# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: A theory of inverted time dilation  (Read 10635 times)

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #75 on: 23/06/2015 12:29:37 »
David

You said:

"That's good to hear - it means you've ditched your exaggerated role of the mass of the clock, so improper time will match proper time and run at maximum speed in deep space and slowest when the clock is stationary at any point to the inside of the event horizon of a black hole. That is progress."

I'm beginning to understand that actually you are incapable of reading without drawing your own assumptions.  The assumption that you display above having NO bearing on what I wrote.  I think there is a section in the rules that mentions intentional misrepresentation David.  You disappoint me.

You said:

"So it's not affected by gravity, but it's affected by gravity. Right, I get it."

Chain of command, cause and effect... Gravity causes time... Gravity does not "cause" light.  Light does not "cause" time.  But gravity does cause time and time "affects" light.  No you clearly don't get anything.

You said:

"You can stretch it and contract it all you like, but the frequency isn't going to change unless you add or remove a constantly-changing delay. The only thing that will change is the perceived frequency due to the different speed of light and the effect that has on local proper time."

What causes your speed of light?

You said:

"But the frequency doesn't change (it's impossible for it to do so), and proper time runs faster in the weaker gravity field. If improper time matches up with proper time, the the same must apply to your theory."

The frequency of light does change as it leaves a gravity field, it gets lower. Pound Rebka.
My time dilation/contraction due to gravity field only matches up with current thinkings proper time (with regards to mass in elevation) in the earth bound scenario, which you would know if you could actually "read" information given.
You have downright ridiculed my opening up the question of if a clock in elevation feels the gravitational field of the earth in addition to its own.  It's almost as if you believe that physics is in possession of a fully described theory of gravity.  We don't have a fully described theory of gravity.  Therefore it is "allowed" to look at alternatives. Looking at alternatives does not incorporate taking those alternatives and saying. "That's wrong because current thinking isn't like that".  That is not a discussion about alternatives, that is you arguing for the theory that "you" believe in.

You said:

"I wouldn't worry about the mass of the Earth - the black hole is capable of slowing proper time to half or a quarter of its normal rate for the rockets, so it doesn't matter whether it's a hovering rocket or a hovering Earth that we're using near the black hole as the mass of the Earth in such a situation is so trivial that it can be ignored."

Firstly, you state that proper time will be slowed to half or a quarter of its normal rate.  Can you provide experimental proof of this please?
Secondly, whatever mass you place at a radius of black hole, can you provide experimental proof that it does not feel the gravity field of the black hole please?
No you can't!!!  All you can provide is a set of mathematical equations that state this notion, but only when you "swap" terms in the space time matrix.

You said:

"While your model has to create a pretence of the same expansion in a manner for which your model has no mechanism at all."

My model is expanded by distance in time.  Janet and John books being downloaded for your immediate attention as we speak, (chuckle).  It truly amazes me that someone who can write so well, cannot seem to read.

I said:

"Quote
My model does not expand in actual distance.  The fabric of expanding space is "distance in time".  To travel this distance as a moving rocket, it will take you a journey time that you will relate into velocity per time factor.  But the velocity (not naturally occurring as with massless light) will become escalated relative to a slower/shorter length of moment and the time it takes you to cover both distance in time and actual distance will also be escalated, not only because of the longer length of moments travelled through, but because the escalating velocity is also slowing the rockets own perception of its own time down. (I could re-explain the way that the variable speeds of light over the "actual distance" act as a constraint as to how fast one may travel through "distance in time", but let's not complicate matters for now)"

You replied:

"Every time you go into an explanation of that kind you express the ideas in an incomprehensible way and leave me to decide whether to spend an hour trying to process it, or to reject it on the basis that it's too impenetrable. I simply don't have an hour free for each paragraph of that kind. That is why I like to see specific examples of things with actual numbers attached to them, and then I can see whether something is sensible or a pile of pants. I can't tell which category this bit belongs to."

What makes you think that because "you" can't comprehend something that it "is" a pile of pants?
On a phycological basis you are being incredibly disparaging about my notions that you clearly are not in full understanding of and are being fairly rude in your disdain, yet you argue a theory that doesn't time mesh your rockets unless you add a universal time, while refusing to acknowledge the implications of adding a universal time to the universe from both within or from outside of the universe.
I at least "understand" that my whole theory is hinged upon there being an alternative reason for clocks ticking faster in elevation to a greater body of mass.
You don't seem to even acknowledge the implications that your logic imposes on the universe.

You said:

"When I show you that you've got something wrong and you continue to push it even though it doesn't work, that's pretty wearing. You doubtless feel the same way when you keep failing to recognise that the thing you're pushing has been shot to pieces, so all you can do is put it forward again and again. However, everything you need to understand why your model doesn't work is already here in this thread and some day you might catch up."

Firstly, you have not shown me that I've got something wrong.  What you've shown me is that "you" have a pretty good basic idea of how current thing goes, although you seem to fail to appreciate where this current thinking is shot to pieces and push it regardless.  You've shown me, in your responses, that you have not really considered or read much about the alternatives that other physicists have put forward or the remits of different types of systems.  That you haven't really exposed yourself to much reading matter concerning what is and isn't actually proven and what bits of which hypothesis are based on supposition.  You have shown me that you are not capable of disassociating the way you have interpreted the current thinking in order to consider an alternative, or to discuss it in terms that are given in the remit of how the model differs from your interpretation of the universe.
Where you have not understood, instead of saying that you do not understand how something is different and is working, you state it impossible based on argument that is steeped in your misconception of my logic and you be rude and imperious while doing so.

Get real!  We're not discussing an idea here David, we are discussing your disdain for it...
« Last Edit: 23/06/2015 15:20:17 by timey »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #76 on: 23/06/2015 17:59:28 »
I have attached a graph of my what I believe your theory depicts. The intercept with the y-axis is at infinity and the asymptote tends towards infinity as escape velocity increases. Therefore the nearer to an event horizon the light is the faster its coordinate speed.. Ultimately at the horizon the light moves away starting at an infinite velocity. There is something wrong with your theory. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out what that is.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #77 on: 23/06/2015 19:34:46 »
I'm beginning to understand that actually you are incapable of reading without drawing your own assumptions.  The assumption that you display above having NO bearing on what I wrote.  I think there is a section in the rules that mentions intentional misrepresentation David.  You disappoint me.

Quote
The frequency of light does change as it leaves a gravity field, it gets lower. Pound Rebka.

Here's a prime example - you simply can't get your head around how frequency works and what it is. There is no expansion involved in this case and no difference in relative speed between emitter and detector, so the frequency is fixed. Until you fix that hole in your understanding, your theory is one of magic and not of physics.

Quote
You have downright ridiculed my opening up the question of if a clock in elevation feels the gravitational field of the earth in addition to its own.

You have opened up a question and I have answered it for you. You may not like the answer, but there is again no fix for that unless you are prepared to make your theory conform to the universe instead of the other way round.

Quote
It's almost as if you believe that physics is in possession of a fully described theory of gravity.  We don't have a fully described theory of gravity.  Therefore it is "allowed" to look at alternatives. Looking at alternatives does not incorporate taking those alternatives and saying. "That's wrong because current thinking isn't like that".  That is not a discussion about alternatives, that is you arguing for the theory that "you" believe in.

It isn't current thinking that I'm calling on to show that your theory is wrong, but experiments which contradict the claims of your theory. That is how science is done. I am comparing your theory with the universe and am not bringing in other theories at all.

Quote
Firstly, you state that proper time will be slowed to half or a quarter of its normal rate.  Can you provide experimental proof of this please?

We don't have access to a black hole or anything else sufficienly dense and heavy to generate such severe time dilation, but we can do experiments near lighter bodies where the effects are not so dramatic. I used rockets hovering over a black hole in order to create nice numbers to work with, but I could have done it with rockets hovering over the Earth instead with much messier numbers with loads of digits after a decimal point. If you want to translate everything I said from one scenario (untested) to another one (tested), go ahead and waste your time doing so - the things I was trying to get to through the thought experiment will still apply to the translated version. What you are doing here is diverting the discussion all over the place to try to avoid being pinned down at any point where your theory is shown to be wrong, muddying the waters as much as you can, and you're doing this because you are so emotionally attached to your theory that you cannot bear to let go of it. This may not be intentional, but a subsonscious process which is blocking your way to a better understanding.

Quote
Secondly, whatever mass you place at a radius of black hole, can you provide experimental proof that it does not feel the gravity field of the black hole please?
No you can't!!!  All you can provide is a set of mathematical equations that state this notion, but only when you "swap" terms in the space time matrix.

Of course it feels the gravity field of the black hole. Why on Earth would you think I think otherwise. My point is that there is no magical association between a little bit of matter and a big bit of matter which makes the little bit of matter experience a greater gravity field the further away you move it from the big bit of matter, and there is no magical mechanism for making significant change to proper time at a tiny piece of matter by varying its mass within a range where te tiny piece of mass remains small when the actual thing doing 99.99999% of the job of controlling proper time at that location is a monster piece of mass nearby. Again, this is something that you refuse to accept time and time again, but it has been tested repeatedly by actual experiments.

Quote
You said:

"While your model has to create a pretence of the same expansion in a manner for which your model has no mechanism at all."

My model is expanded by distance in time.  Janet and John books being downloaded for your immediate attention as we speak, (chuckle).  It truly amazes me that someone who can write so well, cannot seem to read.

Do you seriously think that's an answer? Your model is expanded by distance in time, is it? Why don't you do some little calculations with that and see what happens. I gave you a thought experiment where you and a friend would represent galaxies, and I still don't know if you understand how to do simulate this kind of thought experiment in your head. One of you flashes a signal to the other, continually. Each flash has to be delayed more than the one before it if the galaxies are to be seen as moving apart while they're actually staying still. This means the improper time is going to have to change somewhere between the two galaxies, or perhaps along the whole path between them, but what is causing this change in improper time? Why is it changing in one direction rather than the other? Why is it changing at an accelerating rate rather than at a constant or decreasing rate? What is controling these changes in the rates of improper time, and the changes in the rate of the changes? You don't have mechanisms for any of these things, but you simply assert that the distance in time is growing. What is driving that growth when the only mechanism you have makes no distinction between driving that growth, doing the exact opposite, and not changing the distance in time at all? But you can't see the problem - you are incapable of noticing that you have not provided any mechanism for this. Think about it - you have a mechanism which sets improper time at different locations based on associations of masses which do all sorts of weird things and ultimately come up with values which you assert are the same as proper time, and that will lead to fixed improper time rates at all locations, but to create the illusion of expansion you need changing improper rates of time rather than fixed ones. Your model only creates fixed ones, so how can you think it accounts for apparent expansion?

Quote
I said:

"Quote
My model does not expand in actual distance.  The fabric of expanding space is "distance in time".  To travel this distance as a moving rocket, it will take you a journey time that you will relate into velocity per time factor.  But the velocity (not naturally occurring as with massless light) will become escalated relative to a slower/shorter length of moment and the time it takes you to cover both distance in time and actual distance will also be escalated, not only because of the longer length of moments travelled through, but because the escalating velocity is also slowing the rockets own perception of its own time down. (I could re-explain the way that the variable speeds of light over the "actual distance" act as a constraint as to how fast one may travel through "distance in time", but let's not complicate matters for now)"

You replied:

"Every time you go into an explanation of that kind you express the ideas in an incomprehensible way and leave me to decide whether to spend an hour trying to process it, or to reject it on the basis that it's too impenetrable. I simply don't have an hour free for each paragraph of that kind. That is why I like to see specific examples of things with actual numbers attached to them, and then I can see whether something is sensible or a pile of pants. I can't tell which category this bit belongs to."

What makes you think that because "you" can't comprehend something that it "is" a pile of pants?

When did I say it was a pile of pants? Do you not understand the meaning of a sentence which says "sensible or a pile of pants"? One of the things you keep doing is providing descriptions which are take too much effort to interpret because of the way you use expressions like "will relate into velocity per time factor". When I suggest that you provide clear examples with numbers to illustrate what you're talking about, you won't do so. Not once have you done so. I have to drag numbers out of you by asking over and over again, and so far the only time I've got them it was with the improper time values which turned out to be identical to the proper time values even the way you calculate your improper time should lead to them varying wildly according to the mass of the clock while proper time hardly varies at all with mass of the clock. That's what really annoys me in this whole conversation, because you are playing avoidance games in order to try to prevent your theory being tested, and whenever I manage to nail a piece of it down you throw all your toys out of the pram. I can't be doing with that any more, so this is going to be my final post in this thread.

Quote
On a phycological basis you are being incredibly disparaging about my notions that you clearly are not in full understanding of and are being fairly rude in your disdain, yet you argue a theory that doesn't time mesh your rockets unless you add a universal time, while refusing to acknowledge the implications of adding a universal time to the universe from both within or from outside of the universe.

I have put many hours into trying to help you, but is has become clear that you aren't prepared to consider the possibility that there is anything wrong with your theory - all you want is to have someone tell you it's right. Well, okay then - it's right. If you wear everyone else down the same way, maybe they'll all tell you it's right too, but they'll quietly go on using other theories which can actually produce the right numbers to match the real universe.

Quote
I at least "understand" that my whole theory is hinged upon there being an alternative reason for clocks ticking faster in elevation to a greater body of mass.
You don't seem to even acknowledge the implications that your logic imposes on the universe.

The difference between my approach and yours is that I look at what the universe actually does and then try to account for it, but you want the universe to conform to your theory and simply deny that it doesn't do so in any area where they conflict.

Quote
Firstly, you have not shown me that I've got something wrong.

If a horse isn't thirsty...

Quote
What you've shown me is that "you" have a pretty good basic idea of how current thing goes, although you seem to fail to appreciate where this current thinking is shot to pieces and push it regardless.

What current thinking? I'm talking about experiments, and experiments are theory-independent. Current thinking doesn't matter a jot. Experiments show us how proper time behaves. Experiments show us what frequency is and how it is tied to proper time in its generation and the way it is perceived. It's all about experiments.

Quote
You've shown me, in your responses, that you have not really considered or read much about the alternatives that other physicists have put forward or the remits of different types of systems.

If they are pushing the same ideas as you, then their ideas are broken in the same way as yours, but all I have to work with here are the ideas that you are presenting.

Quote
That you haven't really exposed yourself to much reading matter concerning what is and isn't actually proven and what bits of which hypothesis are based on supposition.

Feynman said something along the lines of, it doesn't matter how beautiful a theory is, if it conflicts with the results of experiments, it's wrong. I'm simply testing your theory against the results of experiments.

Quote
You have shown me that you are not capable of disassociating the way you have interpreted the current thinking in order to consider an alternative, or to discuss it in terms that are given in the remit of how the model differs from your interpretation of the universe.

I am not going to ignore the experiments which don't fit your theory.

Quote
Where you have not understood, instead of saying that you do not understand how something is different and is working, you state it impossible based on argument that is steeped in your misconception of my logic and you be rude and imperious while doing so.

If I find something that's impossible, I prefer to get straight to the point and say so.

Quote
Get real!  We're not discussing an idea here David, we are discussing your disdain for it...

Where disdain has crept in, it's the result of you failing to take anything on board. You simply won't accept anything I say at all, which makes discussion impossible.

Goodbye, and good luck with your ongoing explorations into physics and any other work you may be doing. I've probably wasted 20 hours on this in the hope of saving you from wasting 2000. You need to change your whole approach and start trying to destroy your theory in order to test it instead of defending it by avoiding all the issues. I have shown you clear errors that you have made, but you cannot see them. I can't make you see what you are determined not to see.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #78 on: 24/06/2015 01:23:59 »
Thank you David and goodbye and good luck to you too.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #79 on: 24/06/2015 01:26:13 »
I have attached a graph of my what I believe your theory depicts. The intercept with the y-axis is at infinity and the asymptote tends towards infinity as escape velocity increases. Therefore the nearer to an event horizon the light is the faster its coordinate speed.. Ultimately at the horizon the light moves away starting at an infinite velocity. There is something wrong with your theory. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out what that is.

Hey thanks JefferyH... for taking the trouble.

This would appear to me "not" to be describing a theory of gravity but a theory of light.  The title of "theory of gravity" and the axis describing magnitude of "escape velocity" is misleading.  Light does not have to escape gravity in my model, it's massless.

In assuming that you are increasing these speeds of light by the same proportion that the equation that increases distances increases those distances, this graph would be useful in relation to my model if instead of the escape velocity you graphed the variable speeds of light against the distance the light has travelled at those speeds of light.  It would be "really" useful if the graph could actually describe a relationship between 2 exact same bodies of mass - whereas the speed of light starts at 30000000 and ends at 300000000, and is reducing in the distance in-between the bodies of mass with the slowest point located at midpoint, and that these varying speeds should be corresponded by the distance travelled by the light at that speed.

By adding up these distances travelled, this would constitute my models "actual distance" between these bodies of mass.

It would then be relevant to travel the  light for the same amount of "time" it took the variable speeds of light to get from one body of mass to the other, (the length of a moment is expanded by the same proportion/ratio that the speed of light was reduced) while travelling the light for this "amount" of slower time "transposed" for the calculation back into the time that these slower times would take in relation to the length of an earth moment, and travelling the light at the 300000000 speed of light.  Then by adding up this distance travelled, this is the "distance in time".

By subtracting the "actual distance" from "the distance in time" you will have a numerical figure of distance on by how much "slow time" has expanded space between these bodies of mass.

That would be "timey's" time theory of light and distance. :)
« Last Edit: 24/06/2015 03:15:35 by timey »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #80 on: 25/06/2015 02:05:45 »
Hey thanks JefferyH... for taking the trouble.

This would appear to me "not" to be describing a theory of gravity but a theory of light.  The title of "theory of gravity" and the axis describing magnitude of "escape velocity" is misleading.  Light does not have to escape gravity in my model, it's massless.

Your theory revolves around light and yes light does have to escape gravity. The shift in wavelength shows this as does the effect of an event horizon on light. If your theory doesn't predict this then it cannot be correct.

In assuming that you are increasing these speeds of light by the same proportion that the equation that increases distances increases those distances, this graph would be useful in relation to my model if instead of the escape velocity you graphed the variable speeds of light against the distance the light has travelled at those speeds of light.  It would be "really" useful if the graph could actually describe a relationship between 2 exact same bodies of mass - whereas the speed of light starts at 30000000 and ends at 300000000, and is reducing in the distance in-between the bodies of mass with the slowest point located at midpoint, and that these varying speeds should be corresponded by the distance travelled by the light at that speed.

I just can't make sense of this. You need to be clearer in you language. At first glance it looks like you have things backwards. Especially when saying "whereas the speed of light starts at 30000000 and ends at 300000000, and is reducing in the distance in-between the bodies of mass with the slowest point located at midpoint".

By adding up these distances travelled, this would constitute my models "actual distance" between these bodies of mass.

It would then be relevant to travel the  light for the same amount of "time" it took the variable speeds of light to get from one body of mass to the other, (the length of a moment is expanded by the same proportion/ratio that the speed of light was reduced) while travelling the light for this "amount" of slower time "transposed" for the calculation back into the time that these slower times would take in relation to the length of an earth moment, and travelling the light at the 300000000 speed of light.  Then by adding up this distance travelled, this is the "distance in time".

By subtracting the "actual distance" from "the distance in time" you will have a numerical figure of distance on by how much "slow time" has expanded space between these bodies of mass.

That would be "timey's" time theory of light and distance. :)

The rest is just too confusing. Get back to me when you either clarify your description or come up with some mathematics. I see David gave up on you. No one else appears interested any more so take this opportunity to bounce ideas off me because I don't mind.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #81 on: 25/06/2015 14:09:14 »
No one else appears interested any more so take this opportunity to bounce ideas off me because I don't mind.

Thank you JeffreyH.

Current thinking has a gravity field gravitationally effecting light via the exiting of atoms into a change of frequency.

My model states that the gravity field has a gravitational effect of "pull" on mass, and that a gravity field is the "causation" of time.  The different strengths of a gravity field, that are caused by the magnitude of mass present in relation to distance, cause different rates of time, ie: longer or shorter lengths of moment.
Gravity has no effect on light as light is massless.  It is "time" that has an effect on light, and it is the changing from one length of moment to another length of moment that is exiting atoms into a change of frequency in the light.

The Pound Rebka experiment states that light has a lower frequency when leaving a gravity field than it does arriving into a gravity field.

Therefore my model states that the rate of time for the "locations" in space on the progressively outwardly expanding radius from a gravity field, (body of mass), will be running progressively slower time.

(as opposed to the rate of time for anything that ""has mass"" placed on those radius which "do" run a minuscule faster rate of time.  We'll cover this relationship of mass near mass according to my model after we've got the light bit understood)

You are "almost" correct in saying that I am turning everything back to front.  That's along the right sort of lines but it's not "just" as simple as saying its current thinking backwards.  The mechanics are different.

If you can accept what I've said above on "an experimental basis" then we can proceed.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2015 17:30:23 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #82 on: 25/06/2015 22:22:18 »
Lol!  I'm far too impatient to wait and am now proceeding based on the assumption that you, or perhaps someone, "can" accept the remit of my model as set out in post above...

Ok, we are travelling light from one earth like mass A to another earth like mass B.  We think they are x distance apart.
So we start the light speed vector at earths light speed, 299 792 458m/s from mass A.  The vector is travelling in a straight line directly from mass A to mass B.  After 1 second and 299 792 458 metres, we reduce the speed of light by the same proportion as the equation that increases distances, decreases those distances. (Please note that despite the fact that the next second will be longer in length, we are still travelling the following slower speeds of light against the length of an earth second, as a balancing factor, because the equation that increases distances uses earths speed of light in the equation, (please correct me if I'm wrong) this balance repeats in the next stage "length of moment" "distance in time" measurement)

This now reduced speed of light travels x amount of metres, we repeat the process and log the reduced distance travelled for every second until we reach mid point.  At mid point between these bodies of equal mass will exist the slowest speed of light.
Add up all the metres traveled per second up till mid point and double this amount to account for the symmetrical "from mid point to mass B" journey that increases the speed of light until it is at 299 792 458m/s again on arrival at mass B.

This will sum up to be a shorter distance than we thought x distance was between these bodies of mass.  In my model, this is the "actual distance" between these masses.  We can draw this as a straight line between the two masses.

Now we must work out how much earth time this journey took.  Every second that has passed for the light has increased in its length.  The length of a second being increased by the same proportion as the equation that increases distances, increases those distances.
We must work out the magnitude of the slower seconds that the light has passed through and relate that back to how much time this would add up to in earth length seconds.

We then travel the light from mass A to mass B for the sum of this amount of time at earths speed of light, (balancing factor again) 299 792 458m/s and calculate how much distance has been covered in this time.  This figure of distance should match up with the x distance we originally thought the masses were apart.  We can now draw this distance in a line perpendicular between mass A and mass B.  This distance is a "distance in time".

The "distance in time" is what we observe.  The "distance in time" is what a rocket would "have" to travel through.

Subtract the "actual distance" from the "distance in time" and that figure of distance is by how much "slow time" has expanded space in my model. (note I say space and not distance).

If you have followed up to this point then we can move on to applying Pythagoras (?) (and looking at light subject to inverse square law) with regards to these distances in relation to each other, the curvature of space and the effect of having a build up of slower time "midpoint" with regards to the light mass B observes and "where" in this "space" mass B will observe the light as arriving from.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #83 on: 26/06/2015 19:40:54 »
Of course it is somewhat of a conundrum as to how to define the "length" of an earth second.  My best guess is to use the existing nanosecond division of an earth second in the hope that 1 nano second isn't going to be "too slow" for the representation of a whole second concerning the reference frame in which all the mass of the universe is in one lump, but we can always go on to subdivide the nano second if necessary.  By attributing a nanosecond an associated length, like say 1000th of a mm or anything you like really, we are then in a position to increase or decrease earths length of moment via the distance equation.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #84 on: 27/06/2015 05:01:54 »
Why don't you just say that all the contributions from gravitational sources external to the earth are summing up to continually remove energy from light. Thus the redshift. That is what you are hinting at. That there is no expansion in the universe. Why complicate it? You could even argue this from the Hubble data. Making light slow down in the voids is nonsense. Nature isn't that complex. The laws of nature are ultimately simple. This brings to mind the epicycles of planetary motion.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #85 on: 27/06/2015 09:47:06 »
Well yes, of course I "could" just say this and leave it at that.  The Hubble data "can" be interpreted as such, as you suggest.  But... in my quest for a theory that explains the universe in totality, this explanation still leaves us flying rockets that don't time mesh unless we add an outside element of time, black holes that "lose" information, an uncertainty principle that cannot be penetrated, dark matter, a Big Bang that we cannot explain the origins of and a Big Crunch or ultimate freeze that we just guess at.

By including such an expansive scale of variant to the occurrence of the rate of time, synonymous with the force of gravity that is the "causation" of time in my model, I believe that this will give the mathematics the "reach" to get behind these mysteries.  My model needs there to be a vastly escalated speed of light to plug into e=mc2 for the reference frame whereas all the mass of the universe is in a black hole that explodes/jets particles across the expanse of distance that my model "needs" to "avoid" the necessity for an inflationary period, or to provide the energy for this inflationary period (whichever way you wish to view it)

The implications of redshift suggest that not only is the universe expanding, but that it is accelerating in this expansion.  Therefore the notion that an unquantified "fabric" of space is expanding at a rate that is faster than the speed of light, (what happened to universal speed limit?) by means of this unquantified force of dark energy, is currently held forth.

Slow time in space gives an alternative reason for this redshift observation across the so called "voids".  It gives "causation" in terms that do not include the addition of any "force" that is not observed.  It just requires that one considers that "time" is a "force", a force twinned with gravity and that slow time creates an "illusion" of distance in space.

If slow time can be thought of as nonsense, yet you believe that nature is simple, then how do you rate the complexity of an expanding fabric of space?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #86 on: 27/06/2015 10:02:01 »
Your conclusion must be that light travels faster the nearer to a gravitational source. Therefore clocks in orbit run slower than those on the surface of the earth. That is patently untrue. At the event horizon of a black hole time would approach an infinite speed. You do realize this don't you? Time dilation has been proven to exist as suggested by experiment and not as you would have it. You have shown no mathematics to back up any of your claims. Without it your theory is all hot air with a little smoke and mirrors thrown into the mix. Unless you provide numbers you will be ignored. If those numbers don't predict the outcomes seen via experimentation your theory will be written off. So when are you going to provide those numbers? A ball park figure?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #87 on: 27/06/2015 10:29:02 »
With all due respect JeffreyH, I have, at every point and juncture, made it clear that I do not know how to do these maths.  I can "visualise" the means for doing them and what the results would be as an observation but I do not "understand" how to manipulate the mathematical symbols.  If I did know how I would have calculated my logic before "sharing" it as mentioned in post 1.
(Lee Smolin's last book said I shouldn't let that put me off)

This thread is an "explanation" of my visualisation in the hope that someone who "can" manipulate mathematics "may" be interested as mentioned in post 1.  I am learning more by the day but it will most likely be "quite some time" before I "can" produce these figures that you mention.

Yes I do realise that "time" would be running "very" fast in black hole.  I need it to run fast.  However, my alternative to increasing or decreasing the rate of time by means of the equation that increases distances, is to look at the rate of time being subject to the inverse square law as gravity is.  This would reduce the rate of time for a black hole but I suspect it might expand slow time in space too much.
(Edit... my mass near mass logic also poses the possibility of reducing the rate of time for black hole to more "feasible" proportions.)

Also..,please note that my model states that clocks tick faster in elevation...No deviation from experimental data there.

Yes, you are right, this piece of logic needs maths to go with it to actually even be classed as a theory.  I can't do them as of yet!
Do you fancy helping?
« Last Edit: 27/06/2015 10:50:06 by timey »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #88 on: 27/06/2015 14:03:21 »
The first thing you need to straighten out is exactly what you mean by light slowing down. With respect to what? It cannot be local observers otherwise you are violating the laws of physics.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #89 on: 27/06/2015 14:13:15 »
So you have L equaling 1 light second which is a distance the same as a light year. Then t equals time. So we then have . You say the distance increases as we move away from a gravitational filed which is counter to accepted wisdom. However lets carry on. but that is no good we need and then we have . I have already shown you a graph of this.
« Last Edit: 27/06/2015 14:16:10 by jeffreyH »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #90 on: 27/06/2015 16:43:45 »
The first thing you need to straighten out is exactly what you mean by light slowing down. With respect to what? It cannot be local observers otherwise you are violating the laws of physics.

Ok, the speed the light is moving at is in respect to the distance travelled and is relative to the strength of a gravity field.  No need for any observer.

With regards to maths in next post.  As far as I know a light year is the distance it takes light to travel a years worth of seconds at 299 792 458m/s.

You said:
"So you have L equaling 1 light second which is a distance the same as a light year. "

What I have is 1 time second, which at earths speed of light incorporates the light travelling 299 792 458 metres.  A slower speed of light will travel the light a lesser distance if travelling that lesser speed of light against an earth length second.
The speed of light will remain constant against these longer lengths of second, if you transpose these longer lengths of second back into how much this time would add up to in earth length seconds, but this will produce a longer overall distance travelled by the light than the light covered by the speed of light being progressively reduced.

I'm not sure where the light year has come into the equation. (Scratches head) but if you have decided that mass A and mass B are 1 light year apart, in this scenario for 50% of the lights journey, every second that passes the lights speed will reduce and for 50% of the journey it will increase again. Then this distance is offset in a distance travelled at earths speed of light against the time it would take in slower seconds, translated into that length of time in earth seconds.  (Everything is much "closer" together than it appears... in my model)
This would involve a series of calculations that cannot be covered in one algebra equation.
Professor Susskind mentions a computer program called "Mathematica" which "would" prove useful in that it is programmed to equate the increasing distance equation as well as the GR Field equations.
Do you have this program or similar?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #91 on: 27/06/2015 23:39:46 »
In my model, because the earth is in orbit with the sun and the sun is the greater mass, the rates of time for the sun and the earth will not be exactly the same, but they will be very similar, so we can say (for now) that the speed of light is the same for the sun as for the earth.

The sun is observed on the horizon as appearing at a position higher than it actually is because the light is "bent". There is a degree of "arc" to this bend.  My model states that an "arc" of bend is due to light traveling through space expanded by slow time.  The sun should have an "actual distance" and a "distance in time".

The sun is 8 earth mins away.  Based on the fact that in the calculations I've outlined regarding measuring distance, after "midpoint" we are dealing with a mirror image, we would only have to calculate 4 mins.  It would then take 240 calculations of reduction in speed of light to work out the "actual distance" to the sun and 240 calculations of increase in length of second to work out the "distance in time".

If we can draw the "actual distance" as a straight line from the sun to the earth and then draw the "distance in time" measurement bent perpendicular from the sun to the earth...if the degree of arc matches up at-all would be the question...

I am aware that this displacement of position is "current thinking attributed" *entirely* to the effect of the earths atmosphere, but we see a similar position displacement in stars that are further away due to "current thinking gravitational bending" of light during solar eclipse.
« Last Edit: 28/06/2015 10:35:46 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #92 on: 16/07/2015 11:33:59 »
I've since been looking at a lot of photographs and videos of sightings of double suns in the sky and the degree of arcs involved.

http://m.space.com/11038-china-suns-video-unexplained.html

I also found this:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47663.0

...and wondered if Pmb ever got his photo's from the woman in the taxi.

My logic (theory) states that slow time in space will cause a light source to be viewed from a position on a higher degree of arc than its actual source is located at... causing us to believe that the light source is further away from us than it really is.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #93 on: 01/08/2015 00:43:58 »
Just finished reading Roger Penrose "What came before the Big Bang, Cycles of Time"...

Mr Penrose...Sir!  If the world was such that I were to be given three wishes, one of them would be to speak with 'you' on physics!

Penrose gives description of his idea referred to as CCC.  This theory through close examination of the second law of thermodynamics depicts the universe as a cyclic phenomenon as does my "piece of logic".

Penrose states that the implications of GR are that the far progressed future of our universe ends up in a mess of black holes and, because everything is expanding away from everything else, these black holes will eventually evaporate due to Hawking's radiation.  That particles will decay by certain 'means' (too complicated to describe here) into zero rest mass to then smoothly cross over from the end of the current universe into the next 'aeon', being the beginning of a new universe. (Please excuse my oversimplification)

Much of Penrose's argument translates to my piece of logic... However it is just after where the implications of GR state that the far progressed future will become a mess of black holes that Penrose and I part company.

My logic states that the universe is not expanding in 'distance' and that this mess of black holes will merge into one black hole that is the singularity that becomes the Big Bang of the next aeon via its jets.  Whereas Penrose and I 'more or less' rejoin company...but, I suspect, without the need for any 'unobserved' rest mass considerations.

But... and this is the Big But, the only logical conclusion considering observation for the universe being non-expanding lies in time going slow in space as presented in the above posts.  There is evidence whereas 'massless' light is concerned within the redshift phenomenon to support this notion, however the evidence that clocks tick faster in elevation is a fact without contention...

'But'... can we consider the 'reason' that clocks tick faster in elevation to be 'set in stone'?
« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 01:09:37 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #94 on: 01/08/2015 21:51:17 »
Dark energy considerations aside, gravity is responsible for the motions of mass and we currently are in understanding that gravity has an effect on time...

I have not yet heard of a theory in physics that gives the phenomenon of time a role to play in the actual workings of the mechanics of the universe, or that gives indication to what in the universe causes time to occur.

In my quest for causality I do not think it an unreasonable notion that gravity is the causation of time, or to make the statement that in the absence of time motion cannot occur.

A distance is measured by how much time it takes motion to get from start to finish.  If we are measuring a distance that is comprised of areas in which time goes slower or faster than that which we experience on earth, then the distance travelled will not be as long or as short as we would perceive the length of this distance to be by earth standards.

The velocity that far flung galaxies expand away at is proportional more or less to the distance they are thought to be from earth.

As mentioned in post above... if the universe is not expanding in distance then the only logical conclusion to explain observation is if time runs progressively slower in a weaker gravity field.

If time runs slower in space then we will perceive the distance in space to be greater than it actually is when travelling across it.  If the speed of light is a variable that is only constant in its ratio to the length of a moment...then special relativity/time slowing due to motion will also slow a travellers progress across space if the traveller up-keeps his/her velocity as per mph because this velocity will progressively rise in its percentage of the progressively slower speeds of light as per longer moment.

Of course I realise that it is extremely unlikely that I am right in my thinking here... but if I am then it would actually be possible for us humans to cross space much faster.

If my logic is correct then time 'is' the mysterious dark energy that physics is looking for.  Our universe would not be expanding in distance, it would be expanded in slow time.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #95 on: 02/08/2015 01:41:16 »
Time is not caused by anything. Time measures the rate of change of the state of a system. The question you should be asking is what causes the change in the state of a system? This is the result of the various forces and governed by conservation laws. Your obsession with time is the problem. You could benefit from thinking about the role of dark energy on the spacetime metric. You could actually modify your theory in order to apply it to dark energy because that is what it models.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #96 on: 02/08/2015 01:50:20 »
One last pointer. You need to determine a way to reconcile why should result in an expanding universe.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #97 on: 02/08/2015 03:21:23 »
Time is not caused by anything. Time measures the rate of change of the state of a system. The question you should be asking is what causes the change in the state of a system? This is the result of the various forces and governed by conservation laws. Your obsession with time is the problem. You could benefit from thinking about the role of dark energy on the spacetime metric. You could actually modify your theory in order to apply it to dark energy because that is what it models.

Firstly, how can you make such a sweeping statement as to categorically state that "time is not caused by anything" ...?  You are taking the view that time is merely a measurement such as a metre.  A metre does not define distance.  Distance is a fundamental property of our universe.  We can measure velocity in miles per hour or in kilometers or in whatever, but either which way you measure it, velocity is a fundamental property of our universe.  Distance has a causation.  Velocity has a causation.  Why is time any different?

Secondly, I do not understand why I could benefit from studying the role of dark energy in relation to the metric.  As far as I understand the role of dark energy is assigned to the constant and accelerating expansion of the universe...in distance.  I am suggesting that the observed acceleration of redshift is time related, that distance, apart from gravitational shifts due to cosmological changes, is a constant and that the universe's expansion and its curvature is a result of progressively slower time in space.

Thirdly, I am not obsessed by time.  Lee Smolin wanted a theory on time. I read his book, took all the factors, juggled them as if it were a 'who done it' and came up with this piece of logic.  That is all... No obsession.  Just logic.  Probably not the 'right' logic, but logic non the less.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2015 10:44:53 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1308
• Thanked: 8 times
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #98 on: 02/08/2015 03:26:17 »
One last pointer. You need to determine a way to reconcile why should result in an expanding universe.

Please can I gently remind you that as a non mathematician I need a whiteboard explanation of your maths that includes a precursor of their objective and a walk through in words of their process if I am to understand what you are expressing.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3929
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #99 on: 02/08/2015 17:00:59 »
One last pointer. You need to determine a way to reconcile why should result in an expanding universe.

Please can I gently remind you that as a non mathematician I need a whiteboard explanation of your maths that includes a precursor of their objective and a walk through in words of their process if I am to understand what you are expressing.

Exactly.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #99 on: 02/08/2015 17:00:59 »