0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hubble didn't find a cause, just evidence. But otherwise I think you are correct. See my edit to my last comment.
Ah - Colin, well firstly so say so, it's starting to look like I may have to eat my hat on YouTube for you concerning G and g, but I do stand firmly by my position on the marks, in the context that I was using them.
This is relevant to Einstein's constant as a variable, and p is what renders variability?
Yet physics states the frequency of the clock observed in the other gravity potential as observer dependent, and that if one places oneself with the clock in the other gravity potential that this observation disappears like some sort of mirage and the clock in the other gravity potential is ticking normally.
Quote from: Mike Gale on 13/03/2017 04:15:28Hubble didn't find a cause, just evidence. But otherwise I think you are correct. See my edit to my last comment.Mike - 'evidence' is a bit of a strong term for velocity related red shift interpretation.Evidence was found to support a correlation between red shift and distance, but there is no evidence to support the velocity related interpretation. The 'speed' of a red shift could just as easily be interpreted as a 'rate of time'.
Quote from: Mike Gale on 13/03/2017 04:17:11I don't think you can get accelerated expansion out of a constant though. You'd have to change it to a variable of some sort.I assume you are familiar with ρvac = ρΛ ≡ Λ/8πGSorry, equation fn on here isn't working yet so bit laborious to type out with alt codes.Didn't mean to interrupt your discussion, I'll leave you to it.
I don't think you can get accelerated expansion out of a constant though. You'd have to change it to a variable of some sort.
Quote from: timey on 13/03/2017 13:55:50Ah - Colin, well firstly so say so, it's starting to look like I may have to eat my hat on YouTube for you concerning G and g, but I do stand firmly by my position on the marks, in the context that I was using them.I'm not foolish enough to get drawn into this discussion, but as you (I hope) persevere with learning more maths you will find that more of your views change with an understanding of what I was saying. Quote from: timey on 13/03/2017 13:55:50This is relevant to Einstein's constant as a variable, and p is what renders variability?A constant is a constant not a variable, but you have to determine the correct value of the constant and equivalences like this can help. However, you are dropping in to the borderland between standard model and GR and one of the more interesting areas of speculation. I'm sure you are already aware of the quantum fluctuation problem and it's link to dark energy, the cosmological constant, etc and no doubt Mike will be happy to discuss it. Just a final comment. As I look at Alan's recent posts I note you commented:Quote from: timey on 11/03/2017 02:07:06Yet physics states the frequency of the clock observed in the other gravity potential as observer dependent, and that if one places oneself with the clock in the other gravity potential that this observation disappears like some sort of mirage and the clock in the other gravity potential is ticking normally.The observation doesn't just disappear like a mirage. Last year I took the trouble to write out a simplified explanation of how this works. I note that Pete has also linked to an explanation using a diagrammatic approach, but he also seems convinced you haven't read it.I'm not going to go over old ground & repeat myself here, because I think further discussion is unlikely to be productive. However, the effect is real but like many measurements eg speed, energy, momentum, it is dependant on where the measurement is being made.
The expansion of the universe without the Dark Energy notion wasn't thought to be a constant speed. It was thought to be slowing down.However - you do have a point there...I wrote this before seeing your post:So in order to describe a contracting universe it would be necessary to add the constant twice right?But would that be the whole term Lambada*u*v, or Lambada*g*u*v as you say, or would it be a case of doubling the Lambada value?The Lambada value is 0.5 so doubling that would be in as much as saying +1*u*v or +1*g*u*v (I'll have to look at the program again tomorrow to see if I wrote it down wrong)if Einstein's equation minus the constant caused an expanding universe, there must be a rate to this expansion within the maths of the equation surely?And... If the constant stops this rate of expansion, surely there must be an equal and equalising negative rate within that constant?
After Leavitt's death, Edwin Hubble used the luminosity–period relation for Cepheids together with spectral shifts first measured by fellow astronomer Vesto Slipher at Lowell Observatory to determine that the universe is expanding (see Hubble's law).
pasala: Friends, I would like to add few lines, regarding my opinion on time dilation and c. Well, it is true that time dilates for two reasons gravity and velocity.
pasala : Speed of light: There are number of invisible things influencing speed of light. At present we are taking two mirrors, focusing light on them and measuring the time taken to travel. But we are feeling that outside is empty and that fresh ray is created each time. This is not at all correct and no fresh ray is created.
Leavitt's story is unfortunately typical. Credit rarely goes where credit is due. Galileo, Kepler and Darwin are all guilty of the same crime. (I only recently learned of Kepler's guilt in that book you recommended by Smolin. A top rate book. It should be mandatory reading for all would be scientists.)
She is proposing a new source of time dilation that is due to the gravitating mass itself
Or are you prejudice to the possibility that an uneducated non-mathematician is capable of inspired thought.
Pasala, LB7 and McQueen seem to be peddling new (and incomplete) theories of their own. The format of this forum is not conducive to that level of complexity. Let's try to stay focused, shall we? We're trying to figure out how timey's theory differs from mainstream physics. Comparisons with other fringe theories is not helpful. Here's the state of affairs as I understand them. Timey can correct me if I'm wrong.She is proposing a new source of time dilation that is due to the gravitating mass itself as opposed to an interaction between masses. I don't understand the distinction yet and we have yet to establish the recipe, but I think she is trying to address the dark energy dilemma. She thinks that conventional relativity will be unaffected, but some aspects of it (spatial dilation I think) may have to be interpreted differently.