Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

  • 381 Replies
  • 4947 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #300 on: 18/03/2017 05:34:09 »
When you say a recipe for the 3rd time dilation what do you mean?

Is it not enough to describe that this time dilation is the cause of gravitational acceleration.  That a body travelling at constant speed in a vacuum can be accelerated towards an M by seconds becoming progressively shorter closer to M, to the accelerative value of GM/r^2(if that is the equation that describes acceleration?)...?

I'll look at the link..
You are describing an existing interpretation of the SC solution. (The SC solution can be interpreted as variable light speed or variable time speed. The net effect is the same.) In a previous post you had postulated a different source of time dilation, which does not involve a gravitating mass. That's what Friedmann was on about.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 06:00:01 by Mike Gale »

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #301 on: 18/03/2017 05:42:46 »
Anyway - perhaps someone can help me...
If we were to say that the value of GR time dilation, associated with M Earth, caused an acceleration to an object travelling at a constant speed, i.e. being accelerated by shorter seconds, negating any gravitational attraction or other phenomenon completely, what value of an acceleration would GR time dilation cause in metres per second squared?
GR is consistent with Newton in the scenario you describe (i.e. here on Earth) regardless of whether you interpret it in terms of variable time speed or variable light speed. In other words, acceleration due to gravity is GM/r2 if the ratio of M to r2 is small enough. GR corrections for other cases are hard to pin down because M loses its meaning in a sufficiently strong field. The SC metric gives something like GM/r2*(1-rs/r) where rs=2GM/c2. I don't think that's quite right though because the validity of the SC metric in close proximity to the event horizon is questionable.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 06:15:14 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #302 on: 18/03/2017 12:04:20 »
If one can understand that an acceleration towards an M can be considered as time dilation related, and the deceleration away from M can be considered time dilation related, then this time dilation is occurring in the opposite direction to GR time dilation. (which my model retains as an m at h from M phenomenon)
It also means that time only runs faster in space for m in relation to M.  Open space h from M is running slower time.

This is NOT the current view.  The current view is that time runs slower nearer M and faster out in space.  My idea completely changes that notion and the consequences of doing so are immense.

Now when a bigger M is involved such as a black hole, the same will apply, and the M of a black hole will have a much, much faster rate of time than Earth.  And where there is m at h from M of black hole, time will run even faster for m only.
And this is what considering gravitational acceleration being time dilation related results in.

Calculating the SC under the remit of gravitational acceleration being time dilation related would result in a completely new picture of the physics for a black hole.  No time stopped, no energy/information loss.
Just normal physics on a larger scale.

I don't know where I said that the 3rd time dilation was not related to the gravitational mass, but a g-field surrounding M is obviously caused by M.  And the 3rd time dilation is caused by the g-field surrounding M, where the g-field is weaker at greater h from M, and the 3rd time dilation has longer seconds in the weaker g-field.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2134
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #303 on: 18/03/2017 14:40:53 »
 
THE Alan Guth? Isn't he famously brilliant?
Yes Prof at MIT, the leading light on inflation, but free thinking and able to adapt it if necessary.

 
I imagine he would be loathe to drudge through this discussion thread because we are still waxing philosophical about timey's theory. We have yet to establish the (mathematical) recipe for her 3rd dilation for example. The relativistic correction to the SC metric thread might be more up his alley:
Like most busy people he is unlikely to look unless someone he trusts eg Pete says 'hey this is interesting'.
Some top phyicists do go onto some of the dedicated physics sites.
 
The density ratio you (Colin2B) speak of goes into the specification of the spatial topology in the Friedmann analysis. It's one of the parameters you fiddle around with to get the FD metric to match Hubble's data.
I thought you would understand

 
No, those maths are too complex for me, and it sounds like a calculation of an expanding universe. So no, there may be similarities from a mathematical perspective if one were to try and calculate a contracting model, but Freidman is not calculating a contracting model, nor is he stating the accelerative force of gravity as being time dilation related, far as I can see.
You can get to a contracting universe solution via these linking cosmo constant. However, big sticking point is, as you say, g being time related.

 
Mike, I think overall the issue is that Timey doesn't want an alternative that 'looks similar' unless it has certain specifications. In this respect although current maths solutions might suggest some techniques to use, it's not going to provide an answer.

 
Timey, somewhere else you mention time quantisation and filtering of time observed. Have you looked at chronons particles of time?

 

 
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #304 on: 18/03/2017 15:00:46 »
I have read about the concept of time being quantised, but not recently.

However when I am referring to time in the context of quantisation, I am referring to an observer dependency concept.  That an observation of a rate of time that is differing from one's own will be proportional to the difference in rate, and that the observation is then a quantised, or inversely quantised representation.

My model states that if one consider that the temperature energy added to the black body increases the rate of time for the atoms of the black body, that then radiate higher frequency photons, that one can hold the frequency of the photon relative to the rate of time of the emitting atom and all quantised effects will then be negated.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #305 on: 18/03/2017 17:47:25 »
If one can understand that an acceleration towards an M can be considered as time dilation related, and the deceleration away from M can be considered time dilation related, then this time dilation is occurring in the opposite direction to GR time dilation. (which my model retains as an m at h from M phenomenon)
Accelerating towards something is the same as decelerating away from it. The distinction has to do with initial velocity. Acceleration describes how the velocity of an object changes over time. Velocity describes how its location changes over time. It is possible for an object to experience acceleration yet remain stationary. In that case, it experiences a force, which is proportional to its inertial mass, and acceleration must then be interpreted as a change in the speed of time or, since m=E/c2, a change in the speed of light. In either case, the force changes the object's perception of space (in all directions) because, as Einstein pointed out, light is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 18:20:42 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #306 on: 18/03/2017 18:26:42 »
Ok - well here you are saying about an acceleration that is caused by a force that is proportional to inertial mass...
My model differs as to what is the cause of this force, in that my model is saying that the accelerative force is caused not by a force that is proportional to inertial mass, but is caused by the 3rd time dilation of the g-field, which is denoted by h from M.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #307 on: 18/03/2017 18:29:00 »
The force depends on inertial mass, but acceleration (due to gravity) does not. Gravity imposes constant acceleration at a given location. The resulting force depends on the observer's mass. By comparison, a rocket engine imposes constant force so acceleration depends on mass in that case.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 18:36:53 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #308 on: 18/03/2017 18:35:11 »
In my model - the force depends on value of M, and h from M, and has nothing to do with m.
But there is the question of directional force, and that is why I was asking how many metres per second squared a constant velocity would be accelerated by GR time dilation increases in time in a gravity field.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 18:37:52 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #309 on: 18/03/2017 18:37:26 »
No. Acceleration depends on M and h. Force depends on acceleration and m. In mathematical terms: F=ma and a=GM/h2. This is true for weak fields. The GR correction for strong fields is tricky, as I pointed out previously, and there is no consensus on it. One way to approach the problem is to recognize that the SC metric can be interpreted in terms of variable light speed. In that case, m and M are variables (because E=mc2.) Even so though, the SC metric breaks down at the horizon so it is unreliable when you get up close and personal.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 18:48:33 by Mike Gale »

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4286
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #310 on: 18/03/2017 18:49:50 »
No. Acceleration depends on M and h. Force depends on acceleration and m. In mathematical terms: F=ma and a=GM/h2. This is true for weak fields. The GR correction for strong fields is tricky, as I pointed out previously, and there is no consensus on it.

In strong fields very small changes in h are more significant. Hence tidal forces. This tends towards a singularity.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #311 on: 18/03/2017 18:52:41 »
Yes - I understand how the current view is held, but I'm looking at a different means of description that attributes a physical cause for the force occurring, and this is a description that doesn't involve m.

A 100kg cannonball and a 10kg cannonball in a vacuum will both bounce off a perfect reflector to the same height that they were dropped from.
Both cannonballs will accelerate at same rate, and decelerate at same rate...
It is the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy that ensures the bigger ball bounces as high as the smaller ball, more mass=more potential energy for conversion.
But there is no physical description as to why mass should experience acceleration in the g-field, and my rendition gives a physical description where none is being currently given.

And in my model - because time runs slower in space, bigger masses than Earth are not going to have slower rates of time than Earth, as I said before.  This negates all trickyness in the strong field.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 18:58:29 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #312 on: 18/03/2017 18:57:29 »
In strong fields very small changes in h are more significant. Hence tidal forces. This tends towards a singularity.
True dat. Tidal forces are due to the spherically symmetric nature of the field. If you stand upright in a gravitational field and extend your arms, your hands experience less accleration than your head (because they are farther away from the centre of mass of the gravitating body.) This has dire consequences for your integrity when you are free falling in a strong field. Susskind calls it spaghettification.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 19:05:31 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #313 on: 18/03/2017 19:00:45 »
And in my model - because time runs slower in space, bigger masses than Earth are not going to have slower rates of time than Earth, as I said before.  This negates all trickyness in the strong field.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #314 on: 18/03/2017 19:08:57 »
GPS demonstrates that time runs faster (or light goes faster) in free space.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 19:11:10 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #315 on: 18/03/2017 19:11:38 »
No - GPS demonstrates that time runs faster for m in space.  You can't measure open space, and light that covers distance slower will look exactly the same as light that covers distance quicker.  If the positive time and the negative time are equal, the distance travelled will be the same.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 19:13:53 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #316 on: 18/03/2017 19:15:33 »
The mass of the satellite clock does not factor into the time dilation. And observers who disagree about the speed of time or the speed of light must necessarily disagree about distances in space and therefore simultaneity.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 19:20:39 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #317 on: 18/03/2017 19:20:56 »
No - and the factor of the mass of any body of mass at that h will not factor into the the time dilation.

pe=mgh.  And we can say pe/m so that all atoms within m experience equal pe.

I don't see any reason why time dilation for m at h from M should be any different...
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #318 on: 18/03/2017 19:28:54 »
In my model no-one has to disagree about anything.  Distances are constant, and just by understanding which rate of time one is using to measure, everything is abundantly clear to everyone no matter where they are, although they may not be observing the entire picture where rates of time differ, because the observation will be proportional to the difference in rate of time and observations will result in being descrete, or quantised.  This will be more noticeable between vastly differing rates of time, but is indeed apparent in an observation of an atom at elevation to an observer as a change in the frequency of the atom.  Measure the atom via the rate of time the atom is experiencing, and the observation of the elevated atom will have the same frequency as the atom on the ground, when measuring the atom on the ground via the rate of time on the ground.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 19:39:06 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #319 on: 18/03/2017 19:30:22 »
Even so, you are not entirely wrong. One's mass does in fact affect one's perception of the passage of time. That's why GR is formulated in terms of an infinitesimally small test mass. It's a simplifying assumption to make the math easier. You can certainly take that effect into account, but you're not going to learn anything new unless you fully understand the small mass scenario. Nobody can claim that status yet.

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #320 on: 18/03/2017 19:34:46 »
In my model no-one has to disagree about anything.  Distances are constant, and just by understanding which rate of time one is using to measure, everything is abundantly clear to everyone no matter where they are, although they may not be observing the entire pis tire where rates of time differ vastly, because the observation will be proportional to the difference in rate of time and observations will result in being descrete, or quantised.
If space is invariant then SR dictates that light speed depends on the velocity of the observer and the direction of the light ray. That leads to nonsense because the inertial mass of an object would depend on its direction of travel relative to the observer. It also flies in the face of the Michelson-Morley result.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 19:49:29 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #321 on: 18/03/2017 19:48:46 »
Well SR might dictate that in current physics, but my model attributes SR as a mass in relation to velocity phenomenon experienced only by the traveller, and that light with no m is not affected.  Light travels as per the 3rd time dilation.

Did you not read my post of 293?

I mentioned before about how my model views that light cannot exceed the local rate of time and therefore the M&M experiment's inline motion arm does not shrink.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 19:50:58 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #322 on: 18/03/2017 20:21:43 »
Look - my model makes a very subtle difference to the equivalence principle by stating the observation of one's own clock as observer dependent, instead of the other clock in a differing gravity potential, and an addition that states the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time.

All of the other changes occur as a result of doing so.

Frequency and energy changes 'do' occur at differing gravity potentials for mass, due to pe, and lights frequency and energy changes are occurring due to the 3rd time dilation.

Time does not run fast in space it runs slow.
Black holes and any value of M greater than Earth have a faster rate of time than Earth, not slower.

GR time dilation only affects mass in relation to M
SR affects m in relation to m's GR time dilation via m's velocity, where the speed of light is held relative to the 3rd time dilation, and is 'only' experienced by the traveller, although the observation of the traveler will be proportional to the rate of time of the observer and rendered quantised.
The 3rd time dilation only affects space and light, where the 3rd time dilation is caused by value of M via the g-field, and all m's and M's motion is affected by it.

And this 3rd time dilation gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity and physical cause for a temporally derived curvature of space.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 20:25:36 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #323 on: 18/03/2017 21:41:54 »
Well SR might dictate that in current physics, but my model attributes SR as a mass in relation to velocity phenomenon experienced only by the traveller, and that light with no m is not affected.  Light travels as per the 3rd time dilation.
Then you are proposing to throw SR out the window. I can't help you with that. Many have tried. All have failed. Note that, although SR has consequences for the concept of inertial mass (which are confirmed by experiment), it does not depend on it.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 21:49:24 by Mike Gale »

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #324 on: 18/03/2017 21:53:18 »
Time does not run fast in space it runs slow.
This is demonstrably untrue. I understand that you are proposing that time also runs faster due to one's own mass, but that is also demonstrably untrue. Einstein's light clock, which is the time keeper in the Michelson-Morley experiment, is massless for example.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2017 22:03:06 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #325 on: 18/03/2017 22:07:45 »
Well SR might dictate that in current physics, but my model attributes SR as a mass in relation to velocity phenomenon experienced only by the traveller, and that light with no m is not affected.  Light travels as per the 3rd time dilation.
Then you are proposing to throw SR out the window. I can't help you with that. Many have tried. All have failed. Note that, although SR has consequences for the concept of inertial mass (which are confirmed by experiment), it does not depend on it.

I'm proposing that SR as a means of describing spatial space curvature be placed on the window ledge, in favour of the 3rd time dilation describing a temporal space curvature, and then aback off the ledge for a re-instating of SR time dilation as a rate of time experienced by the traveler, and the travellers perception of spacial dilation as being a result of the slower time.
The observer will observe length contraction due to a proportional observation that will be proportional to the difference between rate of time of observer and observed.

Hardy throwing SR out the window verbatim is it.  More like subjecting its    position of relevance to a minor remix I think...

This adheres to experiment that confirms SR velocity related time dilation for m in relative motion.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #326 on: 18/03/2017 22:08:07 »
Did you not read my post of 293?
Yes, but you covered a lot of ground in that post. We can't debate everything at once.

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #327 on: 18/03/2017 22:15:47 »
I'm proposing that SR as a means of describing spatial space curvature be placed on the window ledge, in favour of the 3rd time dilation describing a temporal space curvature, and then aback off the ledge for a re-instating of SR time dilation as a rate of time experienced by the traveler, and the travellers perception of spacial dilation as being a result of the slower time.
Your 3rd dilation depends on M. SR describes the case where M=0. They are not interchangeable.

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #328 on: 18/03/2017 22:27:54 »
I'm sure you misspoke, but temporal space curvature is on the verge of an oxymoron. It would mean that space curvature changes over time. That's a horse of a completely different colour (viz. gravitational waves.) I think you were trying to attribute space curvature to time dilation and that means light speed depends on the direction of travel in the absence of gravity. I think I mentioned before that you can actually balance the space-time books with a variable light speed interpretation of SR, but it leads to contradiction when you apply that geometry to real life scenarios. Wikipedia has a good article on that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light.) Interestingly, Einstein was the first to propose the idea.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2017 06:39:40 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #329 on: 19/03/2017 12:08:01 »
Where M=0 that is a 0 gravity field with no M in it, and the 3rd time dilation will stop with an infinitely long length of second.

You seem to be applying the 3rd time dilation to mass here.

You don't seem to understand that GR time dilation for m at h from M and the 3rd time for open space at h from M are the exact opposite of each other at each h from M.
Both are being caused by the g-field of M and the values will converge with each other at sea level (Earth), or equivalent to sea level for any other M.
So at sea level Earth 3rd time dilation and GR time dilation are equal.  All m at h from sea level earth will experience an increase in rate of time, i.e. GR time dilation, and all open space at h from sea level Earth will experience a decrease in rate of time, i.e. the 3rd time dilation, which will cause a body of m, any value, thrown upwards to decelerate at same rate, and cause the body of m, any value, to accelerate at same rate on the way back down.

The 'rate' of acceleration/deceleration is the 3rd time dilation I refer to.

The directional force in the gravity field is then held as due to the magnetic moments of m.
Where GR time dilation is increasing the rate of time for m, more magnetic moments occur, and where SR time dilation effect is decreasing as the mass is decelerated by the 3rd time dilation, again more magnetic moments are occurring.
And on the way back down the opposite occurs.

This is why I am trying to find out what the value of an acceleration would be in metres per second squared for near Earth parameters, using GR time dilation time increases as the means for acceleration, while negating all other influences.
Would this result in 9.807 m/s^2?
Or would it be a lesser value?

*

Next post - why would a temporally derived space curvature change over time?  The 3rd time dilation is caused by value of M, because it is the value of M that denotes the value of the g-field, and the value of the g-field denotes the value of the 3rd time dilation.
Consider your m travelling in open space over a period of sequential time.  As your m moves into the weaker g-field it simply takes a longer amount of sequential time to cover the same distance.
Now we may be on the ground observing the journey, and because (let's just say) we know the mass can only travel at 1 speed, we would see the mass moving at this constant speed being decelerated in the g-field.
We can call the traveler up on his mobile phone, he can tell us that our massive clock that we have with us appears to him to be running slow compared to his clock, and we can tell him not to worry, that's just GR time dilation increasing the rate of time for his clock, and that SR effects will be slowing his clock down, but as he is decelerating at mo, that these SR effects will also be decreasing.
The deceleration in speed that his craft is experiencing, being due to the 3rd time dilation.
If our travellers constant speed is being decelerated by longer seconds in open space, this will cause a temporal curvature of space.  If one did not realise that there were longer seconds in the weaker g-field, one would perhaps think that distances had become dilated...
Which 'is' what current physics thinks!

*
Holding light speed relative to the 3rd time dilation is geometrically possible and is synonymous to observation and experiment.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #330 on: 19/03/2017 15:32:20 »
I think I do understand what you are proposing. Your idea is that open space is maximally dilated and the presence of mass energy pulls it back in a way that emulates the SC solution of GR. What I don't understand is your distinction between m at h from M and nothing at h from M. That implies a dependency between open space dilation and M, which you propose to counter with dilation from observer mass. I can't see how that would work because observer mass can be arbitrarily small compared to M.
Now that I say it out loud, I realize we are probably confusing the issue by bringing Hubble and SR into the conversation. By the same token, I would caution you against the use of technical terms like magnetic moment because the concept you have in mind is probably quite different from the one it invokes in the mind of a physicist.
My point about the terminology was that "temporal space curvature" could be misconstrued as gravity waves. Temporally-derived space curvature is more clear and that, as I pointed out, leads to the variable light speed hypothesis.

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #331 on: 19/03/2017 16:11:28 »
Yes - whereas you are achieving variable speeds of light for your relativistic correction to the SC by holding the speed of light relative to GR time dilation, whereby this will cause the problems I described in post 293 concerning SR related spatial dilation, and the defining of the specific coordinate location where time shifts are occurring that the speed of light may then be held relative to..
... And my model is holding the speed of light relative to the 3rd time dilation, where the curvature of space is a temporal dilation and the coordinate speed of light is definable at coordinates that are held as constant.  i.e. The distance traveled is a straight line comprised of constant metres, but the amount of time it takes to travel this straight line at a constant speed is variable, where it takes a longer time in the weaker gravity field to travel a constant metre.

*

When speaking in terms of a magnetic moment I am referring to that which one may read when googling 'magnetic moment', whereas the wiki and resulting pages are indeed written by physicists.

When looking at the wiki gravity potential page there is a comment:
"Where mass can be held as analogous to charge"...
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #332 on: 19/03/2017 16:29:26 »
In that case you are completely off base with magnetic moments because they have nothing to do with GR. Even if you have a theory that relates gravity to magnetic moments, it's probably best to take that off the table for now.

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #333 on: 19/03/2017 16:32:01 »
I presume your bystander perceives the traveller to be moving away from the gravitating mass with constant velocity. That's a very complicated scenario. The thrust of the rocket engine has to exceed the force gravity for a while in order to achieve cruising speed. It then has to be reduced abruptly to match the force of gravity at the point where cruising speed is achieved and backed off gradually thereafter to maintain cruising speed as the force of gravity recedes. The rocket engine adds energy to the traveller at a variable rate and that alters the space-time continuum in an unknown manner. Furthermore, the rocket loses mass over time as it generates thrust.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2017 16:36:11 by Mike Gale »

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 63
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #334 on: 19/03/2017 16:40:40 »
Mr timey
As said by you:
"Next post - why would a temporally derived space curvature change over time?  The 3rd time dilation is caused by value of M, because it is the value of M that denotes the value of the g-field, and the value of the g-field denotes the value of the 3rd time dilation.
Consider your m travelling in open space over a period of sequential time.  As your m moves into the weaker g-field it simply takes a longer amount of sequential time to cover the same distance.
Now we may be on the ground observing the journey, and because (let's just say) we know the mass can only travel at 1 speed, we would see the mass moving at this constant speed being decelerated in the g-field.
We can call the traveler up on his mobile phone, he can tell us that our massive clock that we have with us appears to him to be running slow compared to his clock, and we can tell him not to worry, that's just GR time dilation increasing the rate of time for his clock, and that SR effects will be slowing his clock down, but as he is decelerating at mo, that these SR effects will also be decreasing".

I think there is every need for broad discussion on space time.  It is true that it is the base for Einstein gravity.   As per Einstein even objects "at rest"  are actually moving through space time.  Actually space time is not just space, but also time.  The "velocity" through space time is called a four-velocity and it is always equal to the speed of light.  Space time in gravitation field is curved.  The apple moving first only in the time direction  starts accelerating in space and the velocity in time becomes velocity in space. The acceleration happens because the time flows slower when the gravitational potential is decreasing. Apple is moving deeper into the gravitational field, thus its velocity in the "time direction" is changing .

Here everything is possible through space time.    As per Einstein space time is completely filled with matter and energy and the matter tells space time how to curve.  Suppose if the space breaks, naturally time also breaks.  It appears to be unbelievable yet it is true.  In case Earth is not having space, what happens matter and energy moves out freely without any obstruction. Can we imagine any planet, without space. No. it is impossible and there is no scope for gravity and and it is the death of a planet.  So, naturally the stronger the space time the stronger gravity.   

It is also said that M decides curvature of space time.  Ok, let us see  Moon, it is not a small one, but why its space is weak and thus gravity.  If the mass of a planet decides gravity on a planet than different planets have to experience different gravity fields, but in real terms it is not happening so.

It is true that Earth is rotating against its own axis and also moving round the sun and for that total universe is moving to an unknown place.  Actually, we have to remember one important point that Earth is not rotating and is being made to rotate by the gravity winds.  It is not Earth alone, things on the Earth, space and everything is moving. 

The apple is not moving, but is being made to move by the gravity winds.  Strong gravity winds, hooked Earth so strongly that nothing can escape that much easily.  Even matter and energy are not raising abnormally as assumed by Einstein.  So, Apple never changes gravity field and it remains  in static position, at any time frame. 

Gravity continue to accelerate against apple right from its inception.  Actually, there is no motion of apple and it is in inertial position permanently.  During time frame, apple becomes weak, looses control of the stem and gets into the hands of gravity.

Yours
Psreddy




Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #335 on: 19/03/2017 17:28:11 »
I presume your bystander perceives the traveller to be moving away from the gravitating mass with constant velocity. That's a very complicated scenario. The thrust of the rocket engine has to exceed the force gravity for a while in order to achieve cruising speed. It then has to be reduced abruptly to match the force of gravity at the point where cruising speed is achieved and backed off gradually thereafter to maintain cruising speed as the force of gravity recedes. The rocket engine adds energy to the traveller at a variable rate and that alters the space-time continuum in an unknown manner. Furthermore, the rocket loses mass over time as it generates thrust.

Let's say the constant speed is 0.5 light speed, where light speed is held relative to ground clock...
The observer on the ground would see this speed decelerate in the longer seconds of the g-field.
The observer in the craft would observe his speed as decelerated by the longer seconds of the g-field, or he may come to the conclusion that gravity has reduced his speed, and at further distance from M may think that a metre has become longer in the weaker gravity field.
If the observer on the ground then thought that a metre had become longer in the weaker gravity field, then he would think that the craft had become length contracted.
(I will add thrust to this scenario at later date.  Keeping it simple for now)

So moving on - the observer in the craft's rate of time will have become increased in the weaker gravity field, (GR), and also decreased by the relative motion (SR)... Where the SR measurement of the decrease in rate of time is held relative to the percentage of the speed of light that the craft's speed is moving at, where the speed of light is still being held relative to the ground clock's time.

You suggest that the SR measurement of the speed of light be held relative to the GR time, or that is what I have deduced that you suggest,  Maybe I have this wrong...?
But if I am right, then - when you hold the SR measurement relative to the speed of light held relative to the GR time dilation, the GR time dilation is held relative to a particular coordinate. But then by making the SR calculation this involves a spatial dilation and your GR coordinate changes.  So back to SR to recalculate with the changed GR coordinate and the spatial dilation changes again, and so on...
Am I not correct that this catch 22 exists within the remit of holding light speed variable to GR time dilated seconds?
« Last Edit: 19/03/2017 18:18:21 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #336 on: 19/03/2017 20:57:37 »
I see. The traveller is in free fall with an initial velocity vector that points away from the gravitating mass. That's a bit simpler, but the scenario can be further simplified (with no loss of generality) by setting initial velocity to zero. We should also stipulate that the entire episode takes place in a weak field so we don't have to worry about the validity of the SC metric near the horizon. In that case, Newtonian dynamics will suffice for the mathematics and all that remains is the philosophical interpretation of gravity, which Newton famously left as an exercise for the reader.
The equivalence principle dictates that traveller time is the same as in open space (i.e. far removed from the gravitating mass) so, if light speed is invariant, traveller space is the same as open space. That's the first point of contention because Flamm's paraboloid indicates that local space is compressed compared to open space. Light speed must therefore decrease as gravity increases. The experts disagree on this point, but we can impose that the observers are colocated at some instant of time so the light speed issue is moot as long as we limit ourselves to radial distance measurements.
GR predicts that bystander time runs slower because the bystander is suspended in the gravitational field, being held in place by a planetary crust or a rocket engine with constant thrust. Slower time with invariant light speed means space is compressed, as per Flamm's paraboloid.
That's the picture painted by GR. The next step is to describe this scenario in the context of your theory.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2017 03:34:41 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #337 on: 19/03/2017 21:26:47 »
We cannot set the outbound velocity to 0 because without an initial speed that moves the craft in order to cover the distance that is inherent with slower seconds, a) one will not be moving, and b) there is no apparent speed for these slower seconds to decelerate.
Therefore we have an escape velocity where the outbound speed must be equal to the deceleration.  If we have the craft moving at a constant speed, it will decelerate at a certain rate.  If we want to upkeep a constant speed, we must accelerate at a certain rate.
Free fall near Earth accelerates at 9.807m/s^2.
In order to upkeep a constant outbound speed, would the craft have to accelerate at 9.807m/s^2?

And why must light speed decrease as gravity increases?
If local space is compressed compared to open space, why would seconds be elongated in a compressed space?
A higher energy, higher frequency, compressed wavelength would be more synonymous with faster time and shorter seconds wouldn't it?
A clock's frequency, and energy is higher with shorter wavelengths when it's tick rate is increased...
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #338 on: 20/03/2017 04:27:40 »
Zero velocity is a perfectly valid initial state. That's how Newton's apple got started for example. Newton makes no hypothesis about how the force of gravity gets things moving. The GR view is that a stationary object moves through time at light speed and acceleration simply rotates the velocity vector into the spatial domain. It's a change of heading in the spacetime continuum.

In my simplified scenario, the traveller is in free fall and the bystander is accelerating. That change eliminates the need for variable thrust, which is a significant complication.

Variable light speed is one possible interpretation of GR. Some people prefer to think of it as spacetime dilation, akin to SR. In either case, we have eliminated the effect by placing the observers at the same altitude at some instant of time.

If mass, space and light speed are invariant then higher energy (potential or kinetic) equates to shorter seconds.

Anyway, that's the picture painted by GR. The question is, what does it look like in your theory?
« Last Edit: 20/03/2017 04:40:36 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #339 on: 20/03/2017 12:45:07 »
I am talking about Newtons Apple headed outbound, with an observer on the ground, and thrust is exactly what I want to be discussing.

I'm also not talking about what the universe 'looks like' to an observer when measured via differing rates of time.
I want to be talking about what the universe 'is like' with the differing rates of time, and then go back and check that what an observer will observe from his own rate of time is a match to experimentally verified observation.

Apart from an addition and a subtle change to the equivalence principle, the only change that my model makes to current remit is that the accelerative/decelerative force called gravity is a time dilation phenomenon.  Everything else stays the same, although the necessity for the 'dark stuff' is negated...
So what GR and SR looks like, is what my model looks like, only the reasons for it looking that way are differing.
Therefore I can't paint you a picture of what my model 'looks like' in relation to GR, as all observation will 'look' as they have always looked, just for differing reason.

So firstly, my model does not use SR to describe a spatial curvature of space, it uses the 3rd time dilation to describe a temporal dilation of space.
The metre always remains constant in my model, it just takes a longer or shorter amount of time for mass or light to travel a metre where the speed of light, or the speed of the mass is now held relative to the 3rd time dilation.
Now we have an observation of curved space that is not spatially dilated.
This is the equal to a Newtonian geometry that is now temporally dilated to an equal of relativity's spatial curvature.

Are you with me so far?

What I'm saying is that the deceleration a constant speed outbound from M will experience is time dilation related.  That when holding the slower seconds in space relative to the constant speed, this will decelerate the constant speed.
The same can be said for free fall, where there is an acceleration of 9.807m/s^2 near Earth, and 2 radii distance away from Earth, there is an acceleration of 4.25m/s^2, where my model states the accelerative force as time dilation related.

What we do see in action though is a directional force that determines that a body will fall towards a mass, and that when a mass's speed is decelerated away from mass,  when decelerated to a standstill, the directional force will then cause the mass to fall back towards the Earth.
In GR this is called the attraction of gravity.
In my model the acceleration of gravity is time dilation related, but this cannot describe the directional force.

Therefore I am interested in knowing by how many metres per second squared a body of mass must accelerate by to upkeep a constant speed on the outbound.
Is the acceleration needed to upkeep a constant speed on the outbound, the same acceleration that is experienced in free fall on the inbound?
« Last Edit: 20/03/2017 13:12:42 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 615
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #340 on: 20/03/2017 21:08:06 »
Timey I know you are not going to respond to me but your distances and values are incorrect. The atmosphere is only about 300 miles and 2 radii from the Earths surface is 16,000 miles out in space where you would be weightless and not necessarily attracted to the Earth at all depending on your position with the Earth. Your mass would be to relatively small for the dilation to be affected by the Earth and its vector speed away.

Now lets take half the distance to the center of the Earth. The attraction is about 2.45 m/s^2 until you reach the center where everything on earth is attracted to your position. Gravity like many physical issues is the inverse square of the distance. So like twice the diameter four times the amount. Sight would be twice the distance gives one quarter the viewable size of the object. Distance is not linear.


Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #341 on: 20/03/2017 23:45:19 »
The initial velocity is a red herring. It can be set to zero without loss of generality. You need to understand that before we can make any progress. Are we agreed that the traveller has no rocket engine?

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #342 on: 21/03/2017 00:24:05 »
But this is where direction considerations come into play Mike...
If we set an outbound velocity at 0 the craft won't be going anywhere.

On the other hand, when dropping a craft from a 0 velocity we see the acceleration increases that velocity from 0.
I suppose that we could possibly set velocity at 0 for outbound, and then calculate the acceleration needed to move outwards as a negative velocity.
In any case - is the outbound rate of necessary acceleration, calculated in the negative if you like, the equal of free fall acceleration, being the question?

It should be for the reason that 2 cannonballs of differing mass values (in vacuum) bounce off perfect reflector to the same height they were dropped from.

It is appreciated that current physics has an explanation for this phenomenon, but it should also be appreciated that current physics does not describe 'why' this phenomenon does what it does.

I am looking at this acceleration and deceleration phenomenon as being caused by a 3rd time dilation factor in the g-field.
Which then begs the question of the necessity for a directional force, which I am looking at being due to an electromagnetic phenomenon.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #343 on: 21/03/2017 03:18:34 »
It's true that acceleration vectors are additive. If your rocket accelerates upwards at 'a', the net acceleration will be 'a' minus 'g'. It will hover if a=g, fall if a<g and climb if a>g, but 'a' increases over time because the rocket must lose mass in order to generate thrust. There's no easy way to compute GR dilation for an arbitrary value of 'a', let alone one that varies over time. It gets even more complicated if you equip the rocket with an automatic thrust controller to maintain constant velocity or constant acceleration. In any of these cases, the best you can hope for is a numerical approximation. Note that the planetary crust accelerates the bystander upwards at 'g' so there's no point putting the traveller into that reference frame.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2017 03:35:48 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #344 on: 21/03/2017 03:34:26 »
So in my model's scenario where this acceleration/deceleration is caused solely by the 3rd time dilation of the g-field caused by M, now what I am looking for is a minute fractional directional force that increases linearly with the higher gravity potential energy, which is why I look to the magnetic moment of the atom, or rather the rate they occur at, the electron transitions in relation to the quantum energy level and the analogy of gravity potential to the electric field where mass is analogous to charge.

Btw, not that it's immediately important, but adding thrust to rocket can be analogous to carrying potential energy onboard that is converted at 20% or so conversion to energy loss to kinetic energy.  As potential energy is converted mass value decreases and less onboard energy is required to achieve same kinetic energy.

In reply to edit:  I don't think it matters about an observer, we have the info we need in the value of M.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #345 on: 21/03/2017 04:04:08 »
I'm ignoring your references to magnetic moments, electron state transitions, QM and electric fields as per my last comment on that subject. (i.e. They have nothing to do with GR.)

I assume a "minute fractional force" refers to an infinitesimally small change, in which case you are invoking calculus. That's really just a change in scale. It doesn't change the scenario or make the math any easier.

As for the thrust controller, it is not hard to design an algorithm that will result in approximately constant velocity or approximately constant acceleration. The problem is, the proliferation of variables precludes an exact solution in GR and obfuscates the dilation result.

Regarding the observers, they are nothing more than ideal (i.e. infallible) clocks in space. For our purposes, they are massless and non-sentient.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2017 04:16:50 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #346 on: 21/03/2017 04:15:40 »
Well the whole point Mike is that GR only has nothing to do with magnetic moments, and quantum energy levels because the standard model is not united with gravity...
Gravity is a continuum, and quantum is not.  The idea that I propose is designed to unite the two.  Therefore I am looking at electron transitions in the gravity potential.  Electron transitions are directly related to quantum energy levels.  Give a physical cause  (time dilation), to the rate of the transitions, where the physical cause for the time dilation is potential energy related, and energy is the cause of your time dilation.  This negates the quantised nature and quantum is a continuum united with gravity...
« Last Edit: 21/03/2017 04:20:58 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #347 on: 21/03/2017 04:27:16 »
QM has nothing to say about the duration of state transitions. They are presumed to occur instantaneously or retroactively (depending on who you ask.) Furthermore, you have not proposed a model to relate gravity to QM or EM phenomena. If your theory relies on an unspecified relationship like that, it is completely useless.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2017 04:32:28 by Mike Gale »

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1800
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #348 on: 21/03/2017 04:31:51 »
I don't think it is.

Considering the blackbody:
If one takes the frequency of the emitted light to be time related - then rather than measure the energy increase via an invariant time, one measures the increase in energy as per the rate of time synonymous to that increased frequency of light, I am quite sure that the quantised nature of the data can be rendered a continuum.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2017 04:34:36 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

Offline Mike Gale

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 365
    • View Profile
Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?
« Reply #349 on: 21/03/2017 04:40:27 »
I think you're talking about the ultraviolet catastrophe, which implies quantization of space and/or time, but you have not related that concept to gravity. A theory based on an unspecified hypothesis is an unspecified theory.