0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
A black hole does not follow relativity.
There are literally dozens and dozens of books dedicated to the fact that NOBODY understands relativity. We only understand that it works......And that if we invent a mechanism, that we dub 'dark energy', to push everything apart, and invent a mechanism, that we dub 'dark mass', to hold everything in, that the maths of Relativity works for most things, but has trouble with galaxies, and breaks down in black holes.NOBODY understands the underlying mechanics of relativity. The physical causes are lacking.
It is h from M that determines this gravity potential value, where the mass value of m in relation to M is irrelevant.
Acceleration slows a clock tick rate. Deceleration speeds up a clock tick rate. Both cause gravity.
Therefore both gravitational time dilations will converge in value, I had thought at ground level earth, but yes, perhaps they may properly converge at reference frame middle of the earth.
Quote from: timey on 30/01/2017 17:58:32Then GR gravitational time dilation will increase in length of second (time getting slower) with the gravity potential decrease from sea level to centre of M, and the contra directional gravitational time dilation will be decreased in length of second (time getting faster) with the increased compression of mass from sea level to centre of M.This is where you do not understand relativity. Time ticks slower as you approach the center of the planet. Pressure has nothing to do with it.
Then GR gravitational time dilation will increase in length of second (time getting slower) with the gravity potential decrease from sea level to centre of M, and the contra directional gravitational time dilation will be decreased in length of second (time getting faster) with the increased compression of mass from sea level to centre of M.
Nope you are very wrong - I do understand the remit and observations of Relativity.I understand full well that what I am describing here is NOT conventional Relativity, and I also understand this is what YOU are not understanding, nor even reading my posts properly to ensure that you do understand.
the contra directional gravitational time dilation will be decreased in length of second (time getting faster) with the increased compression of mass from sea level to centre of M.
What part of 'a clock' is mass', are you not comprehendingYes - We 'measure a clock' to be ticking slower at a closer h to M , than we do when the clock is at a further h from M.(A fact that remains fully described within my model)Now then... Please tell me GoC, how is it possible for a clock to measure what time is doing in 'open space' in relation to M?
It's not physically possible for a clock to measure 'open space' in relation to M, because as soon as you put a clock in open space, the space is not open anymore, and what will be being measured is the tick rate that is occurring for the m of the clock at h in relation to M.(Where my model 'adds' a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, and states this as the physical cause for the observed phenomenon of gravitational acceleration that m experiences in free fall from a h from M.
Can you please understand this very basic premise?Yes?orNo?
timeyYou have not shown a mechanical cause for gravity. Relativity already has a mechanical reason for gravity. Space time energy moves electrons by absorbing that energy from space. The space energy dilates (less space time energy density of energy for the same space) more towards the center of attraction (gravity). This dilation of energy is the curve Einstein was referring to for the cause of gravity. It's a linear increase in dilation to the center of gravity. It's a linear decrease in potential energy. Clocks tick slower because the dilation creates a greater distance for light and the electron to travel. Your system does not confound the photon and electron. Mass is attracted to more dilated space because it takes less resistance from energy. A BH is the ultimate dilation of energy because inside a BH there is no space energy so they do not experience time. All they can do is suck more mass towards the final entropy of mass.Einstein already had gravity understood while many lesser minds could not follow his lead. Einstein suggested and probably correct only about 10% of the population could understand relativity. If you truly understand Einstein's relativity there are few questions left for the mechanics of the universe.There is a point in studying relativity where relativity becomes intuitive.
Again - to place a clock into an open space to make measurement of that open space causes the space one is measuring not to be empty.One will never be able to measure what the phenomenon of time is doing in open space, because to place a clock in an open space causes the space not to be empty.The only means of making observation of what time may be doing in open space is to a) observe the acceleration of m in free fall in relation to M.(ie: all value of m accelerates at the same rate in free fall)...andb) observe the extra length in lights wavelength when red shifted away from M.Or reciprocally, observe the decreased length in lights wavelength when blue shifted towards M.Simply subject the extra, or lesser portion of the wavelength to the speed distance time formula, where the speed is the speed of light, to obtain a time value, and add or subtract this time value to, or from the length of a standard second, to know the length of second in that reference frame.Now a metre in all reference frames will always measure as a constant.This is an alternate means for an interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, and describes a universe that is not expanding, and is most likely contracting...
What one might well be compelled to ask me, is 'why' it is that the extra or lesser length of wavelength - when transposed into a time value via the speed of light - may be added to (for red shift), or subtracted from (for blue shift), the length of a standard second?
Well - Both the frequency of light, and the speed of light are derived in relation to the standard second. Any measure we make of either, in each and all reference frames, is a direct reference relative to a standard second.Energy is also measured relative to the standard second, as are most measurements in physics.
Essentially what physics is doing by default, is holding the standard second as an absolute reference frame.All that is missing is the geometrical co-ordinates of exactly where it is that a second will be standard.
One would have thought it a simple matter to pin point an exact co-ordinate for a standard second as to h in relation to M, and give the universe an absolute reference frame from the basis of this co-ordinate of gravity potential in relation to M, and the basis of a standard second, but an absolute reference frame is confounded by the current physics remit of employing SR to travel light across space and the emergence of variable metres in favour of variable speeds of light.
Here we have come full circle, because in adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, we now have a constant speed of light throughout the whole universe, travelling through these variable seconds of space and metres remain constant.
The consequences of this notion result in the frequency, energy and wavelength of light remaining the same in all reference frames of a non uniform gravity field. ie: not actually being gravitationally shifted at-all...but just taking lengthening amounts of time (red shift), or shortening amounts of time (blue shift) to travel a metre...
...But this only works if one accepts that gravity potential energy is 'actually' and 'physically' causing an increase in energy for all m at h from M, and that an FE57, caesium atom, or any other light source emitter, (or indeed any nucleus/atomic/molecular structure), is going to be of a higher energy level at h from M, and emit a higher frequency photon.
This notion has astonishing consequences for QM and the interpretation of the ultraviolet catastrophe via Planck's h constant.
What one might well be compelled to ask me, is 'why' it is that the extra or lesser length of wavelength - when transposed into a time value via the speed of light - may be added to (for red shift), or subtracted from (for blue shift), the length of a standard second?(note: blue shift being red shift in reverse, it would only be necessary to subtract a time value from a standard second in the instance of a greater gravity field than sea level, planet Earth)