The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A theory of inverted time dilation  (Read 10644 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
A theory of inverted time dilation
« on: 01/06/2015 16:32:23 »
Hi, my name is Vikki Ramsay and I thank you in advance for taking the time to read my thread.

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


 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #1 on: 01/06/2015 19:47:14 »
I think there's a really creative idea at the heart of that which is well worth exploring, but it's hard to load it all into my head, so I'm going to home in on one small piece of it:-

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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #2 on: 02/06/2015 01:05:55 »
Hi David :)

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
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #3 on: 02/06/2015 21:47:53 »
I find your coordinate time very puzzling. If we were looking at SR/GR, coordinate time there is tied to a single frame of reference and acts as if it is an absolute time. This allows moving clocks or clocks experiencing different amounts of gravity to run at a different rate from the coordinate time such that one clock may record less time than the other during a set amount of coordinate time. If you imagine a spaceship hovering near a black hole, it could lower a clock on a cable towards the black hole and then pull it back up again. The lowering would start at time zero (coordinate time) and the raising would end at time 100 (coordinate time), and one clock might record 90 units of time going by during those 100 units of coordinate time while the other clock records 80 units of time, but the duration of the event is the same for both clocks in coordinate time.

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.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2015 21:57:42 by David Cooper »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #4 on: 02/06/2015 23:04:43 »
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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #5 on: 03/06/2015 00:41:27 »
David, Ok, I see what I have done.

"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?
« Last Edit: 03/06/2015 01:40:45 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #6 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
« Last Edit: 03/06/2015 11:45:07 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #7 on: 03/06/2015 23:38:50 »
If we take the equation for gravitational acceleration:

fd5e6a6268a68fd29fc178f93a9bfcc2.gif

We can integrate this:

dbf2f9d65b249cb3d21f100ffddeac92.gif

Since the term GM is a constant we can rewrite as

-GMd83425c6b28c6fe69fb8747f7edb19da.gif

Then as

-GMd5d8c4519686a06bbf084891ceb7ac49.gif

This can then be integrated as

-GMc5277176edf1144b96f12f770ad338cb.gif

This then changes the sign

d4664fa496fe1d86773f9225f052229c.gif

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.

b999aa0691f0c2ec1f706a3f81a6edb0.gif

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 875a1f90b59fe42f2b61d8982b172fc2.gif where C is the constant of integration. I am assuming a value of zero for C so it vanishes.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2015 23:47:00 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #8 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. 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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #9 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?

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. 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.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #10 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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #11 on: 04/06/2015 23:33:51 »
If we take the equation for gravitational acceleration:

fd5e6a6268a68fd29fc178f93a9bfcc2.gif

We can integrate this:

dbf2f9d65b249cb3d21f100ffddeac92.gif

Since the term GM is a constant we can rewrite as

-GMd83425c6b28c6fe69fb8747f7edb19da.gif

Then as

-GMd5d8c4519686a06bbf084891ceb7ac49.gif

This can then be integrated as

-GMc5277176edf1144b96f12f770ad338cb.gif

This then changes the sign

d4664fa496fe1d86773f9225f052229c.gif

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.

b999aa0691f0c2ec1f706a3f81a6edb0.gif

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 875a1f90b59fe42f2b61d8982b172fc2.gif where C is the constant of integration. I am assuming a value of zero for C so it vanishes.

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)
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #12 on: 05/06/2015 00:02:42 »
Ok David, just a quick footnote to my last reply to you.

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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #13 on: 05/06/2015 15:16:13 »
Actually David, in moving your rockets around my models universe I realise that I haven't given you the full set of the parameters...

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.
« Last Edit: 05/06/2015 17:22:31 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #14 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.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #15 on: 05/06/2015 19:52:04 »
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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #16 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 :) ))
« Last Edit: 06/06/2015 13:39:22 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #17 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 !!!
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #18 on: 06/06/2015 14:03:28 »
JefferyH - in response to your saying that you do not understand how someone can come up with a theory if they do not understand the maths:

- 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.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2015 14:20:33 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #19 on: 06/06/2015 16:56:19 »
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.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2015 17:00:54 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #20 on: 06/06/2015 20:01:27 »
Hi Vikki,

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.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2015 20:03:02 by David Cooper »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #21 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 :)
« Last Edit: 07/06/2015 00:14:09 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #22 on: 07/06/2015 04:23:23 »
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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #23 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.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #24 on: 07/06/2015 18:43:43 »
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?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #24 on: 07/06/2015 18:43:43 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length