0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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..
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?
THE Alan Guth? Isn't he famously brilliant?
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:
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Time does not run fast in space it runs slow.
Quote from: timey on 18/03/2017 19:48:46Well 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.
Did you not read my post of 293?
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.
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.