does "not" introduce anything that we do "not" observe into the equation or rely on any factor outside of our universe, while getting the universe behind the Big Bang and giving cause for the universes collapse. What specifics other than the maths am I avoiding please?
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/06/2015 16:08:11
It is like compressing a spring. The coils get closer together. The coordinate space in which the wave is moving has been compressed by gravitation. Hence length contraction in the direction of both motion and the field itself. This is why you need to study the mathematics. There is no shortcut to understanding.
Post by: PmbPhy on 13/06/2015 16:31:31
Quote from: timey
Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.That is incorrect. In the first place there is no reason for the gravitational field to be of any particular strength. The frequency can be different by a given amount merely by choosing the right place in the field to place it. In the second place, whether the frequency is higher or lower, always measured locally, depends on where it is relative to the observer. If its above him at higher gravitational potential then it will run faster. But if its below him it will run slower. And its the gravitational potential which determines the frequency, not the strength of the field. This is complicated stuff. The full treatment is in my website here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_red_shift.htm
Quote from: timey
Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?That is also wrong. This has nothing to do with relativistic mass. It only has to do with the frequency associated with the particle. Where did you get the idea that it had something to do with relativistic mass?
Post by: timey on 13/06/2015 20:45:07
Timey said, "Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass. Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?"
It is like compressing a spring. The coils get closer together. The coordinate space in which the wave is moving has been compressed by gravitation. Hence length contraction in the direction of both motion and the field itself. This is why you need to study the mathematics. There is no shortcut to understanding.
Hi JefferyH
My view of this compression due to gravity field appreciates that the coils of the frequency get closer together, however it does not equate this phenomenon with a longer moment, but I'm not going to "bang on" about it any further until I've considered this website posted below.
:) yes I agree, having a complete understanding of the current maths will become a great help to me in my quest. However it is actually possible to visualise percentages, ratio's and sliding scales in ones mind, but again, I do agree that any visualisation does really need to be expressed mathematically for it to be considered as a theory.
Post by: timey on 13/06/2015 21:10:57
Quote from: timeyYes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.That is incorrect. In the first place there is no reason for the gravitational field to be of any particular strength. The frequency can be different by a given amount merely by choosing the right place in the field to place it. In the second place, whether the frequency is higher or lower, always measured locally, depends on where it is relative to the observer. If its above him at higher gravitational potential then it will run faster. But if its below him it will run slower. And its the gravitational potential which determines the frequency, not the strength of the field. This is complicated stuff. The full treatment is in my website here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_red_shift.htmQuote from: timeyWithout the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?That is also wrong. This has nothing to do with relativistic mass. It only has to do with the frequency associated with the particle. Where did you get the idea that it had something to do with relativistic mass?
Ok, I'm reading the website, second time through, and I have some considerations that I need clarifying before I can answer properly. There are a lot of maths that I understand (loosely speaking) to be travelling light pulses between coordinate times and that the resulting change in frequency of this light is deemed due to gravity potential.
Could you tell me please:
What is the causality of the time as recorded by observers in S1 and S2?
What is the causality of the gravitational potential?
What is the causality of the time recorded by the far away clock?
On what basis does the C2 clock run twice as fast as the C1 clock?
Post by: David Cooper on 13/06/2015 23:45:54
QuoteWhat stops it being flooded with light then if the light isn't absorbed? Where is it going?
Nowhere...we just don't see all of the "time" that the light is happening in.
But we do see all the light, so you aren't explaining anything real. The expansion of the universe means it takes longer to reach us and when it arrives its frequency is lower, but all the light is still there. If the differences in improper time (which is a more appropriate name for your "coordinate time") were stopping us seeing the light without the expansion being real, we would see something radically different from what we actually see because your mechanism would stop us from seeing some of the light when it reaches us rather than delaying its arrival.
Quote
QuoteBut we see all the light regardless, so we're not missing any of the picture.
If you consider that the universe is an open system expanding universe then yes you are right. If the universe is a closed system non expanding universe then no, there is a "lot" of missing light.
Except it isn't missing, but would have to be delayed instead and have its frequency reduced. You clearly haven't thought through the implications of that frequency reduction, because frequency can only be seen to reduce if you have an expansion of the space the light's travelling through or if you have something delaying the transmission of that light in a way that continually increases that delay. You have not explained any mechanism in your model for that, so how does space know whether to delay the light more, less or maintain the current delay? How does it know if it is to pretend that space is expanding , contracting or staying the same?
Quote
Lol, lol, lol. The news? Bah! And yes they can regarding the moon, it's called "high tide" and "spring tide"...
There is no connection with earthquakes sufficient to warn people to get outside before they hit.
Quote
Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass. Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?
The only frequency that's higher in a stronger gravity field is your imaginary improper time which does the opposite of the proper time recorded by actual clocks.
Quote
And the black hole adds no energy to the action of its fundamental compression abilities because it's time has stopped and all energy and information concerning it and the mass it consumes are now "lost"?
All fo the energy in a black hole that things carry into it ends up as part of the mass of the black hole. The physics of what actually happens inside a black hole is unknown though - we have descriptions of what might happen there if different theories are true, but finding a problem with time in one theory does not invalidate other theories which handle time in more rational ways.
Quote
QuoteMy question was about what causes the apparent expansion in your model - you need a direct equivalent of dark energy to drive it.
Goodness me! It is "time"... gravitationally induced time dilation/contraction that causes the appearance of an expanded universe in my model.
But you have not explained how your model handles the pretence of expansion. All you've done is assert that some of the light which is seen is not seen even though it is seen. Your model has nothing in it to control the ongoing pretence of expansion to maintain that apparent expansion, so what stops it stopping? If we have two galaxies pretending to move apart while not actually doing so, what are they doing with their gravitational pull and improper time to make the space in between them decide to go on changing to pretend that there's an ongoing expansion taking place?
Quote
Gravity and velocity affect both time and distance on a sliding scale and in balance with each other. Therefore the "absolute" or "actual" time of the "original Minkowski space time matrix" can be deduced by calculating both types of time dilation and their affect on each other to establish the "absolute/actual" time of the traveler or the mass involved. The parameters of the 3 distance factors, ie: the 3 dimensions of space in the "original Minkowski space time matrix" are predetermined and not withstanding any shift in gravitational relationship within the sytstem, can be considered as "constant". The fact of the variable speeds of light, whereas the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment, acts as a constraint on the system. Your rockets time factors will always mesh no matter what gravity field you travel them in, at whichever velocity.
What the heck does all that actually mean?
Quote
"Time" is the cause of the further expansion in my model.
"Time" could equally be the cause of further contraction without changing any of the numbers (because your "time" is controlled by gravitational strength, and that's the same whether it's expanding or contracting), so how in the world is this "time" driving an expansion rather than a contraction?
Quote
QuoteThis needs two different answers to deal with it from the perspective of different theories. In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is only an apparent slowing of time caused by gravity, so a clock that is slowed or stopped by it is only measuring an apparent time while real time races on at full speed.
What is the causality of this "real time" ?
It controls the unfolding of events, with other clocks running slow in proportions to that real time dependent on their movement through the fabric of space or by the slowing of light caused by gravity.
Quote
You ask about time due to motion slowing, so that's another case - if a space ship could travel at the speed of light, it could travel many lightyears while recording zero passage of time, and yet it could be systematically eroded away by collisions with dust. Again there are two explanations for this for LET vs. SR, and again SR has a get-out clause in that it's impossible for a space ship to reach the speed of light (while LET again has no trouble handling the impossible case).
How does LET handle this impossible case?
A clock stopped completely by movement or gravity is only recording apparent time, so time is actually passing at full speed for a stopped clock which is unable to register it.
Quote
My point being: what evidence do we have of this fabric? It's all very well saying such and such would happen if there were such a fabric...
Without a fabric, you have nothing to impose a geometrical arrangement of locations on the content of the universe.
Quote
in any case, just how sound waves can be analogised to light waves in that situation is beyond me.
Any kind of wave which has its speed controlled by the medium it travels through can be used as a direct analogy.
Quote
My theory states time dilation due to gravity field as responsible for the appearance of an expansion of distance, which is actually not an expansion of distance but an expansion of time. (There is no associated puzzle attached to this explanation)
As I keep telling you, your mechanism does not even account for the difference between expansion and contraction, never mind handle any increase in the rate of expansion caused by dark energy.
Quote
QuoteWe're trying to see something using tools which interfere with what we're trying to see - that's all.
No, the maths that you are using to determine what you are seeing do not have enough "reach" to understand what it is that you are seeing.
The maths has the reach to account for what the tools do not allow us to access.
Quote
If you do use a clock, you have an associated mass, the relationship of which relative to the main body of mass, the earth, not being taken into account in the current equations.
Light moving through space is the purest clock and it has no mass. If it is running through deep space and is not slowed by gravity, it runs close to full speed. If it is running in a gravity well, it runs more slowly.
Quote
(Please someone correct me if I'm wrong)
Why would anyone try to do that when it's such an unrewarding task?
Quote
Yes, :D... No light goes missing! We just can't see it. We don't have the "time".
We see all of it. None of it is missing and none of it goes unseen. Your theory is trying to describe a universe that doesn't match up with the one we are in.
Quote
QuoteIf you want to be able to work out how an absolute time is behaving, you can only identify it by freeing yourself of the governance of the lightspeed-restricting fabric in which you are operating. So long as you are operating within that fabric, you are unable to tell if a any clock is slowed by movement through that fabric.
Not if you have a determined gravitationally induced length of moment to work your calculations our from through your movement through reference frames of variable lengths of moment. "Time" being this "fabric" of space.
If you have some weird way of working out how to measure absolute time and know that it is absolute time that you are measuring, write out the maths for it and apply for your Nobel Prize now.
Quote
QuoteHow can you work out your velocity? You can't tell if you're moving or not.
Of course you can tell if your moving or not. Why would you think otherwise, that's stupid. You can work out what speed you are going by taking your x miles per earth hour and adding on the same percentage of itself per reference frames across space as the percentage by which the length of a moment in those reference frames increases
If you're right, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can find a way to turn that paragraph into actual maths (and spell out what magic tricks you're trying to play with reference frames).
Quote
The fabric of space that you refer to, in my model...this fabric is time and how can you place time outside of time?
Which kind of time is this? Improper time? That isn't going to work - it's just an inverted version of proper time and has no useful role in anything other than for solving imaginary problems that bear no relation to the universe we see.
Quote
Why would you consider the physics behind the Big Bang to be inaccessible to science? In my model the black hole phenomenon is responsible for both the Big Crunch (although not in the reversal format) and the Big Bang. If my inverted time dilation due to gravity field maths pan out, these maths should explain the whole scenario. It is only the "way" that you are thinking about the universe that affords you this attitude of "acceptable" unexplained-ness.
If I wired all the inputs and outputs of your brain to a simulated universe such that you were only able to operate within that virtual space, you would have no access to the outside to determine how the virtual universe works. We are in the same kind of position and may never be able to see outside of the universe to get proof of how it actually works. We will come up with theories which might account for how it works, but that may be as far as we can go.
As for your model, if it doesn't distinguish between the big bang and a black hole, it's just plain wrong. Black holes sit within a space fabric. The big bang involved a singularity (or near-singularity) which included the entire space fabric.
Quote
QuoteThere are mainstream theories which have been invalidated and which should be dropped too, but the big problem with yours is that you have proposed an undetectable kind of time which has no useful role because it supposedly explains the disappearance of light which isn't going missing in the first place.
Again, goodness me! I have told you how to detect time dilation due to gravity field. From the local gravity field :D . I've told you what it's use is. To measure time and distance in time. I've told you that these differences in time ratios across distance will filter out the light that is flooding this closed system universe. The light is not missing, it's there but we don't see it. Our length of moment is too short to view all of the length of a longer moment, therefore we will not "see" everything that is going on.
And yet we do see it all - we don't miss anything due to any filtering or clocks running slow (or your imaginary improper time running slow).
Quote
I think you are becoming confused and muddling my model up with the current model. No light is going missing in the current model because everything is very far apart and still expanding in actual distance. Please note: in a closed system non expanding universe, light does not have anywhere else to go, savvy?
Which is precisely your problem - if there is no expansion and yet we are still seeing all the light arrive (which we are), then your understanding of it is woefully wrong. If there is no expansion, light isn't being filtered out, but is being held back by something which is delaying it, and delaying it more and more over time, but your mechanism doesn't account for that and merely asserts that we don't see the light because we don't have enough time to see it, even though we do. All the light still gets to us, eventually - we just have to wait longer and longer for it to arrive as the expansion (or pretence of expansion) continues to increase the delays.
Quote
It is true that I have not provided figures, however my piece of logic is incredibly simple
The correct word is "lacking".
Quote
Fact is you just can't visualise the concept of a moment of shorter length not being able to fully observe a moment of longer length or that a longer length of moment will produce a longer distance in time that is not an actual distance.
That's because if your clock is running slow, you still see everything playing out, but it all appears to happen faster and it becomes more energetic in terms of perceived frequencies. None of the action goes missing.
Quote
Time dilation/contraction due to gravity field it is then. :)... found at every coordinate "in" my model of the universe. It's use is described above.
You need to describe it in full detail with numbers and worked examples to get it across. You don't appear to be able to do that yet, and once you get to the point where you can, you'll find that it doesn't work. So, you need to get on with doing that and then get back to us. I can't afford to go on putting so much time into commenting on something that isn't even at the half-baked stage - I have other work that I should be getting on with.
Quote
Again, it does not do anything to the light. A closed system universe being flooded with light is not my concept, it's been used as an argument against the universe being a closed system. In my closed system model this light is not apparent even though it's there because we cannot view the entirety of a longer length of moment from within a shorter length of moment.(Stop confusing my model with other models David, this might help no end, it would certainly save you from having to type that bit "the missing light that isn't missing" again.)
I'm not confusing it with other models - I'm comparing it with the observed universe and pointing out that the two things don't match up.
Quote
Can you give me some indication as to what you need to program "one little bit of it"?
I want to be able to write a program like the one I described earlier in which a rocket hovers near a black hole and lowers a clock on a cable, then raises it again. I want to be able to apply your theory to this to show the proper time on the clock, and on a clock that stays in the rocket, and a clock further out which we're using as a standard coordinate time, and I want to be able to calculate your improper time for the different clocks as well. Once that's been done, I then want to explore what your improper time does for the speed of light through the system to work out what optical distortions it would impose on the action, and I'd like to see how some of the light is not seen even though it is all seen. It's all very simple stuff I'm asking for. Just show some worked examles of simple scanarios like the above with some numbers. I need to know what equasions to apply and how to apply them. All basic stuff which anyone should be able to provide in the course of describing their theory.
Quote
From what I understand there are computer programs in operation designed for messing around with the parameters of mass, gravity field, time dilation and other factors found in our universe. One can simply change the settings and press "go" and it simulates what would happen.
If you're doing something radically different with an improper time being added into it, you need to write a custom program to handle it.
Quote
I have "given" an existing equation, the equation that produces these progressively increasing distances as the change in the settings of these parameters with time stopped being set at 0 gravity field. I understand that you need more precise figures, ie: percentages of the speed of light. As the speed of light is variable in my model, and I have already explained this, I suspect that I'd need to create new tensor maths for my model in order to provide you with the exact figures you'd need.
I didn't notice you provide what I'm asking for. I'm offering to be a computer and I'm asking you to program me to simulate a little part of your model. It doesn't get any easier than that.
Quote
My model of the universe is the "only" model that I have ever heard of that does "not" introduce anything that we do "not" observe into the equation or rely on any factor outside of our universe, while getting the universe behind the Big Bang and giving cause for the universes collapse.
It introduces a description of a universe which doesn't match up with the one we live in.
Quote
What specifics other than the maths am I avoiding please?
The specifics that would enable a program to be written. Piles of words making woolly claims are not good enough - you need to spell things out with precision and nail your definitions.
Post by: timey on 14/06/2015 02:03:41
I'm sorry to say that having got half way down your reply, (the missing light again!) I find that I can't be bothered to finish it. You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive. My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.
Because of some subject matter of yours that I have read, you have my remaining undying respect. Let's just leave it at that aye!
All best, Vikki
Post by: PmbPhy on 14/06/2015 06:24:54
Quote from: timey
What is the causality of the time as recorded by observers in S1 and S2?These questions are based on common misconceptions of physics. In particular the misconception in this case is the assumption that physics can explain why things happen and as such explain the cause. However it's not the task of physics to explain what causes things to happen. It simply can't be done any other way. All we can do is observe and describe nature. We can't explain why it does what it does in general. It's only task is to describe it. That said, there are times when we can find a cause but that doesn't apply to the axioms of physics. By following the derivation you should be able to understand the cause through the description of what's happening.
What is the causality of the gravitational potential?
What is the causality of the time recorded by the far away clock?
On what basis does the C2 clock run twice as fast as the C1 clock?
For example; nobody knows why gravity can exert of force on an object. All that we know is that it does happen. In Newtonian theory the force is given by
F = GMm/r2
If a force can be expressed as the negative of the gradient of a function U(r, t) then that function is called the gravitational potential energy. The gravitational energy per unit mass is called the gravitational potential, V(r, t).
U(r, t) = mV(r, t)
You can learn more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential
Post by: PmbPhy on 14/06/2015 06:28:11
Quote from: timey
<snipped HUGE quote>Vikki - I'd like to make a request. In order to make the thread more accessible to reading would you please not quote an entire post? It takes up a ton of space and there's no reason for it.
Hi David
I'm sorry to say that having got half way down your reply, (the missing light again!) I find that I can't be bothered to finish it. You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive. My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.
Because of some subject matter of yours that I have read, you have my remaining undying respect. Let's just leave it at that aye!
All best, Vikki
Post by: timey on 14/06/2015 14:53:40
Vikki - I'd like to make a request. In order to make the thread more accessible to reading would you please not quote an entire post? It takes up a ton of space and there's no reason for it.
Yes, certainly. I've since fixed the offending post.
I'm giving my answer to your other posts more thought and will reply later.
In the mean time I'll say thanks, because although simple equations such as F=MA are understood, any explanations that illuminate the movement of mathematical concepts through functions into a word format are significantly welcome in my book...
Post by: David Cooper on 14/06/2015 18:56:16
I was trying to be constructive by helping you to see parts of your theory that don't stand up - if you take those things on board you will then be able to focus on what remains and see more clearly what needs to be done with it. There is one very specific area you should be looking at, and that's why I've asked you several times for some of the maths involving a simple situation near a black hole. If you can't work out how to apply the relevant formulae yourself, there are people here who will be able to help. If we can get to the point where ticking rates of clocks at different depths in a gravity well can be calculated, and also the ticks of the improper time at those locations, we can then start looking at what happens to light and its frequency as it travels from one of those locations to another. At that point, we will be able to investigate your idea of improper time preventing some of the light being seen, and then you might finally understand that you can't play fast and loose with frequency - that's where I wanted to take things because I think it blows apart your theory in a very straightforward way, but instead of providing the numbers or spelling out what would need to be done to calculate them, your posts exploded into wide-ranging attacks on all sorts of other issues which displayed a matching range of holes in your knowledge of physics, and when you did try to focus on the relevant points, you did so with impenetrable, woolly descriptions which no one has a hope of following due to a lack of any definition of many of the terms used (or misused). If I come across as sounding annoyed, it's because you're not prepared to home in on the crunch points which will destroy your theory.
You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive. My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.
Your model has to be able to handle an apparent expansion even if it isn't actually expanding - I was merely asking for the missing mechanisms to handle that, and you should be keen to supply them. If I didn't want to understand your theory, I wouldn't be pressing you to fill in the holes.
Post by: David Cooper on 15/06/2015 16:55:33
If you count these ticks as they leave one location and count them again when they arrive at another location, you can measure the difference in the relative rates at which clocks are running at those two locations, though that only applies if you can also travel between the two locations repeatedly and determine that they are the same distance apart throughout.
If these two locations are at different altitudes within a gravity well, the clock lower in the well is ticking at a slower rate, and any signal with a frequency of any kind being sent to it from the higher location will be perceived as having a higher frequency than it actually has.
Your imagined improper time runs faster at the lower location, but that has no impact on the frequency of any signal generated there and sent to the higher location as it is proper time that determines the frequency of that signal, and when the signal arrives at the higher location, the higher proper time there results in that signal being measured as having a lower frequency than was perceived at the lower location where it was generated.
Your improper time is running slower at the higher location, and you claim that this means less of the light (let's assume the signal is a laser beam) is seen from the higher location because there is less improper time there to see the signal with, but every single tick of the lower clock written into the light is received at the higher location, more spread out than they were when they left the lower location, and all the energy of the light which was put into generating it at the lower location is detected as arriving at the higher location - none of it goes missing and none of it goes unseen, so I can't see how your improper time has any role to play in this at all.
Post by: timey on 16/06/2015 18:29:19
Your model has to be able to handle an apparent expansion even if it isn't actually expanding - I was merely asking for the missing mechanisms to handle that, and you should be keen to supply them. If I didn't want to understand your theory, I wouldn't be pressing you to fill in the holes.
Ok, in any case I offer an apology. Each time I try and explain it helps me to understand further how I might apply mathematics to my model. Sorry for becoming frustrated.
I think it may help if I briefly tell you how I came by the idea of my model...because I have in fact thought about my idea more deeply than you might imagine.
In reading Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics" in 2010, Lee's conclusion that physics has the wrong approach to time became apparent to me long before he drew to that conclusion in the book and furthermore I thought I knew why.
Physics does not seem to regard time as being a product and a function of the universe but merely a kind of corridor that the rest of the universe passes through.
I saw time as being a force. A force that is twinned with gravity like the electromagnetic. A force that is fundamental in that without it, as nothing can happen in its absence, existence would not exist and that time is a part and parcel of the very structure of our universe.
Setting up a cause and effect chain, whereas the following phenomenon cannot happen without the previous...that goes like this - mass = gravity = time = motion = distance. Then, using Lee's considerations concerning different types of systems and their restrictions, overlaid with observed data and it's interpretation with respect to what is proven and what is supposition, while also undertaking my own self imposed rule as to not include any unobserved phenomenon, or rely on any factor placed outside of our universe, I juggled concepts and what came out of this juggling was my model.
Time is a product of gravity in my model. The gravity field determines the rate that a clock ticks at and it determines the frequency of light and atoms. (The GPS clocks tick faster because although they are located in a coordinate of a weaker gravity field, they are experiencing a greater gravity field due to the relationship of their associated mass with earth...IF ANYONE CAN TELL ME IF THIS RELATIONSHIP "IS" BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MATHS, I'd be grateful)
Motion is a product of time and distance is a product of motion. Motion slows time down. Motion contracts distance. Gravity field speeds time up. Gravity field expands distance.
Because my models expansion in "actual distance" is taken care of in the initial Big Bang, my model is "not" an expanding model and the distances that the gravity field is expanding the universe by are not an actual distance but a distance in time. *** If we travel this distance it will still feel like a distance because of the "time" it will take to travel it. ***
It will also look like a distance. It will look like a distance because when we view a slower moment from a faster moment we will not be able to see the entirety of the events of the slower moment. The events that we are looking at are the paths of light rays travelling towards us over reference frames of changing lengths of moment. We are not seeing every part of those light rays. We just see a small percentage of the light.
Furthermore, because this light is travelling through progressively slower time that is creating a geodesic curve, we do not see the light source as in its true position (Newtonian gravity((?)) but in its position in distance in time. (On the curve)...
There is only "one" kind of time going on in my model, this is time due to gravity field. Gravity is the causality of time. This time is then affected by motion and this "time dilation due to motion" needs to be calculated in relation to the "time due to gravity field" that the mass is passing in motion through...which is variable according to strength of gravity field (the gravity field being according to distance from mass and the relationship experienced by this mass in motion due to any other mass in the vicinity.)
From this calculation you can arrive at your "actual time" of journey.
(Due to the ratios of gravity field time, and time in distance, and time dilation due to motion, and that motion causing subsequent length/distance contraction... rockets flown through any strength of gravity field at any velocity should time mesh on account of the variable upper speed limits per reference frame - whereas the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment)
In my model there is no overriding time aspect, no universal time. The only universal time is "the present". All reference frames despite their variable lengths of moment operate in the "present". (this being why it is not possible to view the entirety of the events of a longer length of moment from a shorter length of moment.)
In my model all measuring of time motion and distance can be made relative to a gravity field, not relative to another observer.
I realise that this explanation does nothing to provide you with any values. I believe that the equation that produces the progressively increasing distances is relevant to the ratio by which the decreasing gravity field produces progressively longer moments...(in my model that is)
I'm sorry David, at the present this is the best I can do.
I am going to try getting into a bit of gravity potential talk with PmbPhy now. I think it relevant that I get more inside the current view of kinetic energy and its connection to motion and gravity potential.
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/06/2015 23:11:39
Post by: timey on 16/06/2015 23:40:08
Relativistic mass as I understand is kinetic energy due to motion. Relativistic energy or relativistic momentum perhaps also being relevant terminology. (Correct me, I'm learning)
Although I've got a good "visual" on the resulting physics of all this interplay I'm crap at terminology and am missing which bit of which terminology does which job.
Can you help me out?
With regards to gravity potential -
This is the negative of the force that would bring the mass in from infinity. Is this calculated as per the inverse square law proportional to distance from mass as with gravity field, or is it other considerations?
With regards to potential energy - is this purely motion related or does the gravity potential add in some way to the magnitude?
How does time getting faster in space relate to this potential energy?
How does reduction in frequency of light relate to gravity potential/potential energy?
Kinetic energy and relativistic mass in relation to motion and light - ?
Gravity potential seems also to be connected to kinetic energy.
With regards to causality. I'll rephrase my questions:
Do the clocks, far away clock, clock 1 and clock 2 have a cause for the rate of time their keeping?
In relation to the Pound Rebka experiment, my understanding is because light has relativistic mass that it has a lower frequency leaving a gravity field than when it arrives into one... You have said that this is also the case for light being pointed back at earth from space...(?) (this also being from a gravity field, I'll point out)
The gravity field affects the frequency of light due to its relativistic mass, (in my simple understanding :) ) or... if this light is not attributed this relativistic mass then my model states this effect to be due to gravitational time in an absence of mass in distance "relaxing" length of frequency and therefore length of moments into longer resolutions.
Post by: timey on 16/06/2015 23:54:07
Now you have to show evidence that remote observers see the earth spinning faster.
Well no, not at-all JeffreyH.
If the observer was within the gravitational pull of the earth then it's time will be running just a minuscule bit faster than the clocks on earth. It will observe no change in the rotation of the earth.
If the observer was far away from the gravitational reach of the earth, or any other body of mass, it would be viewing the earth's shorter length of moment from its longer length of moment. The rotation of the earth would not appear faster, it would in fact be a fragmented view if indeed we had a really, really strong telescope in the space craft with which to view this effect through.
Post by: timey on 17/06/2015 01:06:13
P.S.S :) ... And that would be "elliptic" not "ecliptic" ... (Lol, terminology really does make a difference)
Post by: timey on 17/06/2015 12:16:00
Post by: David Cooper on 17/06/2015 22:01:44
Time is a product of gravity in my model. The gravity field determines the rate that a clock ticks at and it determines the frequency of light and atoms. (The GPS clocks tick faster because although they are located in a coordinate of a weaker gravity field, they are experiencing a greater gravity field due to the relationship of their associated mass with earth...IF ANYONE CAN TELL ME IF THIS RELATIONSHIP "IS" BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MATHS, I'd be grateful)
There is a thing called proper time in SR/GR (and apparent time in LET) which relates to the ticking rates of perfect clocks. Proper time determines the frequency of light that is produced at the location of each clock, doubtless because some mechanism that generates light oscillates under the control of proper time and writes the sine waves into the light with a frequency which shows the oscillation rate and which gives the light a particular colour - these are two representations of the same proper time. You assert repeatedly that your "coordinate time" (which I have renamed improper time as it is not a coordinate time and is essentially an invertion of proper time) will determine the frequency of things like light, but that is not true - the frequency is always directly tied to proper time without any inversion. You then assert that the frequency we see isn't the real frequency, but that we're only seeing a fragmented version of events, but that cannot be true - we see every up and down of every sine wave and every tick of every clock, and we can go to count them at source if we want to, whereupon we find exactly the same number of ticks as we see when looking from another location where proper time runs at a different rate. There is no fragmentation - all the ticks are seen, and all the action is smooth.
Your theory breaks right there, so you need to find another version of the theory which doesn't contradict what we see and measure. Repeatedly claiming our view is fragmented and that something ticks faster deep in a gravity well than it looks from further out just won't hack it - we can go there and check that it isn't ticking faster than it appears to be, and when we do this we indeed find that it isn't ticking faster than it appears to be. Let's put a planet near a black hole and spin it, then we can count the number of times it spins from higher up. You assert that it spins more times than we see, but we can send someone down to it to count the rotations and then get him to come back up to tell us how many rotations he experienced from there while we watched from above, and the numbers of rotations will match up. If you want to build a valid theory, it has to stop contradicting that.
You also have a bizarre idea that the further away a clock gets from another source of gravity, the stronger the gravitational field it's in will be due to a "relationship of their associated mass with earth". The gravitational field will weaken as they move further apart, and the clock may have no mass of its own if it is the purest kind of clock, light, so it has no mass to be part of a relationship of associated mass. However, you don't need to add this complication because it contradicts another part of your own theory - you already claim that from a higher location the view of the lower location will be fragmented such that the lower clock will actually be ticking faster than the higher clock but merely looking slower, so you don't need to go through contortions trying to account for it in a different way that contradicts that. The view of the higher clock from the lower one would also have to have a different view of things from the reality, so while it's doing its extra ticks (which even a local observer can't see, but let's ignore that for the moment) that aren't seen from the higher clock, the view it has of the higher clock have to be the opposite of fragmented - it has to see more ticks from the higher clock than the higher clock actually makes!
Can you still not see the problem with this?
Quote
The events that we are looking at are the paths of light rays travelling towards us over reference frames of changing lengths of moment. We are not seeing every part of those light rays. We just see a small percentage of the light.
You also have to stop using reference frames as a mechansim - they are just frames used for analysis and only one should be used at a time.
Quote
There is only "one" kind of time going on in my model, this is time due to gravity field.
Then your model denies that there is a proper time and it cannot account for the way clocks actually tick other than by asserting that they don't tick in the way they appear to and that cycles go missing due to fragmentary views, but that contradicts reality.
Quote
In my model there is no overriding time aspect, no universal time. The only universal time is "the present". All reference frames despite their variable lengths of moment operate in the "present". (this being why it is not possible to view the entirety of the events of a longer length of moment from a shorter length of moment.)
In my model all measuring of time motion and distance can be made relative to a gravity field, not relative to another observer.
It is one heck of a mess, and I wish you could see that, because I'm sure you have other talents that you could be putting your time into. This theory is not viable. Focus on the frequency issue and the number of ticks generated at different locations. Look at how they can be counted by someone at the scene and compare that by how they are counted by someone watching from afar where proper time runs at a different rate. Think through the implications of fragmentation (and its opposite twin which you haven't even considered) where some ticks have to go missing (or be seen more than once - awkward if each tick has a number encoded into it so that any interruption to the sequence stands out clearly). You don't need more maths - you just need to think this bit through. Here's a simple thought experiment - you send someone down towards a black hole and he (you're not going to waste a woman on this in case she's sucked in) signals a series of numbers back up to you at a rate of one per second by his watch. Every two seconds, you receive a number from him, and each number is one up from the one before. You send numbers down to him as well, sending one every second by your watch and making each number one bigger than the one before. He receives two numbers from you every second and none of them are missing or repeated. Both of you are seeing the full picture with no ticks (numbers) going missing and none being repeated. There is no fragmentation (and no opposite of it either with repeated action). Your theory dies right there.
Post by: timey on 17/06/2015 22:36:18
I myself am in full understanding of the premiss of my model, having had a long history of having no problem whatsoever in taking on board all sorts of complicated concepts across the board, but again - as I did in the header post - I stress that I appreciate this does not make my model a "viable" model.
It occurs to me that while it is a logical possibility that someone who is not "qualified" may have a relevant idea in any field, logically speaking it is not possible for someone who is not qualified in that field to dismiss an idea out of hand because they do not understand it.
Post by: timey on 18/06/2015 00:07:13
The GPS clocks run a small fraction of a second faster than clocks on earth.
What specifically causes this "proper time" clock to tick one tick in one reference frame per 2 ticks in another reference frame?
Distance apart?
Gravity field?
Post by: jeffreyH on 18/06/2015 01:02:28
Post by: timey on 18/06/2015 01:46:14
Were you considering not being able to see the light of a closed system non expanding universe that is flooded with light?
These are the premiss that I am exploring with regards to not observing light that "is" there under the remit of a closed system universe.
I doubt very much these were your premiss, so what was? I'm curious!
I've been chewing my way through your Lamberts thread. Trying to establish link between electromagnetic and gravity, a most admirable and peer recognised pursuit. I'm not nearly finished yet :) it be 12 pages!!! ...but I'll get there, but I most probably won't comment, I'm not qualified to...
P.S. The variable speeds of light in my model are due to the speed of light only being constant to the ratio of a length of a moment. These variable speeds of light are not what is causing the appearance of less light, it is the ratios of progressively longer lengths of moment over distance that are not able to be seen in their entirety from a shorter length of moment that cause the light not to be seen in my model.
Post by: David Cooper on 18/06/2015 21:53:19
I really am sorry David but your interpretation of what is happening in my model is beyond me. You cannot base your interpretation of a closed system non expanding model on the same premiss as an open sytstem expanding model. It just can't be done! You keep trying to "add" my concepts to the concepts of the current model rather than replacing the concepts in the current model with the alternative I propose.
I'm basing my interpretation not on some other model, but on the evidence of the actual universe and experiments that can be done in it. The real universe doesn't display any fragmentation, but allows you to send light from a low position in a gravity well to a high position, and the reverse, and you can see that no cycles go missing - the frequency that you recieve in one location from the other gives you the full picture of how the clock is behaving at the other location and it is not hiding any ticks from them or sending any duplicates. It makes no difference whether you're dealing with an open or closed system - in this particular thought experiment there is absolutely no expansion involved.
Quote
It occurs to me that while it is a logical possibility that someone who is not "qualified" may have a relevant idea in any field, logically speaking it is not possible for someone who is not qualified in that field to dismiss an idea out of hand because they do not understand it.
I am dismissing it because it manifestly cannot handle a case which it claims it can handle. It makes claims about the passing of time at different locations in a gravity well which do not match up with the results of experiments. It claims light goes missing, but no light goes missing. No cycles go missing, and no energy goes missing, so if the theory is correct, it is not describing our universe.
The GPS clocks run a small fraction of a second faster than clocks on earth.
What specifically causes this "proper time" clock to tick one tick in one reference frame per 2 ticks in another reference frame?
Distance apart?
Gravity field?
Light travels slower in a gravity well (on a two-way trip at least [it must travel faster inwards across the event horizon of a black hole than it does outwards, because otherwise nothing could pass the event horizon at all in either direction]), and the depth in the gravity well determines how much slower it travels. I don't know the full details of this, and I don't know how much of it is merely theoretical as opposed to measured by experiment. At the centre of the Earth, for example, there will be zero gravity, but a clock there could either run at full speed as if it is in deep space or it would be slowed maximally by all the gravitational interactions with all the material surrounding it even though they cancel out from the point of view of the actual gravitational force experienced there. I don't know if any experiments have settled that question.
Post by: timey on 19/06/2015 01:54:42
Also the Pound Rebka experiment explains that light has a lower frequency leaving a gravity field than it does arriving into one. The interpretation of that experiment is "not" a closed book. Light has no apparent mass.
Secondly, any experiments in this field that include an actual clock, mechanism, or an observer... "do" include an associated mass.
Too often in these white board explanations of these maths it gets to the point that the words "insubstantial" and "inconsequential" crop up in the dismissal of terms.
Why not, instead of just repeating yourself over and over again in saying that: "It is confirmed by experiment that clocks tick faster in elevation" ...why don't you engage in discussion about whether or not the associated mass and its gravitational relationship with the earth "is" being currently accounted for in the maths, or is this relationship considered "inconsequential"? ...I have asked the question more than three times now!
Thirdly, you keep saying that there is no light missing. But you also say that you take on board the premiss of a closed system universe. So...in your interpretation of my model, where is this light that is not missing? We most certainly do not observe our universe to be flooded with light, do we?
Fourthly, you say that light slows as it comes into a gravity well. Redshift is what we see when light leaves a gravity field and blueshift when it arrives into a gravity field. Redshift is lower frequency, blueshift is higher frequency. Are you saying that a higher frequency in light is a slower speed of light?
Fifthly...you say there would be zero gravity at the centre of the earth. And in the same post you tell me that it is experimentally proven that clocks tick faster in elevation to earth because they are located in a weaker gravity field. That clocks tick faster up a mountain, because they are in a weaker gravity field. If it is "indeed" zero gravity at the centre of earth, then any radius progressively outward from the centre is going to be a progressively greater gravity field, isn't it? However, you also say the question of whether a clock would run fast or slow at the centre of the earth is debatable as to whether it is subject to gravitational interactions with the surrounding matter. I'm simply opening up the same debate with regards to gravitational interactions between clocks in elevation and the surrounding matter!
As for you dismissing my piece of logic, I can just as easily dismiss yours. (which I have once mentioned to you that I had read similar premiss for elsewhere, but you do put it all ever so nicely.)
By using a universal block time from within the universe you render the future as preordained. By adding this universal time to the universe from outside the universe you open up a whole can of worms in that you must now explain "outside" of the universe. (quoted from same book I read). Or you can employ the get out clause in saying that not everything is explainable!
However, I would not dismiss your argument out of hand even though I find the implications of either type of universal time and the concept of unexplained-ness distasteful. Who am I to say that the future is not preordained or that there is no outside of the universe, that clearly we cannot explain.
Neither would I dismiss Jerrygg's (edit: I might have muddled up user names there, I can't find Jerrygg's thread on this, might have been RTCphysics, in which case he's gone on to explain quite coherently) dot gravity mesh or whatever. I can't really see it myself, but my eyes are not the be all and end all. I'd have to state that although I get the premiss, that I don't fully understand the application or observational aspects and my dismissing something out of hand on that premiss would be like me dismissing JefferyH's argument on Lambert thread because I don't fully understand mathematical symbols.
In fact I would really have to consider myself exceptionally well qualified in a field before I'd out rightly dismiss anything at-all, and if that field were physics in particular, based on the historical fact that a large proportion of what have proved very relevant physics ideas have been dismissed out of hand initially, I'd be exercising caution in the art of "dismissing" full stop.
David, I really do not understand why it is you are so stuck on the notion that my time would be better spent in some other pursuit. What would you have me do, self flagellate with an episode of Eastenders while fetching a bun out of the oven? Come on... :) ... I think it much better to be "thinking" in any terms at-all tbh. No one so far has found the exact right terms to be thinking in to explain the whole of the universe, and at this stage after so little movement for all these years comparative to the years before, one really would have to have a proper stroke of luck for their thinking to be the right thinking. I'll just carry on thinking for thinking's sake, because I enjoy thinking, if that's ok...
Post by: timey on 19/06/2015 14:45:15
I just have to figure out how to express this in mathematical terms. :D
Post by: David Cooper on 19/06/2015 19:29:34
Firstly David, it would not be possible to send one photon light experiments over the kind of distances that I'm suggesting would cause "severe" fragmentation of "observation" (observation not "reality" you do realise )
Your theory should apply to all situations, such as sending light from one altitude in a gravity well to another - you rely on fragmentation for the lower clock to appear to be running slower while you claim time there is running faster than it is at the higher clock. You now speak of fragmentation of observation and contrast that with fragmentation of reality, but in the real universe we have neither.
Quote
Also the Pound Rebka experiment explains that light has a lower frequency leaving a gravity field than it does arriving into one. The interpretation of that experiment is "not" a closed book. Light has no apparent mass.
It doesn't matter what mass is there or not there - the light carries a frequency that reveals to you the ticking rate of a clock where that light was generated.
Quote
Secondly, any experiments in this field that include an actual clock, mechanism, or an observer... "do" include an associated mass.
Light can be used as a clock and it has no mass. If you extend the length of a light clock and reflect the light between two mirrors, you can increase the length of the clock without changing the mass of the mirrors and any other equipment required to keep them in position and correct alignment (e.g. two space probes sending radio signals back and forth between each other). Because the mass of the material at either end of the clock is tiny, it has no detectable effect on slowing the light, but any imagined extra effect that your theory places on it is disproved as soon as you move the two ends further apart and have the light spend more of its time further away from the material at the ends of the light clock.
Quote
Too often in these white board explanations of these maths it gets to the point that the words "insubstantial" and "inconsequential" crop up in the dismissal of terms.
They are used because some effects are so small that they can't be detected. If your theory was predicting an effect so small that it can't be detected, that would give you room to maneuvre, but the effects you are predicting are huge.
Quote
Why not, instead of just repeating yourself over and over again in saying that: "It is confirmed by experiment that clocks tick faster in elevation" ...why don't you engage in discussion about whether or not the associated mass and its gravitational relationship with the earth "is" being currently accounted for in the maths, or is this relationship considered "inconsequential"? ...I have asked the question more than three times now!
I have given you the answer a dozen times but you aren't prepared to accept it. How can you have an association of masses between a perfect light clock which is just light itself and something elsewhere with mass? Even if you make a clock out of lead though, it will still have such a tiny mass that it will not slow itself in any measurable way through its own gravitational effect on the local speed of light unless you make it the size of a large asteroid.
Quote
Thirdly, you keep saying that there is no light missing. But you also say that you take on board the premiss of a closed system universe. So...in your interpretation of my model, where is this light that is not missing? We most certainly do not observe our universe to be flooded with light, do we?
I've shown you that no light goes missing in the case of light being sent between two locations at different heights in a gravity well. No light goes missing between two galaxies either (other than through absorbtion when light hits dust and the like). What happens if the space between the galaxies is expanding is that it delays the light and stretches it out, so the light takes longer and longer to get to the other galaxy and it lowers in frequency in a manner like the Doppler effect. If you want to build a theory on the idea that there is no expansion, there's no point in claiming any of the light is missing, because an alien civilisation could send out beeps with time stamps on them which would all arrive in sequence without any of them going missing, so what your theory needs to do instead is explain how the light is delayed, and how it is increasingly delayed over time as the other galaxy appears to get further and further away while actually staying still. Your theory doesn't do that, but merely asserts that light is going missing in a manner that is incompatible with the reality of the universe we live in.
Quote
Fourthly, you say that light slows as it comes into a gravity well.
On a round trip it is slower at lower altitude, but it may go faster and faster on the way in - it is impossible to measure what it does in a single direction.
Quote
Redshift is what we see when light leaves a gravity field and blueshift when it arrives into a gravity field. Redshift is lower frequency, blueshift is higher frequency. Are you saying that a higher frequency in light is a slower speed of light?
The speed of light and the frequency are not related. If light enters glass and is slowed down by it, you will still have the same number of waves passing any given point in a set time period. The only way you can change the frequency is by stretching or compressing the light by expanding or contracting the space it is travelling through. The effect of gravity on light frequency is not a change of actual frequency, but of perceived frequency, and that variation in perceived frequency is caused by differences in the time period used to count the waves going past - if your clock is running slower, you will count more waves going by and will think the frequency is higher than it really is. I don't know how you can think you have any kind of scientific theory when you don't have a grasp of these basics. Please load them into your head and use them to help you analyse and disprove your own theory.
Quote
Fifthly...you say there would be zero gravity at the centre of the earth. And in the same post you tell me that it is experimentally proven that clocks tick faster in elevation to earth because they are located in a weaker gravity field.
In elevation above the Earth, gravity reduces and so does the distance to the matter which is generating that gravity, so the two effects are changing in the same direction and cannot easily be separated out. If you go down into the Earth though, the gravity that you feel may go up for a while as the density increases, but it will eventually go down again and fall to zero at the centre, but at the centre there may be the highest gravitational interaction going on, even though it all cancels out in terms of gravitational force, and that highest gravitational interaction at the centre may result in the highest reduction in the speed of light and thereby the proper time at that location.
Quote
That clocks tick faster up a mountain, because they are in a weaker gravity field. If it is "indeed" zero gravity at the centre of earth, then any radius progressively outward from the centre is going to be a progressively greater gravity field, isn't it?
While you are still inside the Earth, the force of gravity that you can feel at any location will be higher as you move away from the centre (except where density differences cause that to reverse because you have moved out of a dense region into a much less dense one, this being similar to moving out of the Earth and into its less dense atmosphere - I add this for sake of precision, though I realise that it will open up a minefield of new potential misunderstandings for you). The gravity felt is going up then as you move away from the centre, but the amount of gravitational interaction is decreasing. How can the gravity felt go up while the amount of gravitational interaction goes down? Well, it's because less of it is cancelling out. At the centre, all of it cancels out because there is an equal pull from all directions, but it is at the centre where the gravitational interactions are most intense. If you can get your head round that, you will be making progress.
Quote
However, you also say the question of whether a clock would run fast or slow at the centre of the earth is debatable as to whether it is subject to gravitational interactions with the surrounding matter. I'm simply opening up the same debate with regards to gravitational interactions between clocks in elevation and the surrounding matter!
No you're not - you are applying things in situations above the Earth where the gravity felt falls with increasing altitude roughly in line with the fall in gravitational interactions because there are no longer any significant components of gravitational pull cancelling each other out. All you have are tiny amounts of mass (even a mountain is a tiny amount of mass) which have an infinitesimal effect on the local speed of light.
Quote
As for you dismissing my piece of logic, I can just as easily dismiss yours. (which I have once mentioned to you that I had read similar premiss for elsewhere, but you do put it all ever so nicely.)
It's easy to dismiss anything. The real trick is to do so on logical grounds though and not just claim to have done so if you haven't. You have clearly put a lot of time into building up a theory which has been built upon a missing foundation. Parts of your theory flatly contradict reality. Parts of your theory also contradict each other.
Quote
By using a universal block time from within the universe you render the future as preordained. By adding this universal time to the universe from outside the universe you open up a whole can of worms in that you must now explain "outside" of the universe. (quoted from same book I read). Or you can employ the get out clause in saying that not everything is explainable!
If you are going to generate the future from the past in a coordinated way, there is a limited range of options as to how to go about it. Some of them fail due to event-meshing failure issues and are thereby invalidated. If the universe cannot be explained entirely by looking at all the things which can be seen from inside the universe, then there must be something outside of it which would complete the picture if it could be seen. It is not necessary to see everything to explain the universe though - it is possible to explain things through theories which speculate about external mechanisms, and a range of possible theories might result, all explaining the universe in different, viable ways (even if only one of them is correct). There is a big difference between not being able to explain something and not being able to see it to verify it.
Quote
However, I would not dismiss your argument out of hand even though I find the implications of either type of universal time and the concept of unexplained-ness distasteful. Who am I to say that the future is not preordained or that there is no outside of the universe, that clearly we cannot explain.
What is distasteful about an absolute time when it is logically required to avoid event-meshing failure?
Quote
Neither would I dismiss Jerrygg's (edit: I might have muddled up user names there, I can't find Jerrygg's thread on this, might have been RTCphysics, in which case he's gone on to explain quite coherently) dot gravity mesh or whatever. I can't really see it myself, but my eyes are not the be all and end all. I'd have to state that although I get the premiss, that I don't fully understand the application or observational aspects and my dismissing something out of hand on that premiss would be like me dismissing JefferyH's argument on Lambert thread because I don't fully understand mathematical symbols.
The problem is that you are denying me the right to dismiss a theory that contradicts reality on the basis that you don't dismiss theories which don't contradict reality - there is a major difference between the two, because the former kind of theory has been invalidated.
Quote
In fact I would really have to consider myself exceptionally well qualified in a field before I'd out rightly dismiss anything at-all, and if that field were physics in particular, based on the historical fact that a large proportion of what have proved very relevant physics ideas have been dismissed out of hand initially, I'd be exercising caution in the art of "dismissing" full stop.
Correct ideas can be dismissed by people without being invalidated, and then they can be shown later on to be correct. However, if a theory has been invalidated because it contradicts reality, the theory is dead. It may be possible to come up with a similar theory which doesn't contradict reality, but that's a new theory. Your current one claims that light goes missing in a way which contradicts reality.
Quote
David, I really do not understand why it is you are so stuck on the notion that my time would be better spent in some other pursuit.
Life is short, and it isn't pleasant watching someone put so much effort into something that is horribly wrong, but which has also tied your thinking up in knots. You have shackled yourself to beliefs which are plain wrong - they contradict the results of experiments. It's as if we're standing by a clock and watching the second hand go round once, and at the end of that minute you claim that the hand actually went round twice, or one and a half times, even though we both saw it go round precisely once. You will be thinking at this point that that's an outrageous claim, but if you are watching from a higher altitude in a gravity well such that our clocks are ticking at different rates, and if you and I are both looking the clock that I'm standing next to, I'm seeing the second hand go round once, you're seeing it go round once as well, and you're then telling me that it must have gone round more than once for me because improper time is faster where I am than where you are.
It's frankly bonkers!
Quote
What would you have me do, self flagellate with an episode of Eastenders while fetching a bun out of the oven? Come on... :) ... I think it much better to be "thinking" in any terms at-all tbh. No one so far has found the exact right terms to be thinking in to explain the whole of the universe, and at this stage after so little movement for all these years comparative to the years before, one really would have to have a proper stroke of luck for their thinking to be the right thinking. I'll just carry on thinking for thinking's sake, because I enjoy thinking, if that's ok...
Thinking is fine, and thinking out of the box is great, but what you're doing is pushing a disproven theory as a viable one long after the flaws have been shown to you. You're simply denying the points where your theory is shown to be wrong and you're wallowing in the muddle - drowning in it even. What are you gaining while you are trapped in this state of denial? You don't want to disprove your theory, but want reality to conform to it instead, but the universe doesn't play ball - it sticks with the way it already works and it's your job to stop your theory conflicting with it.
You know... if I could translate the universe into a sound engineering desk, whereas the universe is the sound I'm looking for and mass and distance were my products, with gravity, time and motion being effects units, I could "mix" the universe at any given coordinate and create the observations that we observe.
I just have to figure out how to express this in mathematical terms. :D
That's great, but you need to chuck fragmentation in the bin. What you need to do is account not for light going missing, but for light being delayed, and for it being delayed more and more over time.
Post by: jeffreyH on 20/06/2015 01:30:04
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2015 03:30:34
The 'missing' light is due to the radial spread of photons moving away from a source. If you start at the centre of a circle and draw two lines that start moving away at a very small angle to each other they will quickly separate. As the distance from the source increases so does the radial separation. Hence 'missing' light that fails to flood the universe. This is pretty basic stuff. You need to consider the physics.
Obviously the light is spreading out. I refer you back to the earlier thought experiment with a square sensor with a square hole in it and as much light going through the hole as hits the surrounding sensor while the light that goes through the hole then hits a larger sensor further on. Both sensors record the same amount of light hitting them, so the light that went through the hole all made it to the second sensor.
Now put this in a gravity well with the source lowest. You get the same result, but with the frequency being recorded as lower at the second sensor than at the first, though when you adjust proper time you find again that not only has no light gone missing, but no energy has gone missing either. The theory being discussed in this thread breaks on that point.
If we consider the galaxy to galaxy example with expansion or apparent expansion of the space between them, again the theory under discussion does not have light going missing by spreading out further - it has less ability to spread out if it doesn't have any expansion, but in any case the proposed mechanism of the theory involves manipulating time such that there isn't enough time to see all the light if you're looking from a place out of a gravity well, but if you go low into a gravity well you will then be able to more of the light because you have more time to see it in.
If you want to add further muddle to this instead of trying to fix it, I'll get out of this altogether and leave you to it.
Post by: timey on 20/06/2015 14:35:02
The 'missing' light is due to the radial spread of photons moving away from a source. If you start at the centre of a circle and draw two lines that start moving away at a very small angle to each other they will quickly separate. As the distance from the source increases so does the radial separation. Hence 'missing' light that fails to flood the universe. This is pretty basic stuff. You need to consider the physics.
Hi JefferryH, yes, you are describing the inverse square law proportional to distance.
A closed system universe being flooded with light because the light is trapped in the universe is "not" my concept. I read it in a book written by a physicist.
Post by: timey on 20/06/2015 14:37:46
My theory does apply to "all" situations. More than the current theory does.
Again you have some "huge" misconceptions. I do not rely on fragmentation to determine the length of a moment. The two have no bearing upon the mechanics of each other. Light also has no bearing on the mechanics of a length of a moment in my model, the length of the moment that is the product of the "gravity field" has an effect on the frequency of light, not the other way round.
I am not saying that a clock that is proven to run faster runs slower or a clock that is proven to run slower runs faster. I am just proposing an alternative reason behind the mechanics of these observations of clocks running slower or faster with regards to our interpretation of the mechanics of a weaker or stronger gravity field in relation to the associated mass of the clock.
Yes...light can be used as a clock and it has no mass, but any experiment you set up with light has associated mass. Any mass in the gravitational vicinity of greater mass will be running a minuscule amount faster time than the greater mass. Light without mirrors, gadgets and so on, according to Pound Rebka has higher frequency coming into a gravity field than when leaving. In my model this higher frequency is related to a shorter length of moment, because gravity is compressing the length of everything.
The maths for GPS equate a very small escalation in the rate of time, hardly noticeable really.
There is also a gravitational relationship of the associated mass of the GPS clocks with the earth. This associated mass is very small, is it hardly worth mathematically bothering with???
It is not the size of the associated mass but its relationship with the mass of the earth. That is the question, and you haven't answered it.
For the last time, no light goes missing David. In our solar system we will not see fragmentation of the observation of the sun, well there would but it would be akin to a Lorentz contraction when travelling at 60 mph. :). The sun is the main body of mass in our system and its gravity field is the dominating factor with regards to the production of time in our solar system. Earths time is dominated by its gravitational relationship with the sun in relation to its own mass and its time will run fractionally faster than time does for the sun.
With regards to the rest of the universe that we can only see when our sun is on other side planet, this is flooded with light that we cannot see, not because the light is fragmented, not because it is missing, but because we cannot view the entirety of those progressively longer moments in space from our shorter length of moment.
If you set up any light clock experiment you have associated mass and create a gravity field in its own right (no matter how slight this is) which may or may not be in a relationship with other body/bodies of mass, dependant on the distance that you place your experiment away from any other mass.
I am saying that the frequency of light can be stretched or contracted by the length of moment it is travelling through and that these lengths of moments expand in space. It's not hard!
I'm also saying that the change in frequency is very "real", but it's the distance that is "perceived", because it is a "distance in time" that the light is travelling.
If there can be a debate concerning if a clock placed in the centre of the earth will tick faster or slower dependent on if it is gravitationally interacting with its surrounding matter, then the same debate is more than valid concerning a clock placed in elevation above the earth "if" that clock is still within the gravitational pull of the earth. End of story.
You are the one who is harbouring misconceptions about my model and then holding these misconceptions up as proof that my model doesn't work. And , furthermore you are spouting current thinking at me as if I have misconceptions about current thinking, and then you take this proved to be inadequate way of thinking and tell me that I'm wrong because this is right. While I'm saying hey something's wrong with all that thinking, mine might not be right but would you care to discuss it.
But you are right, it is extremely tedious to try to tell someone where they are misconceiving something you've said. I'm not misconceiving current thinking David, I'm looking at alternatives. You are misconceiving the entire premiss of my model. This is clearly obvious. Light has no bearing on the lengths of a moment in my model, it just has to travel through them, that's all.
I don't think I'm going to be posting here anymore in any case. I'm concentrating on my maths from now on.
All the best to you.
Post by: David Cooper on 20/06/2015 23:45:57
My theory does apply to "all" situations. More than the current theory does.
Then prove it fits a simple case, such as the one near a black hole where two rockets hover at different altitudes over it and their clocks tick at different rates relative to each other. Go through that and explain how your theory accounts for the higher clock ticking twice as many times as the lower clock during the time when the rockets are there.
Quote
Again you have some "huge" misconceptions.
It seems that whenever I try to fit your theory to actual examples of specific situations, I'm getting it all wrong. Well, why don't you do the work for me and provide a detailed worked example of a simple case.
Quote
I do not rely on fragmentation to determine the length of a moment.
I never said you do, but you rely on fragmentation for a faster running time to be seen as slower running than it really is.
Quote
Light also has no bearing on the mechanics of a length of a moment in my model, the length of the moment that is the product of the "gravity field" has an effect on the frequency of light, not the other way round.
Given that light is the mechanism of a light clock, light is completely tied up in the length of a moment.
Quote
I am just proposing an alternative reason behind the mechanics of these observations of clocks running slower or faster with regards to our interpretation of the mechanics of a weaker or stronger gravity field in relation to the associated mass of the clock.
And I'm just showing you that it doesn't work, and why it doesn't work, but you don't appear to want to know. Take the case I outlined at the top of this post. The proper time at the lower location is running at half the rate of the proper time at the higher location. When I talk about "proper time" I am using a name from SR, but it doesn't matter what you or I think of SR, there is a real thing which is being described by "proper time" and that is the rate at which clocks actually tick, so we're dealing with reality and not theory. The two rockets could be hovering in place for a year, and you could take a third rocket up and down between them to look at how proper time is running at those two locations and to see how much has gone by since your last visit to each rocket, thereby demonstrating that the lower one really is ticking at half the rate of the higher one. Now, you have a kind of time which you call "coordinate time", and that's horribly confusing because you've taken a term from a mainstream theory and misused it, which is why I've renamed it improper time. I do that not to insult it or you, but to indicate that it is some kind of inversion of proper time, and to allow me to use the term "coordinate time" to refer to what is normally called coordinate time. In SR/GR, coordinate time is the time of a specific frame of reference used for analysis of all events. In the scenario I'm describing, the coordinate time may be ticking twice as fast as the clock in the higher of the two rockets hovering over the black hole, and it can be measured by a clock hovering much higher over the black hole.
So, what is improper time doing at these locations? Is it matching proper time at each of them, or is it running fastest at the lowest and slowest of the highest as your theory appears to say? If you aren't prepared to give a straight answer to anything else, please try to give on to this.
You say that time races in a black hole and is slower in deep space, which ties in with improper time being an inversion of proper time (up to a point - it isn't clear why improper time wouldn't stop almost altogether in deep space). However, you also have a mechanism which contradicts that by allowing a clock to tick faster at higher altitude by some sort of weird association between its own mass and the mass of the planet it's further away from such that the gravitational effect on it is somehow stronger. This is bizarre, because the mass of the clock can vary enormously without any measurable effect on the rate of its ticking, thereby blowing away any imagined effect caused by the interaction of its mass with the mass of the planet. In the purest case of a clock, you have nothing more than light and no mass at all to be in an association with the mass of the planet below, and that again blows your mechanism out of the water. If you extend the principle that the further a clock is rasied above the planet the faster it will tick because of the strengthening of the association with its mass with the ever-more distant mass of the planet, then by the time you've put the clock in deep space, the association of masses will be ever higher the deeper into deep space it gets, so the clock will tick fastest in the deepest part of deep space, and yet you say it will slow down there.
So, please sort out your story and get rid of all the contradictions from it, then show me a clear description of the events in the scenario I've set out for you and explain how improper time operates there and how it runs relative to the three proper times of the three clocks (one of which is being used for a coordinate time). If you are incapable of doing this, they you clearly can't get your head around your own theory.
Quote
Yes...light can be used as a clock and it has no mass, but any experiment you set up with light has associated mass. Any mass in the gravitational vicinity of greater mass will be running a minuscule amount faster time than the greater mass.
And any lengthening of a light clock while not increasing the mass will demonstrate that there is no measurable impact of the mass on the timings produced. Two bits of glitter are all it takes to build a path for a round trip of light, and the light path could be a millimetre long or a mile long. The gravitational effect on the light half way between the two bits of glitter on a course a mile long is effectively zero, and it's effectively zero on the 1mm path too, so we're talking about an effect which has no impact on any timings made even if you measure for a billion years.
Quote
Light without mirrors, gadgets and so on, according to Pound Rebka has higher frequency coming into a gravity field than when leaving. In my model this higher frequency is related to a shorter length of moment, because gravity is compressing the length of everything.
So, apply that to the scenario with the rockets hovering over the black hole. You send light up from the lowest rocket to the next one and it's perceived as having half the frequency when it reaches that rocket as the people on the lower rocket perceived it to be when it was generated. When light is sent in the opposite direction, the opposite happens with the light being perceived as having twice the frequency when it arrives at the lower rocket than it was perceived as having by the people in the higher rocket when it was generated. The frequency is directly related to the rate at which time is running where the light was generated, so it is clear that proper time is running twice as fast at the higher rocket as it is at the lower rocket.
You talk about a shorter length of a moment and gravity compressing the length, but what kind of length? Time length? Is this just a description of proper time running more slowly deeper in a gravity well? If so, then that's fine, but why not just call it proper time and say it's running at a slower rate? But then, proper time stops in a black hole and runs fastest in deep space, which is the opposite of what you want. That's why I want you do go through the scenario at the top and spell out how your theory fits to it and how your moments are shorter or longer at the different locations.
Quote
The maths for GPS equate a very small escalation in the rate of time, hardly noticeable really.
That's because we aren't in a particularly deep gravity well, so we have to work with small differences, but they fit well with the mainstream theories.
Quote
There is also a gravitational relationship of the associated mass of the GPS clocks with the earth. This associated mass is very small, is it hardly worth mathematically bothering with???
Yes - it's way too small to measure any effect from it.
Quote
It is not the size of the associated mass but its relationship with the mass of the earth. That is the question, and you haven't answered it.
I have answered it repeatedly, but you aren't interested in the answer - the effect is infinitesimally small and not measurable. There is also no magic association with it and the mass of the Earth - the mass of the Earth is the only mass you need to consider and its impact is smaller the further away the clock is from it.
Quote
For the last time, no light goes missing David.
That depends on what you mean by missing. If it is there (passing us) but we cannot see it, that's what I'm reffering to as it going missing - not that it's still somewhere else and therefore we can't see it. My point is that it isn't going missing in any way that stops us seeing it - we see it all.
Quote
In our solar system we will not see fragmentation of the observation of the sun, well there would but it would be akin to a Lorentz contraction when travelling at 60 mph. :). The sun is the main body of mass in our system and its gravity field is the dominating factor with regards to the production of time in our solar system. Earths time is dominated by its gravitational relationship with the sun in relation to its own mass and its time will run fractionally faster than time does for the sun.
That is why I keep pushing a scenario at you involving a black hole so that we have a deeper gravity well to discuss and much greater timing differences. In principle it's the same as using the sun or the Earth, but with nice big differences in timings such as double and half. That gives you something to tie your ideas about fragmentation to, but you won't do it. I try to do it for you, and you don't want to know. Stop running away from the implications of your theory and do the work to try to test it to destruction rather than going on fooling yourself that it works.
Quote
With regards to the rest of the universe that we can only see when our sun is on other side planet, this is flooded with light that we cannot see, not because the light is fragmented, not because it is missing, but because we cannot view the entirety of those progressively longer moments in space from our shorter length of moment.
What are you trying to do there? During an eclipse of the sun we can see space beyond the other side of the sun. We can see most of it after nightfall and before dawn too without waiting for an eclipse and there is no difference in the sky there than there is in the opposite direction from the sun.
However, if I assume that you're actually trying to say the whole sky is flooded with light that we can't see (which is what I use the word "missing" to describe), then you are not describing reality. We see the light coming from our own star without any of it going missing, so why should the light from other stars go missing? This is another case where you need to spell out what the lengths of moments are in different locations and how those enable all the light to be seen from one location while hardly any of it can be seen from another location at the same altitude in or out of a gravity well. As soon as you take this basic step, you should see that your mechanism doesn't work at all.
Quote
If you set up any light clock experiment you have associated mass and create a gravity field in its own right (no matter how slight this is) which may or may not be in a relationship with other body/bodies of mass, dependant on the distance that you place your experiment away from any other mass.
This idea of associated masses is a fantasy. There is a huge mass and a tiny mass, and all the measurable effect is caused by the huge mass while the tiny mass can be varied by many magnitudes (and recuced to zero) without having any impact on the timings. Why do you want to keep pushing this dead idea? Varying the clock mass can have no measurable effect (meaning that a clock weighing 1 gram would probably keep exact time with a clock weighing a ton for a billion years), so how can you imagine it can serve as a mechanism for anything useful in a theory that's trying to account for huge effects?
Quote
I am saying that the frequency of light can be stretched or contracted by the length of moment it is travelling through and that these lengths of moments expand in space. It's not hard!
And it's not hard to see that this doesn't fit the facts. If you had taken on board what I've told you about frequency, you would understand that you can only change it by delaying the light and delaying it more and more over time (despite the lack of change to the space it's passing through if there's no expansion), while all the light that arrives is fully available for us to see, but you refuse to load that into your head and continue to repeat the same error instead.
Quote
I'm also saying that the change in frequency is very "real", but it's the distance that is "perceived", because it is a "distance in time" that the light is travelling.
Your theory actually needs to deal with a delay in light reaching us, and an increasing delay as the other galaxies appear to get further away, which means that delayed light is piling up in space and we aren't seeing it not because of anything time's doing where we are, but because the light hasn't reached us yet.
Quote
If there can be a debate concerning if a clock placed in the centre of the earth will tick faster or slower dependent on if it is gravitationally interacting with its surrounding matter, then the same debate is more than valid concerning a clock placed in elevation above the earth "if" that clock is still within the gravitational pull of the earth. End of story.
Not that rubbish again! There's a question in my mind as to whether a clock would run slow or at full speed at the centre of the Earth, but the answer is probably already known by others - I just haven't seen the relevant experiments that settle the matter. I was hoping someone reading this might know and supply the answer, but no one sane will still be reading all this. I get the impression though that it has been determined that a clock at the centre of the Earth would run slow, and it's clear that GR says it will. I'd just like to see experimental verification of this before I label it as a fact, but that doesn't mean it isn't already an established fact. However, that question has very little relevance to a situation where you're dealing with a clock at different heights above the Earth's surface where both gravitational pull and gravitational interactions decrease with greater altitude. If you want a higher clock to run slower than a lower one at some point, that isn't going to happen - space probes have tested it over and over again, and right out to the edge and near to the centre of the solar system.
Quote
You are the one who is harbouring misconceptions about my model and then holding these misconceptions up as proof that my model doesn't work. And , furthermore you are spouting current thinking at me as if I have misconceptions about current thinking, and then you take this proved to be inadequate way of thinking and tell me that I'm wrong because this is right. While I'm saying hey something's wrong with all that thinking, mine might not be right but would you care to discuss it.
Discussing it is fine, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out where your theory conflicts with the established facts (not theory). If you aren't prepared to take it on board when your theory contradicts the results of experiments (or even contradicts itself), then the discussion is rendered futile from the outset because it's just an exercise in wishful thinking with you failing to make an honest attempt to test your theory to destruction.
Quote
But you are right, it is extremely tedious to try to tell someone where they are misconceiving something you've said. I'm not misconceiving current thinking David, I'm looking at alternatives. You are misconceiving the entire premiss of my model. This is clearly obvious. Light has no bearing on the lengths of a moment in my model, it just has to travel through them, that's all.
What is tedious is trying to show people something they are determined not to see. The horse has been taken to the water. It's now up to the horse to decide how thirsty it is.
Quote
I don't think I'm going to be posting here anymore in any case. I'm concentrating on my maths from now on.
I think you need to work on the logic before you worry about the maths.
Post by: timey on 21/06/2015 02:09:58
Take the net mass of the universe and its gravity field if it were all in one body and set this maximum gravity field at 0 distance.
Then, taking the equation that progressively increases distances (that are based on acceleration I do believe) increase these distances from 0 distance (centre of mass = highest gravity field) till you reach 0 gravity field. (Probably not necessary to go all the way to 0 gravity field :D )
At each increase of distance mark off the radius and calculate the gravity field at that radius.
Using the mass/gravity field of earth as a means for determining the length of an earth moment, now take the gravity field of earth and mark your gravity field/distance in time graph at earths gravity field with earths length of moment.
Now you can, at each mark of distance in time on your gravity field/distance in time chart, increase or decrease the length of the earths moment by the same ratio as the distances have progressively increased or decreased in either direction on the chart.
You now have a chart of measurement to refer to.
Now place your rockets "stationary" at your choice of 2 radius of black hole.
Work out what the gravity field is at these radius and then refer to your chart for what rate time is running at these radius.
These rates of time in the location of those radius will only be relevant to massless light because remember that your rockets have mass. This mass is gravitationally interacting with the mass of the black hole. Your rockets time will be running a bit faster than the black holes time.
...but your rockets will not be stationary. The black hole is pulling them in really fast. Their experience of their own time will be considerably slowed by their motion. But it will still feel to them as if they are moving fast because of the subsequent length contraction of their journey caused by their motion.
No, I do not rely on fragmentation for a faster rate of time to be seen as a slower rate of time than it really is.
Remember that it is the gravity field that is causing the rate of time. It is the visual aspect of not being able to view the entirety of the events of a much longer moment from a much shorter moment or visa versa that will appear as though the observation is "missing frames" or fragmented. Please remember that in my model the universe is considerably closer together than current thinking.
You said:
""Given that light is the mechanism of a light clock, light is completely tied up in the length of a moment.""
Yes... My logic states that the length of a moment has an effect on the frequency and the speed of light. You are putting it as though the speed or frequency of light has an effect on the length of a moment.
Ok, you have now told me that the relationship between the associated mass of the clock in relation to the mass of the earth is not taken into consideration in the maths because it is inconsequential. The time differences recorded are also inconsequential, except when operating over periods of time for precision calculations. Isn't it "odd" that another "inconsequential" sum of a relationship should then be ignored?
You speak of proper time but fail to tell me what is causing it and how to determine what rate it is running at in any given location, other than relative to another observer.
My time dilation/contraction due to gravity field can be determined anywhere in the universe by knowing the gravity field.
You fail to appreciate that there is a ratio/scale balance between time, distance and motion in my model. Time goes up, distance goes down, motion goes up, time goes down, time goes down, distance goes up, motion goes up, distance goes down.
Yes I do include that time stops in a 0 gravity field. Synonymous with "nothing happening" there. Current thinking has time going really fast where nothing happens and stopping inside one of the most energetic phenomena of our universe, a black hole. Really?
If the "current thinking" didn't have contradictions, holes in it and need its story sorting out, I wouldn't be here talking to you. That's called logic! You are most unfairly making a contradiction of terms, especially as "you" are yet to fully grasp "my" story.
You say that frequency is due to a delaying of light but fail to realise that a slower moment would delay light in the same way a slow train might delay you to work. Or (now really take this on board) ...in the same way an expanding space might delay light.
(You) say that space is expanded by fabric.
I say it's expanded by time.
If you can load that into "your head" you will understand my logic. However, I again stress that this does not mean that my thinking is the right thinking, but don't tell me it's not logic. It is!
Post by: David Cooper on 22/06/2015 00:19:47
Set the longest moment in time, ie: time stopped at 0 gravity field.
Take the net mass of the universe and its gravity field if it were all in one body and set this maximum gravity field at 0 distance.
Then, taking the equation that progressively increases distances (that are based on acceleration I do believe) increase these distances from 0 distance (centre of mass = highest gravity field) till you reach 0 gravity field. (Probably not necessary to go all the way to 0 gravity field :D )
I have no idea what any of that means. That's why I'm asking for a very specific analysis of the black hole and hovering rockets scenario to help clarify things.
Quote
At each increase of distance mark off the radius and calculate the gravity field at that radius.
Using the mass/gravity field of earth as a means for determining the length of an earth moment, now take the gravity field of earth and mark your gravity field/distance in time graph at earths gravity field with earths length of moment.
Now you can, at each mark of distance in time on your gravity field/distance in time chart, increase or decrease the length of the earths moment by the same ratio as the distances have progressively increased or decreased in either direction on the chart.
You now have a chart of measurement to refer to.
I don't have a chart, because I can't make out what you're on about from that description.
Quote
Now place your rockets "stationary" at your choice of 2 radius of black hole.
Work out what the gravity field is at these radius and then refer to your chart for what rate time is running at these radius.
I have set up a situation where two rockets (A and B) are hovering over a black hole with the clocks on the higher one running twice as fast as the clocks on the lower one. I've put a third one (C) much further out, perhaps in deep space so that it doesn't need to use any energy to hover at all but will just sit there, and its clocks are running twice as fast again. What I want you to do is give me some kind of indication as to what imporper time is doing at these locations, and I don't need exact numbers from you. Rocket C's clock is recording time at a rate which we can call 1. Rocket B's clock is recording time at a rate which we can call 0.5, and rocket C's clock is 0.25. The black hole's proper time is doing 0. These numbers are the number of ticks we will get at those locations relative to our coordinate time (which we take from rocket C's clock). What I want you to do is give me approximate values for improper time at those locations compared to the coordinate time. If this requires you to know the weight of the rockets, you can consider each one to weigh ten tons, and the black hole can weigh 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. You can change those weights to any values you prefer - I just wanted to give you a feel for the kind of numbers involved. Here's an example of the kind of information that I would like you to supply, shown as a table:-
C B A black hole
Proper time 1 0.5 0.25 0
Improper time 0.5 0.25 0.5 1000
Those are wild guesses on my part, but I want to see your wild guesses. I want to see where they increase and decrease in size. It's the direction of change I'm most interested in and not the actual values themselves, although it would be really helpful to get some idea of the scale of the differences in the rates of improper time at these different locations too.
Quote
These rates of time in the location of those radius will only be relevant to massless light because remember that your rockets have mass. This mass is gravitationally interacting with the mass of the black hole. Your rockets time will be running a bit faster than the black holes time.
That means that you are using this imagined interaction to speed up the clocks the further away they are from the black hole, to the point that all your values should match up with proper time, the clock in deep space being imagined to have the strongest gravitational interaction with the distant black hole. Now, if we could get that established we would be making progress. Let me just assume for the moment that we have established that then. If we vary the mass of the rockets, do the rates of improper time then vary at the rockets. Proper time at the rockets will be changed by the mass differences, but to such a small degree that you wouldn't be able to measure it in perhaps a billion years with their mass being multiplied by ten. If we reduce their mass to zero, again there would be no measurable difference to proper time. Light itself it a clock with no mass, so there are lots of locations similar to those of the rockets where these clocks are ticking without the presence of any mass, and they share the same proper time as the clocks in the rockets at the same distances from the black hole.
Now, here's a crucial point which I want you to consider very carefully. There is a lot of dust in space, and that dust has mass, so if you imagine that the speed of light is different in light clocks in the rockets where there is mass and the speed of light away from the rockets where there is no mass, then that will cause optical effects wherever there is dust, every tiny particle acting as a lens and scrambling the paths of light that goes past them. This would destroy our view of the stars by scattering light all over the place and giving us nothing to see in the night sky apart from a blurry moon and sun. If you try to avoid this by having a large difference in the rate clocks tick at based on differences in the tiny local mass such that a bit of dust has no recognisable effect even on light travelling many lightyears, then you will have a huge effect on improper time depending on mass differences made to the rockets, in which case they cannot stay in sync with proper time. We have done experiments that show that proper time is not affected by local mass differences (the rocket mass) in any way that can be measured, so improper time will wander away from proper time and contradict it, in which case improper
time will lose its connection to the local speed of light and to any kind of normal clock. The only kind of clock which would keep imporper time would be one built to do so deliberately by applying your rules to generate values which don't relate to anything other than your rules.
Quote
...but your rockets will not be stationary. The black hole is pulling them in really fast. Their experience of their own time will be considerably slowed by their motion. But it will still feel to them as if they are moving fast because of the subsequent length contraction of their journey caused by their motion.
They are hovering and are therefore stationary throughout, as is the black hole.
Quote
No, I do not rely on fragmentation for a faster rate of time to be seen as a slower rate of time than it really is.
Remember that it is the gravity field that is causing the rate of time. It is the visual aspect of not being able to view the entirety of the events of a much longer moment from a much shorter moment or visa versa that will appear as though the observation is "missing frames" or fragmented. Please remember that in my model the universe is considerably closer together than current thinking.
There is no fragmentation, so it doesn't matter what it supposedly does. Not a single wave or tick or event of any kind goes unseen, and all the energy is accounted for.
Quote
You said:
""Given that light is the mechanism of a light clock, light is completely tied up in the length of a moment.""
Yes... My logic states that the length of a moment has an effect on the frequency and the speed of light. You are putting it as though the speed or frequency of light has an effect on the length of a moment.
Light is a clock. Its frequency is its ticks.
Quote
Ok, you have now told me that the relationship between the associated mass of the clock in relation to the mass of the earth is not taken into consideration in the maths because it is inconsequential. The time differences recorded are also inconsequential, except when operating over periods of time for precision calculations. Isn't it "odd" that another "inconsequential" sum of a relationship should then be ignored?
There's nothing odd about it. You can include it in your calculations if you want and you will get the same answers because the difference will be so tiny that it isn't worth bothering going to the trouble of allowing for it. You are fully free to add it into all your calculations if you wish - it is fully correct to do so but will make no jot of difference.
Quote
You speak of proper time but fail to tell me what is causing it and how to determine what rate it is running at in any given location, other than relative to another observer.
Proper time is directly caused by the local speed of light (and speed of travel if travel is involved, and length contraction in the direction of travel). There may be length contraction involved when there is a lot of mass present (or a curving of spacetime to fit more space into the same apparent amount of space).
Quote
My time dilation/contraction due to gravity field can be determined anywhere in the universe by knowing the gravity field.
You fail to appreciate that there is a ratio/scale balance between time, distance and motion in my model. Time goes up, distance goes down, motion goes up, time goes down, time goes down, distance goes up, motion goes up, distance goes down.
Yes I do include that time stops in a 0 gravity field. Synonymous with "nothing happening" there. Current thinking has time going really fast where nothing happens and stopping inside one of the most energetic phenomena of our universe, a black hole. Really?
Something extremely fast happens in deep space - light travels through it at maximum speed. In a black hole, proper time slows down because light slows down (on a round trip, and it can't even make a round trip once it is inside the event horizon). That slow speed of light on a round trip doesn't mean it is low in both directions - it may be extremely high inwards, and matter may get close to matching its speed too on the way down as it approaches the centre of the black hole, and the speed of light all the way in may be just as high as the speed of light in deep space. That proper time stops in a black hole only refers to a stationary clock that is not falling inwards.
Quote
If the "current thinking" didn't have contradictions, holes in it and need its story sorting out, I wouldn't be here talking to you. That's called logic! You are most unfairly making a contradiction of terms, especially as "you" are yet to fully grasp "my" story.
I haven't grasped your entire theory yet, but the parts which you have managed to get across so far have revealed things that are wrong and do not work. If you think those things do work, you need to look at the reasons I give for saying they don't work and show me that my reasons are wrong.
Quote
You say that frequency is due to a delaying of light but fail to realise that a slower moment would delay light in the same way a slow train might delay you to work. Or (now really take this on board) ...in the same way an expanding space might delay light.
(You) say that space is expanded by fabric.
I say it's expanded by time.
If you stand ten metres away from a friend and make a clicking sound once a second, your friend will hear a click once a second. If you want it to appear as if you are moving away from your friend while you both stay still (with no expansion of the space between you) and you are going to go on making one click per second, you need to do something to the space between you to cause the clicks to be delayed, and each click must be delayed more than the one before it. This means you need an extraordinary property of that space that the speed of sound (or light - we could do the same thing with flashes of a torch) will reduce continually, for as long as the apparent expansion is to continue, which may be forever. As you stand there clicking (or flashing) the clicks (or flashes) in the air ahead of you begin to pile together closer and closer, moving slower and slower, closer and closer, slower and slower, forever. Without a mechanism to control that, your theory does not explain anything about the apparent expansion of the universe at all.
Quote
If you can load that into "your head" you will understand my logic. However, I again stress that this does not mean that my thinking is the right thinking, but don't tell me it's not logic. It is!
It's an attempt at logic - I'll give it that, but it's woeful.
Post by: timey on 22/06/2015 17:39:39
I've got a better one...
Just imagine your rockets are now the GPS satellites and use the GR field equations (although I think there possibly exists a far less convoluted method to same result) to determine the rates that your rockets/satellites time's are running at in their locations of different distances from earth... then you won't have to make a wild guess. This will be an accurate reading of your "rockets" time's for both your proper time and my time dilation/contraction due to gravity field!!!
Both will give you the SAME result. *** just for different reasons***
The only difference in this situation between your proper time and my time dilation/contraction due to gravity field is that light is not gravitationally affected and its experience of time "is" synonymous with the weaker gravity field it is travelling through. It's frequency is stretched over slower time and contracted over faster time. (it takes the light "longer" to travel the distance over slower time, this being true within both "the longer distance in time" and the "shorter actual distance")
Because we observe light to take on a lower frequency leaving a gravity field and a higher frequency arriving into a gravity field, my logic states that the rate of time is running slower in a weaker gravity field and that clocks running a minuscule bit faster in elevation to a main body of mass are doing so because of the force of the greater body of mass's gravitational interaction with the elevated mass - the earth is pulling on this elevated mass - causing the gravity field experienced by the clock to be of itself "plus" the body of mass that is the earth.
So therefore, the GR field equations that you have equated to determine your proper time will be "proportionally" correct for my model in an earth bound scenario.
However, to transpose this scenario to a black hole, the GR field equations will be inefficient. (In any case they are inefficient.) . GR states, because it is observed that clocks tick faster in elevation, that a greater/stronger gravity field slows time down.
So...(and this is a wild guess on my part David), maybe it might be possible to take the mass of a black hole in relation to the mass of the earth and work out the percentage of by how much the black holes mass is greater than the earth. Place the GPS satellites for the black hole at the same distance away as in the earth scenario , and scale "up" the maths by the same percentage as the mass of the black hole is greater, therefore arriving at the time's your rockets are experiencing in relation to their respective radius of the black hole.
Ok, you say "your" proper time is caused by the speed of light. (It is more complicated than this, shame PmbPhy didn't get back on that one)
"My" models speed and frequency of light is caused by the length of a moment. It is the "gravity field" that is causing the "length" of the moment. The time it takes to travel a longer moment produces a "distance". A "distance in time", that light is stretched across.
Your speed of light is stretched over a fabric of expanding space caused by a dark energy that we have no clue what it is, what is causing it, and therefore of how the mechanics of it work.
You talk about these hypothetical situations of rockets and light in scenarios of black hole interaction. These discussions are completely pointless and in fact distract from the black holes actual activities. Light cannot make a round trip back from a black hole, best guess is that everything gets ripped apart in a black hole and from the observation of black holes jets and how they happen immediately after large bodies of mass fall in, I'd say this "ripping apart" happens incredibly quickly.
For goodness sake. If you are standing ten metres away from your friend, your rate of time and your friends rate of time will be the "same" rate of time. If you and your friend remain within the gravitational pull of earth, your rates of time will only vary if one of you goes upwards. If your friend goes upwards his rate of time will increase. It will increase with distance up to a certain point and then it will start to decrease. If you send a beam of light upwards, the rate of time it experiences will just decrease. (unless it travels into a greater gravity field again)
Slower and slower is further and further apart, (travelling longer lengths of moment takes a longer time and is a "distance in time". The frequency of light is decreased by a longer length of moment because it is being stretched, however the speed of light remains constant over this "longer distance in time", but is rendered variable over the "shorter actual distance")
Why would slower be closer and closer together? You say because the photons would be bunched up together, (as in a higher frequency of light, but we observe the opposite.) The time increase experienced by clocks in elevation is minuscule in comparison to the the inverse square law decreasing a gravity field proportional to distance, but this minuscule increase in the rate of time that should be proportionally even more minuscule in deep space is stretching the frequency of light into the redshift we observe? No it's not...in between a mixture of potential kinetic energy and relativistic momentum your proper time is further mathematically influenced (on my study list) and then, because of our observations of redshift, this then is where "your" dark energy steps in! Your fabric of expanding space, that is expanding the universes actual distance.
My model does not expand in actual distance. The fabric of expanding space is "distance in time". To travel this distance as a moving rocket, it will take you a journey time that you will relate into velocity per time factor. But the velocity (not naturally occurring as with massless light) will become escalated relative to a slower/longer length of moment and the time it takes you to cover both distance in time and actual distance will also be escalated, not only because of the longer length of moments travelled through, but because the escalating velocity is also slowing the rockets own perception of its own time down. (I could re-explain the way that the variable speeds of light over the "actual distance" act as a constraint as to how fast one may travel through "distance in time", but let's not complicate matters for now)
I, in return find your "comprehension" of my logic to be "woeful" ...tbh... but as I'm the one explaining said logic, I take full responsibility. :D
You could try lightening up a bit though... It really would make for a much more pleasant discussion!
Post by: David Cooper on 23/06/2015 01:05:42
David...Lol... :)
I've got a better one...
Just imagine your rockets are now the GPS satellites and use the GR field equations (although I think there possibly exists a far less convoluted method to same result) to determine the rates that your rockets/satellites time's are running at in their locations of different distances from earth... then you won't have to make a wild guess. This will be an accurate reading of your "rockets" time's for both your proper time and my time dilation/contraction due to gravity field!!!
Both will give you the SAME result. *** just for different reasons***
That's good to hear - it means you've ditched your exaggerated role of the mass of the clock, so improper time will match proper time and run at maximum speed in deep space and slowest when the clock is stationary at any point to the inside of the event horizon of a black hole. That is progress.
Quote
The only difference in this situation between your proper time and my time dilation/contraction due to gravity field is that light is not gravitationally affected and its experience of time "is" synonymous with the weaker gravity field it is travelling through.
So it's not affected by gravity, but it's affected by gravity. Right, I get it.
Quote
It's frequency is stretched over slower time and contracted over faster time. (it takes the light "longer" to travel the distance over slower time, this being true within both "the longer distance in time" and the "shorter actual distance")
You can stretch it and contract it all you like, but the frequency isn't going to change unless you add or remove a constantly-changing delay. The only thing that will change is the perceived frequency due to the different speed of light and the effect that has on local proper time.
Quote
Because we observe light to take on a lower frequency leaving a gravity field and a higher frequency arriving into a gravity field, my logic states that the rate of time is running slower in a weaker gravity field...
But the frequency doesn't change (it's impossible for it to do so), and proper time runs faster in the weaker gravity field. If improper time matches up with proper time, the the same must apply to your theory.
Quote
...and that clocks running a minuscule bit faster in elevation to a main body of mass are doing so because of the force of the greater body of mass's gravitational interaction with the elevated mass - the earth is pulling on this elevated mass - causing the gravity field experienced by the clock to be of itself "plus" the body of mass that is the earth.
How can you possibly run that through your head without it flagging up an error? If the Earth is further away, the gravitational pull is reduced. The mass of the clock remains the same, so the combined gravitational effect is lower. What sort of bonkers maths are you doing here to come to the opposite conclusion? Do you somehow imagine that because the mass of the clock is now bigger in relation to the gravitational effect of the Earth that this leads to a greater gravitational effect on the clock? If so, you should be able to have the same impact by increasing the mass of the clock, but if you change the mass of the clock from one gram to one ton, you won't be able to measure any difference in its tick rate, whereas if you move the clock further away from the Earth to reduce the gravitational pull to the same extent, you'll have no trouble detecting a difference in tick rate.
Quote
So therefore, the GR field equations that you have equated to determine your proper time will be "proportionally" correct for my model in an earth bound scenario.
Not once you add in your complication of this weird association between the mass of the clock and the Earth, because that breaks it.
Quote
However, to transpose this scenario to a black hole, the GR field equations will be inefficient. (In any case they are inefficient.) . GR states, because it is observed that clocks tick faster in elevation, that a greater/stronger gravity field slows time down.
Inefficient? If you have easier ways of working out the same numbers, you've found something of value.
Quote
So...(and this is a wild guess on my part David), maybe it might be possible to take the mass of a black hole in relation to the mass of the earth and work out the percentage of by how much the black holes mass is greater than the earth. Place the GPS satellites for the black hole at the same distance away as in the earth scenario , and scale "up" the maths by the same percentage as the mass of the black hole is greater, therefore arriving at the time's your rockets are experiencing in relation to their respective radius of the black hole.
I wouldn't worry about the mass of the Earth - the black hole is capable of slowing proper time to half or a quarter of its normal rate for the rockets, so it doesn't matter whether it's a hovering rocket or a hovering Earth that we're using near the black hole as the mass of the Earth in such a situation is so trivial that it can be ignored.
Quote
Ok, you say "your" proper time is caused by the speed of light. (It is more complicated than this, shame PmbPhy didn't get back on that one)
It's tied to the speed of light on a round trip, and going with the movement of whatever it is that's serving as a clock.
Quote
"My" models speed and frequency of light is caused by the length of a moment. It is the "gravity field" that is causing the "length" of the moment. The time it takes to travel a longer moment produces a "distance". A "distance in time", that light is stretched across.
It's all very well saying that, but without diagrams and numbers I find it impossible to decode that.
Quote
Your speed of light is stretched over a fabric of expanding space caused by a dark energy that we have no clue what it is, what is causing it, and therefore of how the mechanics of it work.
While your model has to create a pretence of the same expansion in a manner for which your model has no mechanism at all.
Quote
You talk about these hypothetical situations of rockets and light in scenarios of black hole interaction. These discussions are completely pointless and in fact distract from the black holes actual activities. Light cannot make a round trip back from a black hole, best guess is that everything gets ripped apart in a black hole and from the observation of black holes jets and how they happen immediately after large bodies of mass fall in, I'd say this "ripping apart" happens incredibly quickly.
I'm using the black hole in exactly the same way as a planet, so your objection is irrelevant. All the rockets are far above the event horizon.
Quote
For goodness sake. If you are standing ten metres away from your friend, your rate of time and your friends rate of time will be the "same" rate of time. If you and your friend remain within the gravitational pull of earth, your rates of time will only vary if one of you goes upwards. If your friend goes upwards his rate of time will increase. It will increase with distance up to a certain point and then it will start to decrease. If you send a beam of light upwards, the rate of time it experiences will just decrease. (unless it travels into a greater gravity field again)
For goodness sake! You are representing a galaxy. Your friend is representing another galaxy millions of lightyears away from you. You say there is no expansion, so they are not moving apart in your model. You flash at your friend once a second and your friend recieves one flash every two seconds. None of the flashes pass your friend without being seen. What must happen is that the flashes pile up in the space between you with their travel being slowed more and more over time, and I mean by that that each flash passing any given point between you and your friend will pass through that point slower than the flash before it did. That is what your model would need to do, but it provides no mechanism for doing this.
Quote
Slower and slower is further and further apart, (travelling longer lengths of moment takes a longer time and is a "distance in time". The frequency of light is decreased by a longer length of moment because it is being stretched, however the speed of light remains constant over this "longer distance in time", but is rendered variable over the "shorter actual distance")
As I said, you have no mechanism to control this progressive slowing, so you will have to add a direct equivalent of dark energy to your model to provide the missing functionality.
Quote
Why would slower be closer and closer together? You say because the photons would be bunched up together, (as in a higher frequency of light, but we observe the opposite.)
You can't observe how bunched up the waves of a photon are - all you can do is count how many of them pass a point in a given length of time to work out the frequency.
Quote
The time increase experienced by clocks in elevation is minuscule in comparison to the the inverse square law decreasing a gravity field proportional to distance, but this minuscule increase in the rate of time that should be proportionally even more minuscule in deep space is stretching the frequency of light into the redshift we observe? No it's not...
What makes you think gravity is controlling the expansion of space? If you blow something up with a small bomb, the fragments will fly apart at speed. If you blow something apart with a big bomb, the fragments will fly apart with greater speed. The gravitational pull of all the fragments on each other will slow the flying apart of the fragments a little, but it is not driving the expansion in the distances between the fragments - momentum of the fragments is the driver.
There is a difference with the universe though in that the fabric of space is being expanded by the separating of the fragments rather than the fragments merely moving through it, so it isn't an exact parallel, but the point is that gravity has a tiny influence on the expansion, most of which is driven by the movement of the fragments away from each other. If you think of it in terms of our three space dimensions being wrapped up into the 2D surface of a balloon, the balloon is expanding explosively and is causing the galaxies to fly apart. That momentum of the galaxies outwards (not in any direction that exists within the universe) or some mathematical equivalent (for the balloon is only an analogy) is driving the expansion, while gravity is very weakly applying the brakes and dark energy is pumping more air into the balloon to accelerate the expansion.
Quote
My model does not expand in actual distance. The fabric of expanding space is "distance in time". To travel this distance as a moving rocket, it will take you a journey time that you will relate into velocity per time factor. But the velocity (not naturally occurring as with massless light) will become escalated relative to a slower/shorter length of moment and the time it takes you to cover both distance in time and actual distance will also be escalated, not only because of the longer length of moments travelled through, but because the escalating velocity is also slowing the rockets own perception of its own time down. (I could re-explain the way that the variable speeds of light over the "actual distance" act as a constraint as to how fast one may travel through "distance in time", but let's not complicate matters for now)
Every time you go into an explanation of that kind you express the ideas in an incomprehensible way and leave me to decide whether to spend an hour trying to process it, or to reject it on the basis that it's too impenetrable. I simply don't have an hour free for each paragraph of that kind. That is why I like to see specific examples of things with actual numbers attached to them, and then I can see whether something is sensible or a pile of pants. I can't tell which category this bit belongs to.
Quote
I, in return find your "comprehension" of my logic to be "woeful" ...tbh... but as I'm the one explaining said logic, I take full responsibility. :D
You could try lightening up a bit though... It really would make for a much more pleasant discussion!
When I show you that you've got something wrong and you continue to push it even though it doesn't work, that's pretty wearing. You doubtless feel the same way when you keep failing to recognise that the thing you're pushing has been shot to pieces, so all you can do is put it forward again and again. However, everything you need to understand why your model doesn't work is already here in this thread and some day you might catch up.
Post by: timey on 23/06/2015 12:29:37
You said:
"That's good to hear - it means you've ditched your exaggerated role of the mass of the clock, so improper time will match proper time and run at maximum speed in deep space and slowest when the clock is stationary at any point to the inside of the event horizon of a black hole. That is progress."
I'm beginning to understand that actually you are incapable of reading without drawing your own assumptions. The assumption that you display above having NO bearing on what I wrote. I think there is a section in the rules that mentions intentional misrepresentation David. You disappoint me.
You said:
"So it's not affected by gravity, but it's affected by gravity. Right, I get it."
Chain of command, cause and effect... Gravity causes time... Gravity does not "cause" light. Light does not "cause" time. But gravity does cause time and time "affects" light. No you clearly don't get anything.
You said:
"You can stretch it and contract it all you like, but the frequency isn't going to change unless you add or remove a constantly-changing delay. The only thing that will change is the perceived frequency due to the different speed of light and the effect that has on local proper time."
What causes your speed of light?
You said:
"But the frequency doesn't change (it's impossible for it to do so), and proper time runs faster in the weaker gravity field. If improper time matches up with proper time, the the same must apply to your theory."
The frequency of light does change as it leaves a gravity field, it gets lower. Pound Rebka.
My time dilation/contraction due to gravity field only matches up with current thinkings proper time (with regards to mass in elevation) in the earth bound scenario, which you would know if you could actually "read" information given.
You have downright ridiculed my opening up the question of if a clock in elevation feels the gravitational field of the earth in addition to its own. It's almost as if you believe that physics is in possession of a fully described theory of gravity. We don't have a fully described theory of gravity. Therefore it is "allowed" to look at alternatives. Looking at alternatives does not incorporate taking those alternatives and saying. "That's wrong because current thinking isn't like that". That is not a discussion about alternatives, that is you arguing for the theory that "you" believe in.
You said:
"I wouldn't worry about the mass of the Earth - the black hole is capable of slowing proper time to half or a quarter of its normal rate for the rockets, so it doesn't matter whether it's a hovering rocket or a hovering Earth that we're using near the black hole as the mass of the Earth in such a situation is so trivial that it can be ignored."
Firstly, you state that proper time will be slowed to half or a quarter of its normal rate. Can you provide experimental proof of this please?
Secondly, whatever mass you place at a radius of black hole, can you provide experimental proof that it does not feel the gravity field of the black hole please?
No you can't!!! All you can provide is a set of mathematical equations that state this notion, but only when you "swap" terms in the space time matrix.
You said:
"While your model has to create a pretence of the same expansion in a manner for which your model has no mechanism at all."
My model is expanded by distance in time. Janet and John books being downloaded for your immediate attention as we speak, (chuckle). It truly amazes me that someone who can write so well, cannot seem to read.
I said:
"Quote
My model does not expand in actual distance. The fabric of expanding space is "distance in time". To travel this distance as a moving rocket, it will take you a journey time that you will relate into velocity per time factor. But the velocity (not naturally occurring as with massless light) will become escalated relative to a slower/shorter length of moment and the time it takes you to cover both distance in time and actual distance will also be escalated, not only because of the longer length of moments travelled through, but because the escalating velocity is also slowing the rockets own perception of its own time down. (I could re-explain the way that the variable speeds of light over the "actual distance" act as a constraint as to how fast one may travel through "distance in time", but let's not complicate matters for now)"
You replied:
"Every time you go into an explanation of that kind you express the ideas in an incomprehensible way and leave me to decide whether to spend an hour trying to process it, or to reject it on the basis that it's too impenetrable. I simply don't have an hour free for each paragraph of that kind. That is why I like to see specific examples of things with actual numbers attached to them, and then I can see whether something is sensible or a pile of pants. I can't tell which category this bit belongs to."
What makes you think that because "you" can't comprehend something that it "is" a pile of pants?
On a phycological basis you are being incredibly disparaging about my notions that you clearly are not in full understanding of and are being fairly rude in your disdain, yet you argue a theory that doesn't time mesh your rockets unless you add a universal time, while refusing to acknowledge the implications of adding a universal time to the universe from both within or from outside of the universe.
I at least "understand" that my whole theory is hinged upon there being an alternative reason for clocks ticking faster in elevation to a greater body of mass.
You don't seem to even acknowledge the implications that your logic imposes on the universe.
You said:
"When I show you that you've got something wrong and you continue to push it even though it doesn't work, that's pretty wearing. You doubtless feel the same way when you keep failing to recognise that the thing you're pushing has been shot to pieces, so all you can do is put it forward again and again. However, everything you need to understand why your model doesn't work is already here in this thread and some day you might catch up."
Firstly, you have not shown me that I've got something wrong. What you've shown me is that "you" have a pretty good basic idea of how current thing goes, although you seem to fail to appreciate where this current thinking is shot to pieces and push it regardless. You've shown me, in your responses, that you have not really considered or read much about the alternatives that other physicists have put forward or the remits of different types of systems. That you haven't really exposed yourself to much reading matter concerning what is and isn't actually proven and what bits of which hypothesis are based on supposition. You have shown me that you are not capable of disassociating the way you have interpreted the current thinking in order to consider an alternative, or to discuss it in terms that are given in the remit of how the model differs from your interpretation of the universe.
Where you have not understood, instead of saying that you do not understand how something is different and is working, you state it impossible based on argument that is steeped in your misconception of my logic and you be rude and imperious while doing so.
Get real! We're not discussing an idea here David, we are discussing your disdain for it...
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/06/2015 17:59:28
Post by: David Cooper on 23/06/2015 19:34:46
I'm beginning to understand that actually you are incapable of reading without drawing your own assumptions. The assumption that you display above having NO bearing on what I wrote. I think there is a section in the rules that mentions intentional misrepresentation David. You disappoint me.
If I had more time to waste on this, I could go back through the whole thread and show all the points where you have told me things that contradict each other, but what's the point - you have installed a set of faulty, contradictory beliefs in your head and nothing will budge. It's a thankless task attempting to point out any errors in your thinking at all and I'm not going to bother any more. Go ahead and waste more time trying to make the universe fit your theory instead of doing the opposite.
Quote
The frequency of light does change as it leaves a gravity field, it gets lower. Pound Rebka.
Here's a prime example - you simply can't get your head around how frequency works and what it is. There is no expansion involved in this case and no difference in relative speed between emitter and detector, so the frequency is fixed. Until you fix that hole in your understanding, your theory is one of magic and not of physics.
Quote
You have downright ridiculed my opening up the question of if a clock in elevation feels the gravitational field of the earth in addition to its own.
You have opened up a question and I have answered it for you. You may not like the answer, but there is again no fix for that unless you are prepared to make your theory conform to the universe instead of the other way round.
Quote
It's almost as if you believe that physics is in possession of a fully described theory of gravity. We don't have a fully described theory of gravity. Therefore it is "allowed" to look at alternatives. Looking at alternatives does not incorporate taking those alternatives and saying. "That's wrong because current thinking isn't like that". That is not a discussion about alternatives, that is you arguing for the theory that "you" believe in.
It isn't current thinking that I'm calling on to show that your theory is wrong, but experiments which contradict the claims of your theory. That is how science is done. I am comparing your theory with the universe and am not bringing in other theories at all.
Quote
Firstly, you state that proper time will be slowed to half or a quarter of its normal rate. Can you provide experimental proof of this please?
We don't have access to a black hole or anything else sufficienly dense and heavy to generate such severe time dilation, but we can do experiments near lighter bodies where the effects are not so dramatic. I used rockets hovering over a black hole in order to create nice numbers to work with, but I could have done it with rockets hovering over the Earth instead with much messier numbers with loads of digits after a decimal point. If you want to translate everything I said from one scenario (untested) to another one (tested), go ahead and waste your time doing so - the things I was trying to get to through the thought experiment will still apply to the translated version. What you are doing here is diverting the discussion all over the place to try to avoid being pinned down at any point where your theory is shown to be wrong, muddying the waters as much as you can, and you're doing this because you are so emotionally attached to your theory that you cannot bear to let go of it. This may not be intentional, but a subsonscious process which is blocking your way to a better understanding.
Quote
Secondly, whatever mass you place at a radius of black hole, can you provide experimental proof that it does not feel the gravity field of the black hole please?
No you can't!!! All you can provide is a set of mathematical equations that state this notion, but only when you "swap" terms in the space time matrix.
Of course it feels the gravity field of the black hole. Why on Earth would you think I think otherwise. My point is that there is no magical association between a little bit of matter and a big bit of matter which makes the little bit of matter experience a greater gravity field the further away you move it from the big bit of matter, and there is no magical mechanism for making significant change to proper time at a tiny piece of matter by varying its mass within a range where te tiny piece of mass remains small when the actual thing doing 99.99999% of the job of controlling proper time at that location is a monster piece of mass nearby. Again, this is something that you refuse to accept time and time again, but it has been tested repeatedly by actual experiments.
Quote
You said:
"While your model has to create a pretence of the same expansion in a manner for which your model has no mechanism at all."
My model is expanded by distance in time. Janet and John books being downloaded for your immediate attention as we speak, (chuckle). It truly amazes me that someone who can write so well, cannot seem to read.
Do you seriously think that's an answer? Your model is expanded by distance in time, is it? Why don't you do some little calculations with that and see what happens. I gave you a thought experiment where you and a friend would represent galaxies, and I still don't know if you understand how to do simulate this kind of thought experiment in your head. One of you flashes a signal to the other, continually. Each flash has to be delayed more than the one before it if the galaxies are to be seen as moving apart while they're actually staying still. This means the improper time is going to have to change somewhere between the two galaxies, or perhaps along the whole path between them, but what is causing this change in improper time? Why is it changing in one direction rather than the other? Why is it changing at an accelerating rate rather than at a constant or decreasing rate? What is controling these changes in the rates of improper time, and the changes in the rate of the changes? You don't have mechanisms for any of these things, but you simply assert that the distance in time is growing. What is driving that growth when the only mechanism you have makes no distinction between driving that growth, doing the exact opposite, and not changing the distance in time at all? But you can't see the problem - you are incapable of noticing that you have not provided any mechanism for this. Think about it - you have a mechanism which sets improper time at different locations based on associations of masses which do all sorts of weird things and ultimately come up with values which you assert are the same as proper time, and that will lead to fixed improper time rates at all locations, but to create the illusion of expansion you need changing improper rates of time rather than fixed ones. Your model only creates fixed ones, so how can you think it accounts for apparent expansion?
Quote
I said:
"Quote
My model does not expand in actual distance. The fabric of expanding space is "distance in time". To travel this distance as a moving rocket, it will take you a journey time that you will relate into velocity per time factor. But the velocity (not naturally occurring as with massless light) will become escalated relative to a slower/shorter length of moment and the time it takes you to cover both distance in time and actual distance will also be escalated, not only because of the longer length of moments travelled through, but because the escalating velocity is also slowing the rockets own perception of its own time down. (I could re-explain the way that the variable speeds of light over the "actual distance" act as a constraint as to how fast one may travel through "distance in time", but let's not complicate matters for now)"
You replied:
"Every time you go into an explanation of that kind you express the ideas in an incomprehensible way and leave me to decide whether to spend an hour trying to process it, or to reject it on the basis that it's too impenetrable. I simply don't have an hour free for each paragraph of that kind. That is why I like to see specific examples of things with actual numbers attached to them, and then I can see whether something is sensible or a pile of pants. I can't tell which category this bit belongs to."
What makes you think that because "you" can't comprehend something that it "is" a pile of pants?
When did I say it was a pile of pants? Do you not understand the meaning of a sentence which says "sensible or a pile of pants"? One of the things you keep doing is providing descriptions which are take too much effort to interpret because of the way you use expressions like "will relate into velocity per time factor". When I suggest that you provide clear examples with numbers to illustrate what you're talking about, you won't do so. Not once have you done so. I have to drag numbers out of you by asking over and over again, and so far the only time I've got them it was with the improper time values which turned out to be identical to the proper time values even the way you calculate your improper time should lead to them varying wildly according to the mass of the clock while proper time hardly varies at all with mass of the clock. That's what really annoys me in this whole conversation, because you are playing avoidance games in order to try to prevent your theory being tested, and whenever I manage to nail a piece of it down you throw all your toys out of the pram. I can't be doing with that any more, so this is going to be my final post in this thread.
Quote
On a phycological basis you are being incredibly disparaging about my notions that you clearly are not in full understanding of and are being fairly rude in your disdain, yet you argue a theory that doesn't time mesh your rockets unless you add a universal time, while refusing to acknowledge the implications of adding a universal time to the universe from both within or from outside of the universe.
I have put many hours into trying to help you, but is has become clear that you aren't prepared to consider the possibility that there is anything wrong with your theory - all you want is to have someone tell you it's right. Well, okay then - it's right. If you wear everyone else down the same way, maybe they'll all tell you it's right too, but they'll quietly go on using other theories which can actually produce the right numbers to match the real universe.
Quote
I at least "understand" that my whole theory is hinged upon there being an alternative reason for clocks ticking faster in elevation to a greater body of mass.
You don't seem to even acknowledge the implications that your logic imposes on the universe.
The difference between my approach and yours is that I look at what the universe actually does and then try to account for it, but you want the universe to conform to your theory and simply deny that it doesn't do so in any area where they conflict.
Quote
Firstly, you have not shown me that I've got something wrong.
If a horse isn't thirsty...
Quote
What you've shown me is that "you" have a pretty good basic idea of how current thing goes, although you seem to fail to appreciate where this current thinking is shot to pieces and push it regardless.
What current thinking? I'm talking about experiments, and experiments are theory-independent. Current thinking doesn't matter a jot. Experiments show us how proper time behaves. Experiments show us what frequency is and how it is tied to proper time in its generation and the way it is perceived. It's all about experiments.
Quote
You've shown me, in your responses, that you have not really considered or read much about the alternatives that other physicists have put forward or the remits of different types of systems.
If they are pushing the same ideas as you, then their ideas are broken in the same way as yours, but all I have to work with here are the ideas that you are presenting.
Quote
That you haven't really exposed yourself to much reading matter concerning what is and isn't actually proven and what bits of which hypothesis are based on supposition.
Feynman said something along the lines of, it doesn't matter how beautiful a theory is, if it conflicts with the results of experiments, it's wrong. I'm simply testing your theory against the results of experiments.
Quote
You have shown me that you are not capable of disassociating the way you have interpreted the current thinking in order to consider an alternative, or to discuss it in terms that are given in the remit of how the model differs from your interpretation of the universe.
I am not going to ignore the experiments which don't fit your theory.
Quote
Where you have not understood, instead of saying that you do not understand how something is different and is working, you state it impossible based on argument that is steeped in your misconception of my logic and you be rude and imperious while doing so.
If I find something that's impossible, I prefer to get straight to the point and say so.
Quote
Get real! We're not discussing an idea here David, we are discussing your disdain for it...
Where disdain has crept in, it's the result of you failing to take anything on board. You simply won't accept anything I say at all, which makes discussion impossible.
Goodbye, and good luck with your ongoing explorations into physics and any other work you may be doing. I've probably wasted 20 hours on this in the hope of saving you from wasting 2000. You need to change your whole approach and start trying to destroy your theory in order to test it instead of defending it by avoiding all the issues. I have shown you clear errors that you have made, but you cannot see them. I can't make you see what you are determined not to see.
Post by: timey on 24/06/2015 01:23:59
Post by: timey on 24/06/2015 01:26:13
I have attached a graph of my what I believe your theory depicts. The intercept with the y-axis is at infinity and the asymptote tends towards infinity as escape velocity increases. Therefore the nearer to an event horizon the light is the faster its coordinate speed.. Ultimately at the horizon the light moves away starting at an infinite velocity. There is something wrong with your theory. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out what that is.
Hey thanks JefferyH... for taking the trouble.
This would appear to me "not" to be describing a theory of gravity but a theory of light. The title of "theory of gravity" and the axis describing magnitude of "escape velocity" is misleading. Light does not have to escape gravity in my model, it's massless.
In assuming that you are increasing these speeds of light by the same proportion that the equation that increases distances increases those distances, this graph would be useful in relation to my model if instead of the escape velocity you graphed the variable speeds of light against the distance the light has travelled at those speeds of light. It would be "really" useful if the graph could actually describe a relationship between 2 exact same bodies of mass - whereas the speed of light starts at 30000000 and ends at 300000000, and is reducing in the distance in-between the bodies of mass with the slowest point located at midpoint, and that these varying speeds should be corresponded by the distance travelled by the light at that speed.
By adding up these distances travelled, this would constitute my models "actual distance" between these bodies of mass.
It would then be relevant to travel the light for the same amount of "time" it took the variable speeds of light to get from one body of mass to the other, (the length of a moment is expanded by the same proportion/ratio that the speed of light was reduced) while travelling the light for this "amount" of slower time "transposed" for the calculation back into the time that these slower times would take in relation to the length of an earth moment, and travelling the light at the 300000000 speed of light. Then by adding up this distance travelled, this is the "distance in time".
By subtracting the "actual distance" from "the distance in time" you will have a numerical figure of distance on by how much "slow time" has expanded space between these bodies of mass.
That would be "timey's" time theory of light and distance. :)
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/06/2015 02:05:45
Hey thanks JefferyH... for taking the trouble.
This would appear to me "not" to be describing a theory of gravity but a theory of light. The title of "theory of gravity" and the axis describing magnitude of "escape velocity" is misleading. Light does not have to escape gravity in my model, it's massless.
Your theory revolves around light and yes light does have to escape gravity. The shift in wavelength shows this as does the effect of an event horizon on light. If your theory doesn't predict this then it cannot be correct.
In assuming that you are increasing these speeds of light by the same proportion that the equation that increases distances increases those distances, this graph would be useful in relation to my model if instead of the escape velocity you graphed the variable speeds of light against the distance the light has travelled at those speeds of light. It would be "really" useful if the graph could actually describe a relationship between 2 exact same bodies of mass - whereas the speed of light starts at 30000000 and ends at 300000000, and is reducing in the distance in-between the bodies of mass with the slowest point located at midpoint, and that these varying speeds should be corresponded by the distance travelled by the light at that speed.
I just can't make sense of this. You need to be clearer in you language. At first glance it looks like you have things backwards. Especially when saying "whereas the speed of light starts at 30000000 and ends at 300000000, and is reducing in the distance in-between the bodies of mass with the slowest point located at midpoint".
By adding up these distances travelled, this would constitute my models "actual distance" between these bodies of mass.
It would then be relevant to travel the light for the same amount of "time" it took the variable speeds of light to get from one body of mass to the other, (the length of a moment is expanded by the same proportion/ratio that the speed of light was reduced) while travelling the light for this "amount" of slower time "transposed" for the calculation back into the time that these slower times would take in relation to the length of an earth moment, and travelling the light at the 300000000 speed of light. Then by adding up this distance travelled, this is the "distance in time".
By subtracting the "actual distance" from "the distance in time" you will have a numerical figure of distance on by how much "slow time" has expanded space between these bodies of mass.
That would be "timey's" time theory of light and distance. :)
The rest is just too confusing. Get back to me when you either clarify your description or come up with some mathematics. I see David gave up on you. No one else appears interested any more so take this opportunity to bounce ideas off me because I don't mind.
Post by: timey on 25/06/2015 14:09:14
No one else appears interested any more so take this opportunity to bounce ideas off me because I don't mind.
Thank you JeffreyH.
Current thinking has a gravity field gravitationally effecting light via the exiting of atoms into a change of frequency.
My model states that the gravity field has a gravitational effect of "pull" on mass, and that a gravity field is the "causation" of time. The different strengths of a gravity field, that are caused by the magnitude of mass present in relation to distance, cause different rates of time, ie: longer or shorter lengths of moment.
Gravity has no effect on light as light is massless. It is "time" that has an effect on light, and it is the changing from one length of moment to another length of moment that is exiting atoms into a change of frequency in the light.
The Pound Rebka experiment states that light has a lower frequency when leaving a gravity field than it does arriving into a gravity field.
Therefore my model states that the rate of time for the "locations" in space on the progressively outwardly expanding radius from a gravity field, (body of mass), will be running progressively slower time.
(as opposed to the rate of time for anything that ""has mass"" placed on those radius which "do" run a minuscule faster rate of time. We'll cover this relationship of mass near mass according to my model after we've got the light bit understood)
You are "almost" correct in saying that I am turning everything back to front. That's along the right sort of lines but it's not "just" as simple as saying its current thinking backwards. The mechanics are different.
If you can accept what I've said above on "an experimental basis" then we can proceed.
Post by: timey on 25/06/2015 22:22:18
Ok, we are travelling light from one earth like mass A to another earth like mass B. We think they are x distance apart.
So we start the light speed vector at earths light speed, 299 792 458m/s from mass A. The vector is travelling in a straight line directly from mass A to mass B. After 1 second and 299 792 458 metres, we reduce the speed of light by the same proportion as the equation that increases distances, decreases those distances. (Please note that despite the fact that the next second will be longer in length, we are still travelling the following slower speeds of light against the length of an earth second, as a balancing factor, because the equation that increases distances uses earths speed of light in the equation, (please correct me if I'm wrong) this balance repeats in the next stage "length of moment" "distance in time" measurement)
This now reduced speed of light travels x amount of metres, we repeat the process and log the reduced distance travelled for every second until we reach mid point. At mid point between these bodies of equal mass will exist the slowest speed of light.
Add up all the metres traveled per second up till mid point and double this amount to account for the symmetrical "from mid point to mass B" journey that increases the speed of light until it is at 299 792 458m/s again on arrival at mass B.
This will sum up to be a shorter distance than we thought x distance was between these bodies of mass. In my model, this is the "actual distance" between these masses. We can draw this as a straight line between the two masses.
Now we must work out how much earth time this journey took. Every second that has passed for the light has increased in its length. The length of a second being increased by the same proportion as the equation that increases distances, increases those distances.
We must work out the magnitude of the slower seconds that the light has passed through and relate that back to how much time this would add up to in earth length seconds.
We then travel the light from mass A to mass B for the sum of this amount of time at earths speed of light, (balancing factor again) 299 792 458m/s and calculate how much distance has been covered in this time. This figure of distance should match up with the x distance we originally thought the masses were apart. We can now draw this distance in a line perpendicular between mass A and mass B. This distance is a "distance in time".
The "distance in time" is what we observe. The "distance in time" is what a rocket would "have" to travel through.
Subtract the "actual distance" from the "distance in time" and that figure of distance is by how much "slow time" has expanded space in my model. (note I say space and not distance).
If you have followed up to this point then we can move on to applying Pythagoras (?) (and looking at light subject to inverse square law) with regards to these distances in relation to each other, the curvature of space and the effect of having a build up of slower time "midpoint" with regards to the light mass B observes and "where" in this "space" mass B will observe the light as arriving from.
Post by: timey on 26/06/2015 19:40:54
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/06/2015 05:01:54
Post by: timey on 27/06/2015 09:47:06
By including such an expansive scale of variant to the occurrence of the rate of time, synonymous with the force of gravity that is the "causation" of time in my model, I believe that this will give the mathematics the "reach" to get behind these mysteries. My model needs there to be a vastly escalated speed of light to plug into e=mc2 for the reference frame whereas all the mass of the universe is in a black hole that explodes/jets particles across the expanse of distance that my model "needs" to "avoid" the necessity for an inflationary period, or to provide the energy for this inflationary period (whichever way you wish to view it)
The implications of redshift suggest that not only is the universe expanding, but that it is accelerating in this expansion. Therefore the notion that an unquantified "fabric" of space is expanding at a rate that is faster than the speed of light, (what happened to universal speed limit?) by means of this unquantified force of dark energy, is currently held forth.
Slow time in space gives an alternative reason for this redshift observation across the so called "voids". It gives "causation" in terms that do not include the addition of any "force" that is not observed. It just requires that one considers that "time" is a "force", a force twinned with gravity and that slow time creates an "illusion" of distance in space.
If slow time can be thought of as nonsense, yet you believe that nature is simple, then how do you rate the complexity of an expanding fabric of space?
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/06/2015 10:02:01
Post by: timey on 27/06/2015 10:29:02
(Lee Smolin's last book said I shouldn't let that put me off)
This thread is an "explanation" of my visualisation in the hope that someone who "can" manipulate mathematics "may" be interested as mentioned in post 1. I am learning more by the day but it will most likely be "quite some time" before I "can" produce these figures that you mention.
Yes I do realise that "time" would be running "very" fast in black hole. I need it to run fast. However, my alternative to increasing or decreasing the rate of time by means of the equation that increases distances, is to look at the rate of time being subject to the inverse square law as gravity is. This would reduce the rate of time for a black hole but I suspect it might expand slow time in space too much.
(Edit... my mass near mass logic also poses the possibility of reducing the rate of time for black hole to more "feasible" proportions.)
Also..,please note that my model states that clocks tick faster in elevation...No deviation from experimental data there.
Yes, you are right, this piece of logic needs maths to go with it to actually even be classed as a theory. I can't do them as of yet!
Do you fancy helping?
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/06/2015 14:03:21
Post by: jeffreyH on 27/06/2015 14:13:15
. You say the distance increases as we move away from a gravitational filed which is counter to accepted wisdom. However lets carry on. 
but that is no good we need 
and then we have 
. I have already shown you a graph of this.
Post by: timey on 27/06/2015 16:43:45
The first thing you need to straighten out is exactly what you mean by light slowing down. With respect to what? It cannot be local observers otherwise you are violating the laws of physics.
Ok, the speed the light is moving at is in respect to the distance travelled and is relative to the strength of a gravity field. No need for any observer.
With regards to maths in next post. As far as I know a light year is the distance it takes light to travel a years worth of seconds at 299 792 458m/s.
You said:
"So you have L equaling 1 light second which is a distance the same as a light year. "
What I have is 1 time second, which at earths speed of light incorporates the light travelling 299 792 458 metres. A slower speed of light will travel the light a lesser distance if travelling that lesser speed of light against an earth length second.
The speed of light will remain constant against these longer lengths of second, if you transpose these longer lengths of second back into how much this time would add up to in earth length seconds, but this will produce a longer overall distance travelled by the light than the light covered by the speed of light being progressively reduced.
I'm not sure where the light year has come into the equation. (Scratches head) but if you have decided that mass A and mass B are 1 light year apart, in this scenario for 50% of the lights journey, every second that passes the lights speed will reduce and for 50% of the journey it will increase again. Then this distance is offset in a distance travelled at earths speed of light against the time it would take in slower seconds, translated into that length of time in earth seconds. (Everything is much "closer" together than it appears... in my model)
This would involve a series of calculations that cannot be covered in one algebra equation.
Professor Susskind mentions a computer program called "Mathematica" which "would" prove useful in that it is programmed to equate the increasing distance equation as well as the GR Field equations.
Do you have this program or similar?
Post by: timey on 27/06/2015 23:39:46
The sun is observed on the horizon as appearing at a position higher than it actually is because the light is "bent". There is a degree of "arc" to this bend. My model states that an "arc" of bend is due to light traveling through space expanded by slow time. The sun should have an "actual distance" and a "distance in time".
The sun is 8 earth mins away. Based on the fact that in the calculations I've outlined regarding measuring distance, after "midpoint" we are dealing with a mirror image, we would only have to calculate 4 mins. It would then take 240 calculations of reduction in speed of light to work out the "actual distance" to the sun and 240 calculations of increase in length of second to work out the "distance in time".
If we can draw the "actual distance" as a straight line from the sun to the earth and then draw the "distance in time" measurement bent perpendicular from the sun to the earth...if the degree of arc matches up at-all would be the question...
I am aware that this displacement of position is "current thinking attributed" *entirely* to the effect of the earths atmosphere, but we see a similar position displacement in stars that are further away due to "current thinking gravitational bending" of light during solar eclipse.
Post by: timey on 16/07/2015 11:33:59
http://m.space.com/11038-china-suns-video-unexplained.html
I also found this:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47663.0
...and wondered if Pmb ever got his photo's from the woman in the taxi.
My logic (theory) states that slow time in space will cause a light source to be viewed from a position on a higher degree of arc than its actual source is located at... causing us to believe that the light source is further away from us than it really is.
Post by: timey on 01/08/2015 00:43:58
Mr Penrose...Sir! If the world was such that I were to be given three wishes, one of them would be to speak with 'you' on physics!
Penrose gives description of his idea referred to as CCC. This theory through close examination of the second law of thermodynamics depicts the universe as a cyclic phenomenon as does my "piece of logic".
Penrose states that the implications of GR are that the far progressed future of our universe ends up in a mess of black holes and, because everything is expanding away from everything else, these black holes will eventually evaporate due to Hawking's radiation. That particles will decay by certain 'means' (too complicated to describe here) into zero rest mass to then smoothly cross over from the end of the current universe into the next 'aeon', being the beginning of a new universe. (Please excuse my oversimplification)
Much of Penrose's argument translates to my piece of logic... However it is just after where the implications of GR state that the far progressed future will become a mess of black holes that Penrose and I part company.
My logic states that the universe is not expanding in 'distance' and that this mess of black holes will merge into one black hole that is the singularity that becomes the Big Bang of the next aeon via its jets. Whereas Penrose and I 'more or less' rejoin company...but, I suspect, without the need for any 'unobserved' rest mass considerations.
But... and this is the Big But, the only logical conclusion considering observation for the universe being non-expanding lies in time going slow in space as presented in the above posts. There is evidence whereas 'massless' light is concerned within the redshift phenomenon to support this notion, however the evidence that clocks tick faster in elevation is a fact without contention...
'But'... can we consider the 'reason' that clocks tick faster in elevation to be 'set in stone'?
Post by: timey on 01/08/2015 21:51:17
I have not yet heard of a theory in physics that gives the phenomenon of time a role to play in the actual workings of the mechanics of the universe, or that gives indication to what in the universe causes time to occur.
In my quest for causality I do not think it an unreasonable notion that gravity is the causation of time, or to make the statement that in the absence of time motion cannot occur.
A distance is measured by how much time it takes motion to get from start to finish. If we are measuring a distance that is comprised of areas in which time goes slower or faster than that which we experience on earth, then the distance travelled will not be as long or as short as we would perceive the length of this distance to be by earth standards.
The velocity that far flung galaxies expand away at is proportional more or less to the distance they are thought to be from earth.
As mentioned in post above... if the universe is not expanding in distance then the only logical conclusion to explain observation is if time runs progressively slower in a weaker gravity field.
If time runs slower in space then we will perceive the distance in space to be greater than it actually is when travelling across it. If the speed of light is a variable that is only constant in its ratio to the length of a moment...then special relativity/time slowing due to motion will also slow a travellers progress across space if the traveller up-keeps his/her velocity as per mph because this velocity will progressively rise in its percentage of the progressively slower speeds of light as per longer moment.
Of course I realise that it is extremely unlikely that I am right in my thinking here... but if I am then it would actually be possible for us humans to cross space much faster.
If my logic is correct then time 'is' the mysterious dark energy that physics is looking for. Our universe would not be expanding in distance, it would be expanded in slow time.
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/08/2015 01:41:16
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/08/2015 01:50:20
should result in an expanding universe.
Post by: timey on 02/08/2015 03:21:23
Time is not caused by anything. Time measures the rate of change of the state of a system. The question you should be asking is what causes the change in the state of a system? This is the result of the various forces and governed by conservation laws. Your obsession with time is the problem. You could benefit from thinking about the role of dark energy on the spacetime metric. You could actually modify your theory in order to apply it to dark energy because that is what it models.
Firstly, how can you make such a sweeping statement as to categorically state that "time is not caused by anything" ...? You are taking the view that time is merely a measurement such as a metre. A metre does not define distance. Distance is a fundamental property of our universe. We can measure velocity in miles per hour or in kilometers or in whatever, but either which way you measure it, velocity is a fundamental property of our universe. Distance has a causation. Velocity has a causation. Why is time any different?
Secondly, I do not understand why I could benefit from studying the role of dark energy in relation to the metric. As far as I understand the role of dark energy is assigned to the constant and accelerating expansion of the universe...in distance. I am suggesting that the observed acceleration of redshift is time related, that distance, apart from gravitational shifts due to cosmological changes, is a constant and that the universe's expansion and its curvature is a result of progressively slower time in space.
Thirdly, I am not obsessed by time. Lee Smolin wanted a theory on time. I read his book, took all the factors, juggled them as if it were a 'who done it' and came up with this piece of logic. That is all... No obsession. Just logic. Probably not the 'right' logic, but logic non the less.
Post by: timey on 02/08/2015 03:26:17
One last pointer. You need to determine a way to reconcile why
Please can I gently remind you that as a non mathematician I need a whiteboard explanation of your maths that includes a precursor of their objective and a walk through in words of their process if I am to understand what you are expressing.
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/08/2015 17:00:59
One last pointer. You need to determine a way to reconcile why
Please can I gently remind you that as a non mathematician I need a whiteboard explanation of your maths that includes a precursor of their objective and a walk through in words of their process if I am to understand what you are expressing.
Exactly.
Post by: timey on 02/08/2015 22:01:01
Can I remind you that PmbPhy upbraided you on your Lambert's thread for not specifying the purpose of your maths? He's a mathematician.
Why do you a) wish to post maths without explaining their purpose, and b) post maths that are relevant to gravity in relation to mass and radius as a pointer to my model of a universe that is not expanding in distance? I'm missing your underlying purpose, perhaps...? :)
Please remember that mathematics is only a tool. Maths must have concepts to calculate otherwise the practice is meaningless. Furthermore, mathematics have perfectly calculated models of concepts that have turned out to 'be' meaningless. The geocentric earth centred model of the universe for an example.
I would find it a much more interesting conversation to explore the possibility of using the course graining technique discussed in Penrose's book to forward the early universe from the sea of particles that my models singular black hole (that is the end of the old universe and the beginning of the new one) spreads, via its jets, across the distance that subsequently becomes space, course graining through the clumping together of mass and into the mess of black holes predicted by GR, and that I predict go on to merge into one singular black hole to form the next universe, via its jets.
And how it could be considered that the lowest entropy would be found in the sea of particles, discussing how the second law of thermodynamics becomes violated by the fact that the black hole turns clumped matter into the particles that form it's jets, causing a decrease in entropy... unless subsequent seas of particles in subsequent universes have higher entropy by some means than the earlier sea of particles that began the previous universe...perhaps by being larger?
This type of discussion is what I class as interesting.
So...'exactly' what? If you please...
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/08/2015 23:43:40
Post by: timey on 03/08/2015 00:45:31
As far as I have been able I 'have' outlined the parameters of my concepts. My ideas are radical and strange but are based on logic. They rely on no unobserved phenomenon...but ask you to view time as a force that is twinned with gravity. That time is not a measurement of a state of change but a necessary phenomenon that must be occurring for a state of change to occur. That time goes slower in a weaker gravity field is a necessary byproduct of these ideas.
Current redshift analysis 'is' based on supposition.
Post by: jeffreyH on 03/08/2015 18:31:43
Post by: timey on 03/08/2015 20:29:08
I appreciate that people have limited time. I would not wish to trouble anyone who is not interested. But... if you or anyone does care to help, of course this would make me very happy...
Ok, leaving the 'inverted time dilation' aspect out of the picture for the present, I refer you to Richard Tolman's oscillating universe diagram in which he takes into account the second law of thermodynamics. The diagram consists of a series of ellipses that are progressively increasing in size, joined together like a string of fat sausages.
Tolman's view was that the universe expanded outwards until a situation of collapse to re- congeal back into a singularity and then Big Bang into a new universe. (Please excuse the oversimplification) The fact of these universes becoming increasingly larger than the last being in adherence with the second law. (As opposed to the Freidmann cosmological model)
Tolman's diagram is relevant to my piece of logic, but for different reasons which I shall now outline, but firstly I'd like you to dispense with the vision of the ellipse geometry and replace it with diamond shapes presented upside down, increasing in size, with the flat edge/surface of the next diamond placed upon the point of the last.
Looking at a diamond shape, Lets say that the GR prediction of a mess of black holes occurs somewhere 'up' the pointy end and results in a singular black hole at the point.
This singular black hole explodes out all of the particle matter of the last universe, via its jets, into the new universe. (This is the flat edge/surface of the diamond above) these particles slow down (this is the short angle of the diamond) we have a sea of particles. (This is the point of this universes lowest entropy) the particles then start clumping together (we are at the beginning of the long angles leading to the diamonds point) as the universes matter further clumps the universes overall spacial properties subsequently reduce until we reach mess of black holes that merge into the singular black hole that begins the next universe.
Sorry JefferyH, I am working from a phone and cannot provide you with an 'actual' diagram of this idea... I can explain how redshift and time fits into this picture next...
Post by: timey on 08/08/2015 02:23:25
To reiterate, GR predicts that the universe will progress into a mess of black holes. (this happens up in the pointy end of the cone). My model states that this mess of black holes will merge into one black hole, (this is the point of the cone), to spell the end of the current universe and the beginning of the next universe, via its jets, to form a sea of particles. (this is the base of the next cone up). As the particles clump together the universe becomes spatially reduced, (cone reduces to pointy end) Mess of black holes occurrs to merge into one black hole and the next universe.
Obviously the diagram (description of diagram) itself depicts the timeline of the cycle of the universe - but what the phenomenon of time is doing during this cyclic process is another matter, because the rate that time occurs at is subject to change due to changes in the gravity field.
Time dilation is inverted in my model. Time stops in a 0 gravity field. Time within the sea of particles runs very slowly and furthermore it is running (more or less) at the same rate throughout this sea of particles because the gravity field is (more or less) equal everywhere. At the edge of the sea of particles (radius of base of cone) gravity tails off to zero and time stops. Where there is no time nothing can happen and existence cannot exist. This is what spacially defines the dimensions of the universe.
As particles clump together, time runs faster for these more focused points of gravity. While time in the spaces vacated by the particles that have clumped together runs slower than it did there when it was populated with particles. As this situation evolves, the rate of time increases for clumps taking on more mass and the space between the clumps increases because more particles/smaller clumps have vacated it, causing weaker gravity fields that cause time there to go even slower still.
This evolution of clumping causes the spatial dimensions of the universe to reduce until mess of black holes - and the mess of black holes merges into one black hole. The universe is now contained entirely within the black hole and time, once again, is running at the same rate throughout in this compressed stage of the universes cycle, this being very fast indeed.
I will explain how the redshift phenomenon fits into the picture next post.
Post by: timey on 21/08/2015 21:34:08
We are familiar with the concept of black holes and their jets. The jetting appears to happen upon the event of a massive intake of mass. It is observed that the black hole remains evident in existence when the jets cease. It is not clear to me if it is thought that these jets are ejecting from within the black hole itself, or if it is thought that these jets are being originated through matter violently dispersing as a result of some factor at the event horizon. It has been suggested to me that it is the latter, although I cannot logically reason this line of thinking in relation to the strength of the gravitational field at an event horizon, therefore I believe that these jets must, logically speaking, be ejected from a reaction within the black hole.
In my model, when 'all' of the universe becomes contained within a singular black hole, this then constitutes a 'special' situation'. There is no gravitational counteraction force outside of this phenomenon. This black hole, unlike a black hole jetting as we observe, whereas because an 'of our era' black hole has a counteraction factor of gravitational counterparts outside of itself, retaining a measure of itself despite jetting, the singular black hole spelling the end of the cycle has no gravitational counter parts and literally turns itself inside out with the greatest of force to create a sea of particles and winks out of existence.
The sea of particles will eventually develop into clumped mass and it will be a very long process indeed before the universe will come to see the formation of further black holes.
Going back to my diagram (description of diagram), let's take my model back through the passage of time and the many cycles of universes each getting smaller in size and look at how the first cycle of this process might have been initiated.
This scenario of the initial formation of my models cyclic universe is looking rather much like Big Bang theory, where the Big Bang is initiated from a point. My models initial cycle also starts from a point, it just does not expect 'everything' we see today to initiate 'only, from this point. (I feel the Dirac equation popping particles in and out of existence 'may' be relevant here).
My models initial cycle is very short. A particle pops into existence out of a perfect vacuum, a state vacated of everything including time. The particle's existence/mass/gravity initiates time. There is no counteracting gravitational part of this universe, the particle is the universes entirety, it immediately collapses in on itself forming a microscopic black hole which spits out...
Yes, that's right...2 particles, which clump together, form black hole, and out comes... (Edit: or something very similar) ... In any case I am suggesting that mass in relation to the black hole perhaps constitutes a gender transferable, male/female mating type process and the early cycles of the universe are synonymous to an ongoing reactionary process, with each subsequent cycle taking more time to evolve than the last due to increasing size. And that we are, at present universes cycle, so very, very far removed in the passage of time from the event of this initial cycle, as to be almost entirely unimaginable.
Post by: timey on 22/08/2015 20:36:07
1 becomes 2 times as big, becomes 3 times as big, 5 times as, 7 times, 11, etc...
Erm, well (raises eyebrows)...I quite liked it :)
Post by: timey on 29/08/2015 13:46:37
Quote:
"The first crucial result connecting quantum theory to black holes was made in 1973 by Jacob Bekenstien, a young Israeli graduate student of John Archibald Wheeler's at Princeton. He made the amazing discovery that black holes have entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorder, and there is a famous law, called the second law of thermodynamics, holding that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease. Berkenstien worried that if he took a box filled with a hot gas - which would have a lot of entropy, because the motion of the gas molecules was random and disordered - and threw it into a black hole, the entropy of the universe would seem to decrease, because the gas could never be recovered. To save the second law, Berkenstien proposed that the black hole must itself have an entropy, which would increase when the box of gas fell in, so that the total entropy of the universe would never decrease. Working out some simple examples, he was able to show that the entropy of a black hole must be proportional to the area of the horizon that surrounds it.
This introduced a puzzle. Entropy is a measure of randomness, and random motion is heat. So shouldn't a black hole also have a temperature? A year later, in 1974, Stephen Hawking was able to show that a black hole must indeed have a temperature. He was also able to fix the precise proportionality between the area of the black holes horizon and its entropy.
There is another aspect of the temperature of black holes predicted by Hawking, which will be important to us later, and it's that the temperature of a black hole is inversely proportional to its mass. This means that black holes behave differently from familiar objects. To get most things to heat up, you have to put energy into them. We fuel a fire. Black holes behave in the opposite way. If you put energy, or mass, in, you make the black hole more massive - it cools off.
This mystery has since challenged every attempt to make a quantum theory of gravity: How can we explain the entropy and temperature of black holes from first principles? Berkenstien and Hawking treated the black hole as a classical fixed background within which quantum particles moved, and their arguments were based on consistency with known laws. They did not describe the black hole as a quantum-mechanical system, because that can be done only in a quantum theory of spacetime. So the challenge for any quantum theory of gravity is to give us a deeper understanding of Berkenstien's entropy and Hawking's temperature."
Unquote.
In relation to this particular sentence:
""the temperature of a black hole is inversely proportional to its mass.""
When considering that to view events that are happening in a rate of time that is extremely different than the rate of time that you experience yourself in your reference frame, it would be rendered impossible to witness the entirety of those events occurring in that more extreme rate of time due to literally not 'having' the time within which to view.
A black hole that becomes bigger, becomes more extreme in its rate of time and we will witness less of its events. It will actually be much hotter but will appear cooler.
The path of logic here might follow that time could be inversely proportional in relation to mass, as is gravity. But as the black hole increases its size, we see that the temperature drops inversely proportional to the increase in size. Therefore time must be changing its rate to a different tune, leading me to looking at time changing its rate to the dimensions of, (is it the metric), the equation that increases distances.
When looking at redshift in relation to this logic it becomes clear that as speed 'is' distance and speed and distance are time related, that any changes in the rate of time will affect a distance measurement!
(Edit: Admittedly, I am having trouble visualising the sliding scales between mass, temperature and time, so I leave it an open book on the possibility of time being inversely proportional to mass, but there 'is' something that mathematically bothers me in relation to the opposites of an increasing mass and a drop in temperature on a sliding scale...maybe it will come to me later)
Post by: timey on 31/08/2015 15:20:06
Quoted from link above:
"Rather than exceeding the speed of light within a local reference frame, a spacecraft would traverse distances by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it, resulting in effective faster-than-light travel. Objects cannot accelerate to the speed of light within normal spacetime; instead, the Alcubierre drive shifts space around an object so that the object would arrive at its destination faster than light would in normal space.[1]
Although the metric proposed by Alcubierre is mathematically valid (in that the proposal is consistent with the Einstein field equations), it may not be physically meaningful, in which case a drive will not be possible."
Unquote
(I have actually explained the following logic in previous posts but as I cannot be bothered to trawl back and identify which posts these were, it follows that you will be even less inclined, so I will explain again.)
My model proposes that the metric is not a phenomenon of geometry and that the metric is in fact purely a gravitational time dilation effect. This identifying GR's interpretation of time dilation as misconceived, (is it 'relativistic gamma'? ...struggling with terminology here), and stating this minuscule increase in the rate of time at elevation as a mass near mass phenomenon, rather than the result of radius location conditions.
My model proposes that a rocket leaving a gravitational field will experience mass near mass effects that will increase the rate of its time by a minuscule amount, and that as it becomes less affected by the greater mass, this increase in its rate of time will drop. This being because it is travelling through reference frames of slower and slower time.
Light, remaining at 'the speed of light' - when travelling through these reference frames - covers 'less distance' in these slower rates of time. Essentially, the speed of light is going slower.
The rocket, maintaining its speed of x mph - this defined by the rate of time in earths gravitational field - is now pushing up to a higher percentage of the speed that light is travelling at in those reference frames. As a result of travelling at a higher percentage of the speed of light, Special Relativity effects will kick in at proportionally higher percentages causing the rocket to experience its time as even slower. Although the rocket will experience a length contraction of its journey from its own point of view, the further slowing of its own experience of its time will make the journey appear longer in distance.
If the rocket can reduce its speed proportionally to the slowing in the rates of time found within the reference frames it is travelling through, it will avoid the increase in the percentage of its speed in relation to the slower speeds of light in those reference frames, resulting in the slowing effects of Special Relativity being controllable.
All I have done is make an addition to the equivalence principle stating that the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of a length of a second.
So...in my model, FTL by current thinking standards would be entirely possible. The mechanics of it wouldn't actually be that a rocket would be travelling faster than the speed of light though, just that the geometry of distance that one imagines there, is not there, and it would be the 'time distance' that we are travelling faster. And...in case you might of missed it...yes that's right, just by quite simply travelling at 'slower' speeds.
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/09/2015 22:11:57
Post by: timey on 04/09/2015 23:56:55
Because the time dilation effects predicted and confirmed by GR are minuscule, and are predicted, and have been proven to reach a zenith beyond which escalation is supposed to tail off, and that time out in deep space, so I have been led to believe, does not occur at a proportionally faster rate... it is my 'idea' that GR has time dilation misconceived, that what GR is calculating as time dilation is in fact a mass near mass effect, and that 'actual' gravitational time dilation has consequently been overlooked.
Yes, I understand the consequences of the inverse square law. I am not suggesting that the rate of time drops off or speeds up to the tune of the inverse square law to echo gravity. I believe there are indications in the fact of the temperature of a black hole dropping inversely to the increase in its mass that disallow this, this being on the basis of time being stopped in a 0 gravity field, although maths is needed there. I can't do it in my head. I believe that gravitational time dilation may be connected to the metric, and that the metric is not a phenomenon of distance in geometry, but is comprised of distance in time.
I also believe that there may be indications of gravitational time dilation on a microscopic level in the delay rates between the particles currently being discussed at CERN.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/subatomic-particles-appear-defy-standard-100950001.html#W4wF3Nr
Also that Planks h constant 'may' be mathematically flawed by the use of Planck's inadequate time measurement in direct relation to a factor of gravitational time dilation in the microscopic region.
Redshift is based on supposition. It is accepted that the Pound Rebka experiment is proof that the effect does exist, but it 'is' speed that determines distance. And yes, Jeff, what I am saying is that my model states that its all a lot closer together in 'distance of geometry, than it appears and than we think it is...
Post by: timey on 05/09/2015 01:12:38
I am not suggesting that the rate of time drops off or speeds up to the tune of the inverse square law to echo gravity. I believe there are indications in the fact of the temperature of a black hole dropping inversely to the increase in its mass that disallow this, this being on the basis of time being stopped in a 0 gravity field, although maths is needed there. I can't do it in my head. I believe that gravitational time dilation may be connected to the metric, and that the metric is not a phenomenon of distance in geometry, but is comprised of distance in time.
To explain this a little more thoroughly, I feel that the rate of time that we view a black hole from ie: an earth second, in relation to the rate that a second will be occurring at for the black hole, (hopefully to be determined by such considerations) in relation to the mass differences between earth and the black hole, will prove interesting in relation to the temperature of the black hole, and in particular to the drop in temperature a black hole experiences in relation to an increase in its mass. This being based on time being stopped in a 0 gravity field.
Post by: timey on 05/09/2015 01:42:21
Since spacecraft have already navigated the solar system we would already have witnessed these effects. The time dilation on earth is marginal in reality. It takes a very dense object to produce a significant effect. We are likely quite near to the lowest value of time dilation already.
Furthermore, I am suggesting that we have in fact already experienced the effects of my time dilation theory while travelling both the solar system and beyond, in that our crafts that we have sent across space have been subject to travelling vast 'distances in time' in the belief that these are 'distances of geometry'. My model suggests that it is a very simple matter to avoid travelling these vast 'distances in time' and that the 'distance of the geometry' of space could be travelled much more quickly.
""We are quite likely near to the lowest value of time dilation already""
Not if the metric is linked to the strength of a gravity field.
Post by: timey on 05/09/2015 10:38:12
I am not suggesting that the rate of time drops off or speeds up to the tune of the inverse square law to echo gravity. I believe there are indications in the fact of the temperature of a black hole dropping inversely to the increase in its mass that disallow this, this being on the basis of time being stopped in a 0 gravity field, although maths is needed there. I can't do it in my head. I believe that gravitational time dilation may be connected to the metric, and that the metric is not a phenomenon of distance in geometry, but is comprised of distance in time.
To explain this a little more thoroughly, I feel that the rate of time that we view a black hole from ie: an earth second, in relation to the rate that a second will be occurring at for the black hole, (hopefully to be determined by such considerations) in relation to the mass differences between earth and the black hole, will prove interesting in relation to the temperature of the black hole, and in particular to the drop in temperature a black hole experiences in relation to an increase in its mass. This being based on time being stopped in a 0 gravity field.
And perhaps to further explain the logic...
If a black holes rate of time is running at say a 60% difference to our own rate of time, this difference according to my theory being a faster rate of time than ours, although the same would be true for a time running at a rate 60% slower than our own... We would only be able to view 40% of the events occurring at the black hole.
My model suggests that the black hole that takes on more mass/energy, experiences a rise in temperature. We already have data that suggests how this may work proportionally. What we observe from our view point is that as the black hole takes on mass it's temperature drops to the tune of the inverse square law. I am suggesting that this is a feature of time dilation. As the percentage of the black holes rate of time increases in relation to ours due to the increase in its mass, we are viewing a lesser percentage of the events of the black hole as a result.
Therefore the fact of the temperature appearing to drop to the tune of the inverse square law in proportion to the increase in mass becomes a significant factor in establishing what time dilation might be doing mathematically when relating this data back to how temperature increases proportionally with the addition of mass/energy.