The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A theory of inverted time dilation  (Read 10556 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #25 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.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #26 on: 08/06/2015 02:00:50 »
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.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #27 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.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2015 18:18:25 by David Cooper »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #28 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.

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.

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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #29 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. :)
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #30 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.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2015 19:26:44 by David Cooper »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #31 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.

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.

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? :)
« Last Edit: 10/06/2015 03:33:42 by timey »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #32 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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #33 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.

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.

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 :)
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #34 on: 10/06/2015 23:31:56 »
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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #35 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".
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #36 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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #37 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.

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.

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. :)
« Last Edit: 12/06/2015 01:08:14 by timey »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #38 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
Quote
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.

My question was about what causes the apparent expansion in your model - you need a direct equivalent of dark energy to drive it.

Quote
Quote
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?

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
Quote
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?

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
Quote
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.

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
Quote
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 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
Quote
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 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
Quote
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2015 19:43:18 by David Cooper »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #39 on: 13/06/2015 14:02:23 »
Ok, firstly I apologise because the multi quoting function is not available from my phone.  My laptop's keyboard has a broken "i" key which renders typing somewhat difficult.  I compose my replies in my notes function because if I zoom in on the reply window it does not allow me to see the text I'm typing.  I would dearly love to multi quote, but you will have to bear with me.

""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?
« Last Edit: 13/06/2015 16:08:35 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #40 on: 13/06/2015 16:08:11 »
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.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #41 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?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #42 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. 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #43 on: 13/06/2015 21:10:57 »
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?

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?
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #44 on: 13/06/2015 23:45:54 »
Quote
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 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
Quote
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.

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
Quote
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.

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
Quote
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" ?

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
Quote
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.

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
Quote
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.

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
Quote
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

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
Quote
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.

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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #45 on: 14/06/2015 02:03:41 »
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
« Last Edit: 14/06/2015 14:55:53 by timey »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #46 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?
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?
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.

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
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #47 on: 14/06/2015 06:28:11 »
Quote from: timey
<snipped HUGE quote>
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
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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #48 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...
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #49 on: 14/06/2015 18:56:16 »
Hi Vikki,

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.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #49 on: 14/06/2015 18:56:16 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums