The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?  (Read 2825 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #50 on: 22/05/2016 23:41:06 »
I am looking at gravity from the point of view that everything is 'slowly' pulling together from a uniform 'sea' of particles, until all that is left is black holes that eventually merge into each other until there is only one left with everything of the universe in it.

This singular black hole, with no equivalent gravitational force acting upon it, ejects the matter of the entire universe (Big Bang) via its accretion disks (inflation period) until it's extinction, leaving a uniform sea of particles that start clumping together.  Distances of space between clumps of mass are created by particles vacating their former positions as mass is pulled together, but the actual spatial dimensions of the universe itself are slowly contracting as mass further clumps.
Almost entirely sensible, and much as proposed by Hawking in "blackholes and baby universes" and discussed back in the 1960s between myself and Ed Kibblewhite - and he's still looking for evidence. But I don't think it requires any variation in our understanding of red shift. 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #51 on: 23/05/2016 01:14:15 »
With regards to the redshift:

Wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency.

All I am requiring you to consider with inverted time dilation is that as lights wavelength gets longer or shorter respectively in a decreasing or increasing gravitational field, a second gets proportionally longer or shorter relative to a standard second, in 'almost' the same way that when a caesium atoms frequency increases or decreases respectively in a decreasing or increasing gravitational field, a second gets shorter or longer.

If light is travelling at the speed of light but is travelling through slower rates of time, ie: longer seconds relative to the 'standard' second, the distance it 'actually' travelled will be shorter than when calculated via the speed of light as per meters per 'standard' second...

In reverse one can view light experiencing blueshift due to the acceleration of gravity in an increasing gravitational field as being due to the rate of this inverted time dilation increasing.

This concept means that the idea of redshifted light being source velocity related is merely shifted to the perspective of this extra velocity being related to the light travelling through slower rates of time.  Distances between masses then are not as great as we think and consequently the mass size of distant light sources are then greater than we think.  The fact that we see light sources further red shifting is then due to a weakening of the gravitational field between source and observation, which may well be the distance between the 2 points expanding as clumps of mass transit their gravitational trajectories, but could also be just simply due to mass further clumping.  In either case the velocity of this expansion between distances under the remit of Inverted Time Theory is likely to be entirely minimal and therefore does not reflect Hubble's conjecture of an expanding universe and the subsequent current Big Bang theory, but is more reflective of Einstein's General Relativity, minus his cosmological constant lambda and untainted by Hubble's influence.  The De Broglie hypothesis of wavelength proportionality to energy and frequency then being viewed as time related not distance related.

This gives us the model of a slowly contracting universe that will, as GR predicts, result in a mess of black holes.  It's just that they will all be slowly pulling together, and not far flung apart as is currently thought.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #52 on: 23/05/2016 06:23:31 »
...also

Hawking's book 'Black Holes and Baby Universes' proposes the idea that black holes may be nodes from which other universes grow.

This notion is not comparable to my model of a cyclic universe.

The black holes of my model of the universe are energy filled, Big Bang plasma hot, and currently in our epoch are microscopic representations of the monster black holes that will form in the future and merge into a singular black hole to end this cycle of the universe and begin the next.

There is no other universes in my model.  Other universes are also unlikely outside of my model, though not completely out of the question, but IF there were other universes, they definitely would not be connected to this one in any shape or form at-all.

My model does not include any unobserved entities to explain its mechanics and can be tested via the extremely simple and cheap experiment that I have previously outlined.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #53 on: 24/05/2016 14:12:20 »
Hubble's Law:

Hubble noticed that there was a proportionality between the magnitude of a redshift and the distance of source.  The further away the light source, the greater the Doppler shift of the light.

By turning the velocity of the magnitude of this Doppler shift of light into distance, the conclusion was that the further away a light source is, the faster it is travelling away from us.

I am proposing that if you go one stage further and having already translated the velocity of this Doppler shift into a distance, then simply translate the distance calculated into a time: d/v=t.

Then turn that time calculation back into a distance using the speed of light ct=d.

This distance is by how much the light source is closer than we think.

Then transform that distance calculation back into a time: dc=t

That amount of time is the calculation of by how much the rate of time has slowed in the gravity field of space that exists between light source and observation, relative to a standard second, and using Hubble's standard candle as a standard reference for light.

This is an entirely logical proposition, that not only solves many outstanding physics conundrums, but also results in a closed system, slowly contracting, cyclic universe, that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #54 on: 26/05/2016 12:31:33 »
I was just beginning to wonder where you were, and here you are!

Yup, here I am...

So - Alan, since we have established that I'm not referring to black holes having nodes and growing other universes, and now that I've reduced the (attempted) maths of my concept of inverted time dilation to altering Hubble's law via the distance, speed, time formula... Can you now understand why I am approaching the phenomenon of redshifted light from a different perspective?  And can the maths work?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #55 on: 27/05/2016 04:55:48 »
And here we can see that I am not the only mind in the world considering that the universe is not expanding:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Quote:
""Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.

“We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said.""

Unquote:
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #56 on: 28/05/2016 08:27:36 »
And here we can see that I am not the only mind in the world considering that the universe is not expanding:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Quote:
""Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.

“We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said.""

Unquote:

They do not actually observe/see a redshift of anything, their computers and readouts tell them there is a redshift, quite hilarious how ''they'' keep making things up. My question is who are ''they''.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Inverted Time Theory: Can these maths work?
« Reply #56 on: 28/05/2016 08:27:36 »

 

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