Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: timey on 31/12/2016 13:58:21
-
Why do you keep locking my thread Jeff?
Yes - that's right, the time dilation is the wrong way round, hence the name 'contra directional gravitational time dilation'.
The problem with QED is that it cannot be reconciled with gravity.
By adding this contra directional gravitational time dilation, my model can potentially unite the standard model with gravity for a continuum in quantum...
...As I have repeatedly been saying here at this site for rather a long time now.
-
QED quod erat demonstrandum.
-
Can we demonstrate the BB?
-
Not unless you know something I don't.
-
Goc - yes, my model demonstrates the Big Bang. Please look at my personal details 'Patreon' for a synopsis of my model that explains the procedure. (I wish to stay 'on topic' here on this thread with the adding of SR to the picture my previous posts present, but if you wish for a more detailed explanation, I can open a new thread, let me know)
Jeff - can you please give reason for the locking of my threads? You clearly are not reading the content and as far as I am concerned you are being abusive... I have emailed Chris about the fact.
P.S. Alan - you have asked intelligently oriented questions that I have answered. I had been hoping that you would take the discussion further...
-
Multiple password problems now resolved. If you read my last post on the other thread you will see the problem with inverted time dlation.
-
Multiple password problems now resolved. If you read my last post on the other thread you will see the problem with inverted time dlation.
Happy New Year to you Alan - yes the new site is having teething problems, but other than that it's clearly pretty cool!
This is the third 'My model of a cyclic universe' thread I've opened. You didn't post on the second thread. The last post you made was in the first thread, post 143 here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69032.125
...and I answered this post in post 144...
The thread has been closed for reason that I dispute, but have no wish to make public. Thread 2 was also closed, hence thread 3, but has since been reopened. Point of fact, I am indeed hampered in addressing the situation by the PM function being disabled at mo. I expect that once everyone has had time to get back to their usual routines that brains might kick in and clarity shall prevail. But until such time, as you have the moderator tech, perhaps you might transfer post 143 and 144 to this thread that we may continue with continuity?
-
So no, nothing really new, except for the fact that current physics has the universe developing into what we see today on an outward trajectory, and my model has the universe develop into what we see today on an inward trajectory.
Keep it simple and observational. Distant objects are generally observed to have large redshifts, so either they are moving away from us or the gravitational field outside the observable universe is stronger than inside, which would, of course, make the distant objects accelerate away from us!
Also, my model does not predict this contra directional time dilation as a replacement for GR gravitational time dilation. It predicts this contra directional time dilation as an additional time dilation for space surrounding mass that gives cause for the acceleration of gravity. This being the how I can hypothesise an additional time dilation...
But conventional GR time dilation is exactly correlated with the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration, with no requirement for any additional corrections.
Why I can hypothesise this additional time dilation is because the standard model and quantum physics cannot be united with gravity, and under the remit of this addition, and my addition to the equivalence principle, my model 'potentially' can.
I consider quantum physics and gravitation as two mathematical models of what happens in the universe. The fact that neither is complete to the extent of predicting the other is of no consequence because experimentally there is no phenomenon that is not entirely predicted by one or other.
So - the term vector is not used in the way that I used it, (ie: a vector is not a direction) - however what I described as a choice of 2 directions, 1 being moving into a stronger gravity field, and the other being moving into a weaker gravity field, and the fact that a gravity field of either description will have a magnitude, what I am describing 'is' a vector set?
keep it simple. You can describe motion as a vector and a gravitational field as a vector. And of course there is a third choice of motion along a gravitational equipotential. Or just say dV/dx can be positive, negative or zero. The nice thing about that is the way that both red shift and acceleration can be precisely calculated from dV/dx without invoking any new physics.
-
Yes - distant objects are observed to have larger red shifts. The more distant the object the larger the red shift. As was addressed in the early posts of 'my model of a cyclic universe' thread 1, it is only the fact of Hubble's velocity related interpretation of red shift observation that supports an expanding universe.
My model's interpretation of red shift observation supports a contracting universe, and this contracting universe can be described by General Relativity.
As I keep pointing out, General Relativity with respect to an expanding universe requires dark energy and dark mass to achieve the required symmetry.... My contracting model does not require these additions to achieve the required symmetry. All it requires is an alternative interpretation of red shift observation, and an addition to the equivalence principle stating that the speed of light cannot exceed the local rate of time, both additions of which in conjunction with SR effects rendering relativistic mass as redundant...
The nice thing about my model is that it makes all the description that GR can, and more, without invoking mathematical necessities such as dark energy and dark matter to support its predictions.
You may be satisfied with juggling between 2 theories that cannot be united and require additions that are not physically observed, but all of the physicists who's works I have read are not. It is their view that a unifying theory exists, and a hell of a lot of money is thrown into various highly expensive projects that are seeking experimental evidence to either support the current theories or disprove them.
You say that there is no phenomenon that is not predicted by either GR or quantum, but neither can predict what will occur in the distant future to any precision, nor give explanation for the mechanics of the Big Bang, or inflation period.
My model can!
Yes - conventional GR gravitational time dilation is directly correlated with gravitational acceleration, and because this is so, and the suggested contra directional gravitational time dilation is equal to the GR gravitational time dilation, only negative... either scenario can be used to explain the same effect - except that my model's description gives the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration an actual physical cause, rather than the description just being a mathematical tool.
In thread 2, 'My model of a cyclic universe continued', I am superimposing GR gravitational time dilation into the contra directional gravitational time dilation picture... Would you care to comment before I add in SR?
-
The classical velocity component of red shift is independently demonstrable in the laboratory (and indeed on the road - Doppler radar!) , as is the gravitational component. If time ran faster close to a large mass, the Pound-Rebka experiment would yield the opposite answer. The SR component of time dilation has been measured by the Haefle-Keating experiment to be entirely consistent with conventonal SR predictions.
Yes - conventional GR gravitational time dilation is directly correlated with gravitational acceleration, and because this is so, and the suggested contra directional gravitational time dilation is equal to the GR gravitational time dilation, only negative... either scenario can be used to explain the same effect - except that my model's description gives the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration an actual physical cause, rather than the description just being a mathematical tool.
nal time dilation picture... Would you care to comment before I add in SR?
What we observe is that time runs slower close to a large mass, photons blue shift as they approach a large mass, and small objects accelerate towards a large mass, all according to exactly the same equation, so there is no observation consistent with inverted time dilation.
-
No it wouldn't give the opposite answer for the pound rebka, because in my model the gamma ray emitter, due to gravity potential energy, is emitting at higher energy at elevation, and the wave length of this higher energy gamma ray is compressed into shorter lengths as it gets closer to earth by shorter seconds. Blue shift...
...Different means of describing the same observation.
Time for m gets slower as it moves towards M, but for anything without rest m, like light and gravity, time gets quicker moving toward M.
Same calculation for alternative reasons. If the maths that describe red shift and blueshift as per my model are proportional to the calculations that describe red shift and blueshift as per General Relativity, then where is the problem with the alternative reason?
Star suffering red shift velocity for 10 years:
Star is travelling at say 20 000 miles per hour x 24 x 3650
We have time period of 10 years and a speed, so we can work out the distance the star has traveled. But hang on a minute because that speed is relative to a time period as well. It is relative to an hour of standard time. If the speed the star is supposed to be travelling at is not related to the standard second then the distance the star travelled in 10 years is uncertain.
So... Checking to see that the distance the star is supposed to have traveled away from us, at this speed per standard second over a 10 year period, is correct should be possible by equating the luminosity of the star compared to 10 years ago. The distance will have reduced the luminosity of the star correlating to the inverse square law.
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
Ooops! Observed luminosities are not matching up to the length of distance that red shift velocities suggest will have occurred over the 10 year period.
(I have posted this link umpteen times now, would you care to comment?)
So... We have a time period of 10 years, as per a standard second, and a red shift velocity as per a standard second. If we consider that the light itself is travelling through open space that is inherent with time that is slower than a standard second, then the light, travelling at 299 792 458 metre per second where seconds are longer than a standard second, will take longer to reach us...
In fact the star might not be moving away from us at-all under this remit.
By equating luminosity of star in relation to distance, and applying that distance to red shift observation, it can be worked out by how much the slower time inherent to that distance has slowed the lights progress across space, and by subtracting this new distance from the old distance and calculating the remainder via the speed distance time formula using the speed of light as per standard second, this will give you a period of time. This period of time is the degree by which the light has been slowed in its transit from the star to observation point. Transposing this extra time back into a velocity should give the same value as the red shift velocity interpretation, and if one were to draw a straight line of the shorter distance and then draw the longer distance over the shorter distance so that the ends of the lines are touching and the longer distance makes a curve over the shorter distance, like a "D" rotated left, this is an example of curved space time, where it is the slower time in space that causes the curvature of space.
The value of this curve should match gravitational acceleration for both light and mass.
(which is what my diagram that I sent you year before last is describing)
-
But conventional GR time dilation is exactly correlated with the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration,
with no requirement for any additional corrections
Alan
This is not exactly accurate. Acceleration has nothing to do with time dilation and there is only a correlation to the same GR
frame. After acceleration from point A to B the inertial speed has a slower tick rate. Accelerate again to a different inertial speed and
the tick rate is even slower. So we have to know the beginning tick rate to have a correlation. When we decelerate once again
we have gravity effects but our tick rate increases. So acceleration and deceleration are not the cause of time dilation. A planet
is acceleration to the center where the center of a planet is the inertial equivalent to SR with the exact acceleration and distance
to an inertial speed. The SR acceleration being instantaneous and linearly reduced to the center radius. This would also have to
be in the planets orbit. The center of a planet is the same as inertial speed in space.
Same calculation for alternative reasons. If the maths that describe red shift and blueshift as per my model are proportional
to the calculations that describe red shift and blueshift as per General Relativity, then where is the problem with the alternative
reason?
Timey
First you have to prove there is a correlation with a BB. I agree current science uses SR red shift only while GR red shift plays
a very large part. So how is your theory any different from steady state? The 13.6 billion years attributed to the Universe is a
ridiculously short amount of time when you consider BH's as large as 37,200 AU. Our sun as a BH would stretch about 1.8 miles.
Each AU being 92 million miles? When Andromeda BH 25 million miles reaches the Milky ways 4 million mile BH in 4 billion years
we have 29 million mile BH. Looking at the math 13.6 billion years of existence is a drop in the bucket. Try looking at the big picture
rather than trying to build a theory on a theory that is physically impossible.
All mass has an aura. The earth, the sun and the galaxy all have one. What is that aura we call lensing of a galaxy?
I would suggest it is the accumulated dilation of the mass in the galaxy. This being the case 75% of the light from a galaxy
comes from 25% of the center where dilation would be the greatest production of red shifted light. Our position in our galaxy
is 75% out from the center way less dilated position where our clocks would tick faster and our detectors in less dilated space.
Naturally we would view the entire universe of galaxies as red shifted by position similar to the pound-Rebka results for
a gravity well.
What about red shift increasing with distance? AT&T uses shorter wavelengths that penetrate building better while Verizon used
longer wavelengths that traveled further. We may be losing the shorter wavelengths inside of galaxies that light is traveling past.
The longer wavelengths may rotate around galaxies more efficiently. This would increase red shift with distance.
So what is the point of a theory based on a theory that will eventually die? Einstein's steady state may yet prevail.
-
From SciNews
To do that, the astrophysicists had to link the distance to the galaxies with their redshift. They hypothesized that the distance is proportional to the redshift at all distances, as is well verified to be the case in the nearby Universe.
They checked this relation between redshift and distance with the data on supernova brightness that has been used to measure the hypothesized accelerated expansion of the Universe.
“It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy,” said study co-author Dr Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy.
This is surely consistent with the notion that there is more material outside the observable universe than inside, so the interstellar field adds to the source field at long distances, and increases the effective red shift of distant objects of any given mass.
-
But conventional GR time dilation is exactly correlated with the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration,
with no requirement for any additional corrections
Alan
This is not exactly accurate. Acceleration has nothing to do with time dilation and there is only a correlation to the same GR
frame. After acceleration from point A to B the inertial speed has a slower tick rate. Accelerate again to a different inertial speed and
the tick rate is even slower. So we have to know the beginning tick rate to have a correlation. When we decelerate once again
we have gravity effects but our tick rate increases. So acceleration and deceleration are not the cause of time dilation. A planet
is acceleration to the center where the center of a planet is the inertial equivalent to SR with the exact acceleration and distance
to an inertial speed. The SR acceleration being instantaneous and linearly reduced to the center radius. This would also have to
be in the planets orbit. The center of a planet is the same as inertial speed in space.
Same calculation for alternative reasons. If the maths that describe red shift and blueshift as per my model are proportional
to the calculations that describe red shift and blueshift as per General Relativity, then where is the problem with the alternative
reason?
Timey
First you have to prove there is a correlation with a BB. I agree current science uses SR red shift only while GR red shift plays
a very large part. So how is your theory any different from steady state? The 13.6 billion years attributed to the Universe is a
ridiculously short amount of time when you consider BH's as large as 37,200 AU. Our sun as a BH would stretch about 1.8 miles.
Each AU being 92 million miles? When Andromeda BH 25 million miles reaches the Milky ways 4 million mile BH in 4 billion years
we have 29 million mile BH. Looking at the math 13.6 billion years of existence is a drop in the bucket. Try looking at the big picture
rather than trying to build a theory on a theory that is physically impossible.
All mass has an aura. The earth, the sun and the galaxy all have one. What is that aura we call lensing of a galaxy?
I would suggest it is the accumulated dilation of the mass in the galaxy. This being the case 75% of the light from a galaxy
comes from 25% of the center where dilation would be the greatest production of red shifted light. Our position in our galaxy
is 75% out from the center way less dilated position where our clocks would tick faster and our detectors in less dilated space.
Naturally we would view the entire universe of galaxies as red shifted by position similar to the pound-Rebka results for
a gravity well.
What about red shift increasing with distance? AT&T uses shorter wavelengths that penetrate building better while Verizon used
longer wavelengths that traveled further. We may be losing the shorter wavelengths inside of galaxies that light is traveling past.
The longer wavelengths may rotate around galaxies more efficiently. This would increase red shift with distance.
So what is the point of a theory based on a theory that will eventually die? Einstein's steady state may yet prevail.
GoC - It is interesting what you are saying to Akan because the GR field equations require SR to move light across space. My model does not use SR to move light across space, it uses the contra directional gravitational time dilation only...
... Light is not subject to GR gravitational time dilation in my model. Only m is subject to GR gravitational time dilation in my model...
Light is also not subject SR motion related time dilation in my model, only m and M are subject to SR.
The contra directional gravitational time dilation converges with the GR gravitational time dilation where open space meets M, and 'should' give physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.
Where I see a potential problem with this view is in looking at the rate of gravitational acceleration that the moon has, which is lesser than earth. According to my model the moon is experiencing GR time dilation in an m in relation to M relationship with earth. Time on the moon according to GR will be ticking at a rate that is faster than on earth.
So if the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space where to converge with GR gravitational time dilation where open space meets the M of the moon, then what would explain the physical cause of the lesser value of gravitational attraction observed near the moons surface?
I can see only 2 possibilities out of this conundrum to continue with the view my model presents. One being that because the moon is that much of a lesser M than earth, that the inverse square law reduces at a greater rate per radius, causing a second to be greater in length at a lesser radius relative to the length of second found at the same radius from Earth...
And the other being that the moon will be experiencing greater SR effects than the earth, because it is moving faster than earth is through space.
I think a combination of both effects will make the view my model presents a possibility, but without being able to check the numbers mathematically, I cannot know for sure.
My model demonstrates the Big Bang like this:
Taking Einstein's GR, minus Hubble's red shift velocity interpretation, minus the retracted cosmological constant - we now have a universe that is contracting...
Immediately after my model's inflation period, (I'll get to that), the whole universe is comprised of an immense sea of particles spread more or less evenly across all of the distance that we can see and beyond in a more or less uniform gravity field.
Due to these slight anomalies particles start pulling together into clumps of mass, and as pockets of concentrations of gravity emerge, spaces that have been created by particles vacating as they clump emerge as weaker gravity fields surrounding the concentrations.
This evolves into what we see today as galaxy clusters. Beyond today the matter will continue clumping until all that is left is a galaxy of black holes that will merge until there is only 1 black hole left. Because there will be no equivalent gravitational force acting upon this singular black hole, it will explode via its super luminal jets and 'Everything' that is inside it will be expelled outwards in particle form at high energy until the black holes extinction, to form an immense sea of particles.
My model looks at the possibility that virtual particles being formed in this scattering process are being propelled from the fastest possible rate of time, into a sea of particles that experiences a relatively slow rate of time compared to a standard second, and that virtual particles may have 'the time' in which to become real particles. This adheres my cyclic model to the second law of thermodynamics in that each cycle of the universe gets bigger than the last.
My model also adheres black holes to the conservation of energy law.
According to my model the black holes of our present day that are supposed to throw matter across space via superluminal jets are miniature representations of a Big Bang.
(Please note that I have not added SR yet for m travelling across open space in relation to M.)
-
To do that, the astrophysicists had to link the distance to the galaxies with their redshift. They hypothesized that the
distance is proportional to the redshift at all distances, as is well verified to be the case in the nearby Universe.
Astronomers in the past have viewed different size galaxies in the same group with different red shifts. The larger galaxy having
the greatest red shift. This view was challenged but never proven to be inaccurate. Different size galaxies would appear to be
at the wrong distance from us in space if this is the case.
They checked this relation between redshift and distance with the data on supernova brightness that has been used to
measure the hypothesized accelerated expansion of the Universe.
If you are measuring the energy of a system using the spectrum all measurements should have the same offset affect used for
distance calculations. That is not truly an orthogonal method for distance testing.
If our understanding is based on our expectation we tend to only view results with a leaning towards what we expect. Like interstellar
conditions that cannot truly be verified as expanding.
Timey
I do not have faith in the BB so discussions of interpreted results favoring one of expansion or contraction is lost on me.
I can discuss relativity relationships as I view them. Your little m to me is Dark Mass Energy. This moves electrons for my
way of understanding.
No matter what you say we can never get something from nothing which is counterintuitive when there is something.
I believe mechanics always apply so something is moving the electrons. It is unlikely a BB set the ground work to move
electrons. This would come from the bottom up not the top down. It is unlikely the universe is as small as our ability to
observe.
-
GoC - I'm not sure what you mean by the BB setting the ground work for moving electrons. My model puts forward the idea that gravitational attraction and gravitational acceleration may have a split value, where "attraction is implemented by the magnetic moment of an electron", (the text in inverted commas is not my own notion but one that I read about put forward John Faust) - and that the acceleration of this attraction is contra directional gravitational time dilation related.
I respect your preference not to discuss the Big Bang, although my model's rendition of the mechanics of the Big Bang differs entirely from the current view of a Big Bang. My model traces cycles of smaller and smaller universes back to an initial microscopic universe that finds its beginnings in an fluctuation that my model also has trouble deriving out of nothing! Of course I realise that the size of out universe currently is bigger than we are able to observe...
Given that a cyclic model must have a beginning, a middle, and most importantly an end that initiates a beginning, my model's rendition of the Big Bang process is necessary to perpetuate my model's mechanics... So I guess we won't talk about my model...
I find it interesting that you equate my little m, which is m in relation to M, with dark energy. My model states GR gravitational time as an m in relation to M time dilation phenomenon, where it is only m that experiences the GR time dilation, and replaces the concept of dark energy, that pushes the universe outwards, with a contra directional gravitational time dilation that m travels through, that draws masses towards each other in an M in relation to m time dilation relationship...
-
So no, nothing really new, except for the fact that current physics has the universe developing into what we see today on an outward trajectory, and my model has the universe develop into what we see today on an inward trajectory.
Keep it simple and observational. Distant objects are generally observed to have large redshifts, so either they are moving away from us or the gravitational field outside the observable universe is stronger than inside, which would, of course, make the distant objects accelerate away from us!
Alan - I'm quite certain that you are capable of understanding that Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation is an interpretation, and not a proven phenomenon...
... And therefore the expansion of the universe of any description is not actually observed, but is in fact a mathematical consequence of Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation that describes an expanding universe, no less accelerating in this expansion - but the mechanics to describe a reason for this expansion as of yet elude current physics to this day.
My model is describing a universe that makes all of its development of clumping in a contraction period.
To be clear, this is an experimental model posted in New Theories.
As an experiment - By re-interpreting the red shift distance correlation as being due to a contra directional time dilation phenomenon associated with the gravity fields of open space in relation to M, (in addition to the time dilations of GR and SR)... this describes a contracting universe as per Einstein's GR, minus his cosmological constant that he retracted in light of Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, contrary to his previous steady state preconceptions.
It is in fact an entirely logical venture to experimentally calculate an alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation for a contracting universe... But only if the values of the dimensions of the new interpretation are equal in proportion to the current interpretation, no matter if these values are given for different reasons.
The dimensions of the alternative interpretation that I suggest 'should' be equal in value to the current interpretation, just for an alternate reason.
If so - this would be interesting because the consequences of adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation then go on to solve every physics conundrum there is, from cause of Big Bang, to the cosmological constant anomaly, and the altered remit of GR will not break down in black holes. Furthermore - the standard model 'should' be united as a continuum with gravity, whilst relying purely upon the standard model with no unobserved additions.
I cannot see why you do not seem able to progress past trying to interpret my model of a contracting cyclic universe via Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation...
By remit of logic - one is never going to be able to even consider my 'experimental' model of a cyclic universe, that makes all of its development in a contraction period, without disassociating from the concept of Hubble's velocity related interpretation and considering an alternative...
I covered this fact in the initial posts of my first thread of this title, here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69032.0
(Btw, your site is still not functioning properly. The 'recent posts' page is not updating all of the recent posts. Many are missing. And I'm not sure the PM function is working. Messages send ok, but I think there may be a problem with the inbox.)
-
The classical velocity component of red shift is independently demonstrable in the laboratory (and indeed on the road - Doppler radar!) , as is the gravitational component.
What we observe is that time runs slower close to a large mass, photons blue shift as they approach a large mass, and small objects accelerate towards a large mass, all according to exactly the same equation, so there is no observation consistent with inverted time dilation.
Doppler radar - bounces radio waves off a moving target. If the target is moving away or towards the radio wave source a change in the frequency of the radio wave can be observed when the radio wave is analysed after being bounced back to source.
Or - If the radio wave source is itself moving, then the radio wave beam can be directed at both the stationary backgrounds surrounding the moving target as it moves, as well as the target itself. The difference in the frequency of the radio waves bounced back from the stationary background objects in relation to the frequency of the radio waves bounced back from the moving target, can then be equated to analyse the speed of the target object.
How does this calculation work? What are the mechanics involved?
A radio wave that is compressed or dilated relative to the length of the radio wave at the source, by being bounced back off a target moving closer to or further away from the source, is translated into a distance that a speed can be derived from, via the speed distance time formula, by knowing how much 'time' it takes the speed of light to cover a distance.
Correct?
So - In the case of Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation - what are the mechanics of this calculation?
This isn't so obvious. We have to remember that unlike dealing with Doppler radar in a uniform gravity field, light shifts wavelength in a non uniform gravity field anyway, and also we have no fixed wavelength that is being bounced off the light source that we imagine is moving away from us.
Are we relying on Hubble's standard candle for a relative frequency?
Taking the length of the wave of the observed redshift in relation to the estimated distance of light source, and estimated frequency of light at source, a distance can be derived by calculating the difference, a speed can then be derived by knowing how much 'time' it takes for light to cover distance?
Is this correct?
My model's interpretation of the red shift distance correlation simply turns that 'speed' of Hubble's interpretation into a 'time' via the speed distance time formula - by knowing the length of the wavelength of the red shift in relation to the length of wavelength estimated at source of light for a distance to calculating a time via the speed of light - and then states the light as travelling through a contra directional gravitational time dilation in the open space between light source and observation point, that causes the light to take that amount of 'time' longer to cover the estimated distance between light source and observation point. This being because, (in my model), time is running at a slower rate in the weaker gravity fields of open space in relation to M. (note: relativistic mass is then rendered redundant for both light and mass.)
(My model states this phenomenon of a contra directional gravitational time dilation as being observable as the physical cause of the acceleration of gravity. Applied to quantum this contra directional time dilation 'should' cause the standard model to be united as a continuum with gravity)
Now we are looking at a model of the universe that has made all of its development in an incredibly slow contraction period, a contraction that has been slowly accelerating and will accelerate further as the contraction progresses.
As my model's universe further contracts, red shifts will further redshift, as is observed. This being due to the gravity fields of open space between clusters of galaxies that are contracting into each other, over time, becoming weaker as the matter further clumps.
Again - this is an experimental model that 'may' be interesting if it is mathematically viable because it describes the mechanics of a fully described cyclic universe that gives cause for Big Bangs, and could solve most, if not all, known physics conundrums.
*
What is observed is that time runs slower for mass near a bigger body mass. No-one has measured what time is going in open space because it takes a mass to make a measurement.
By stating light as being massless, and relativistic mass as redundant, looking at the length of the wave length of light closer to a mass as opposed to further away, the length of the wave is shorter, and describing this shortening of a wavelength in light as it get nearer to a body of mass can be described by saying that the light is taking a shorter amount of 'time' to cover the same distance, and the wavelength therefore appears shorter.
This concept also gives physical cause for the type of acceleration that is observed of all m in free fall, in relation to M.
-
Allot of what you are saying is correct and not included in the main stream calculation of expansion. Larger galaxies have greater red shift by GR the gravity aspect of red shift. This is ignored by main stream while the very proof is the lensing around galaxies. Main stream suggests that is dark energy pushing all galaxies away and expanding the universe. Apparently Dark energy has a threshold rather than the dilation threshold. The gamma term in relativity.
We use our inability to distinguish objects further than 13.6 billion years in all directions as the age of our universe. The BB persists in the minds of man even when mathematics prove otherwise. So your expanding or contracting universe is based entirely on faith that math is no longer a valid tool of measurement. Lets consider our sun was able to create a black hole (way to small). That BH would be about 1.6 miles across. Billions of miles away is a galaxy with a BH 37,200 AU in diameter. That is about 3,500,000,000,000 miles in diameter. The BH in our galaxy is about 4 million miles in diameter and Andromeda galaxy has a BH of about 25 million mile diameter. Its going to take 4 billion years to collide and create a 29 billion mile diameter BH. By relativity suns have to create a mass capable of gravity with an attraction greater than the speed of light to form a BH. Main stream has not even figured out that mass is created in suns from dark mass energy in order to create BH's. The math to create these enormous BH's is in the trillions of years and not billions. So if you want to invalidate math and relativity in favor of a BB you may believe anything you like. The general public will believe you because you must know what you are talking about Your scientists. The best minds of the day also suggested you would fall of the earth if you sailed to far. When something is unknown it is in mans nature to make something up.
It is in mans best interest to follow math when trying to understand the observable universe. To recommend faith over observation is not science. It is a religion.
-
Thanks for your post GoC.
I personally think that the maths of the current physics can be juggled around until all the pieces fit together as shapes that form a united geometry and match the values of observed phenomenon.
I did not start out my idea as a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycles via the black hole phenomenon.
This model developed after many years of thinking about the consequences of adding a contra directional gravitational time dilation to the universe, and the dimensions of this contracting cyclic model, as I now describe, emerged as a result...
-
Steady state could emerge also. We could have a galaxy moving towards us and still be red shifted by GR. In fact we do Andromeda is red shifted. The only way we know its moving towards us is by the arms. The arm moving towards us is moving faster than the one moving away from us. Otherwise we view red shifted light like we do in all the other galaxies.
-
Huh? - Thats a new one for me. Perhaps you have made a more in depth study of the Andromeda observed shift than I, in which case I apologise beforehand, but as far as I am aware, Andromeda is observed to be blue shifted.
In my model this blue shifting would indicate that the gravity field of open space is increasing in strength between Andromeda and our observation point here in the Milky Way Galaxy.
This being synonymous to 2 bodies of mass and a closing distance between them - under the premise of Fgrav being proportional to M1*M2/d squared, where the gravity field of the open space in-between M1 & M2, subject to the inverse square law at h from M, is described as escalating in value via the squaring law in relation to the closing distance between the masses of these 2 galaxies.
I just don't see how a steady state universe can emerge from a GR basis without incorporating a mechanism that balances the phenomenon of clumping...
But you are right, given that an alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation can be employed, the possibility does exist that a steady state could be accomplished via the black hole phenomenon. Provided that the radiation and superluminal jet action of the black hole phenomenon is equal in value to the mass intake associated with the black hole phenomenon to retain a balance. This would mean that black holes have always existed in conjunction with stars, otherwise we are looking at a cycle in which neutron stars develop and collapse into black holes which consume other stars to become bigger black holes.
In this scenario of imbalance the black hole phenomenon becomes predominant and all mass will eventually clump into one singular black hole for a Big Bang scenario...
-
Huh? - Thats a new one for me. Perhaps you have made a more in depth study of the Andromeda observed shift than I, in which case I apologise beforehand, but as far as I am aware, Andromeda is observed to be blue shifted.
That is the assumption made by many.
In my model this blue shifting would indicate that the gravity field of open space is increasing in strength between Andromeda and our observation point here in the Milky Way Galaxy.
First we have to understand what we mean by a gravity field and what is increasing strength. The gravity field is actually a dilation difference in space. What is being dilated? Since we consider potential energy as decreasing down a gravity well we could consider fundamental energy c is being dilated. This is not kinetic energy but a separate spectrum energy that actually move electrons. So back to the galaxy. 75% of the dilation in a galaxy is in the center where most of the stars and the BH reside. We are 75% out from the center of our galaxy for the observation point. We reside in less dilated energy and observe the more dilated center of a galaxy as red shifted by GR. Depending on the ratio of SR and GR red shift we might not be expanding, be expanding or remaining in a motion of steady state. Using relativity, red shift could be a combination of SR and GR red shift. Between this and the enormous size of BH's a BB is unlikely based on the visual size dating by red shift. It was the allure of expansion as SR to focus on a beginning. Suns create electrons from space fundamental energy to grow and age. Mass from space spectrum not a BB. [/quote]
This being synonymous to 2 bodies of mass and a closing distance between them - under the premise of Fgrav being proportional to M1*M2/d squared, where the gravity field of the open space in-between M1 & M2, subject to the inverse square law at h from M, is described as escalating in value via the squaring law in relation to the closing distance between the masses of these 2 galaxies.
The entire galaxy has a halo of dilation with a threshold we can observe. This is like a planet where the dilation inverse square starts at the galaxy boundary halo and the dilation reduces itself to the mass ratio middle between two galaxies. The cause of gravity is the potential energy difference in dilation of space. It is reduced fundamental energy density that mass is always attracted.
I just don't see how a steady state universe can emerge from a GR basis without incorporating a mechanism that balances the phenomenon of clumping...
But you are right, given that an alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation can be employed, the possibility does exist that a steady state could be accomplished via the black hole phenomenon. Provided that the radiation and superluminal jet action of the black hole phenomenon is equal in value to the mass intake associated with the black hole phenomenon to retain a balance. This would mean that black holes have always existed in conjunction with stars, otherwise we are looking at a cycle in which neutron stars develop and collapse into black holes which consume other stars to become bigger black holes.
Yes the jet action is because two BH's are spinning around each other. There is nothing to indicate BH; evaporate at all. to cause a cycle.
In this scenario of imbalance the black hole phenomenon becomes predominant and all mass will eventually clump into one singular black hole for a Big Bang scenario...
And what would be the mechanism for a BB? mass has entropy.
-
In Penrose's "Cycles of Time", he talks about black holes radiating away to extinction via Hawking's radiation, as a solution to the conservation of energy law anomaly surrounding black holes. He places this scenario as occurring in an ongoing expansion...
If one takes this scenario of black holes forming and radiating away to nothing over time, and places it in a steady state setting, then that which is radiated away from a black hole is then inherent to the open spaces in between masses that are not moving away from one another...
But this Hawking's radiation is a very slow process.
You say that superluminal jet action occurs when 2 black holes are spinning around each other. As I have understood the subject, superluminal jets from a black hole are thought to occur when a black hole encounters any large body of mass that becomes trapped within its gravitational field and is consumed.
There are theories as to how the superluminal jet actions occur, mostly taking the school of thought that some, or maybe all, of the mass of the consumed object is thrown back out into space without entering the event horizon. I have yet to read an explanation as to the mechanics of how a star can be transformed into jets of particles by having a close encounter with a black hole.
(My model has a theory)
However, in that clumps of mass can be reduced to particle, or energy, form as such by the black hole phenomenon, this is a plus for a steady state balance between the inherent trend to clumping, giving mechanism for the required anti-clumping mechanics to achieve a balanced steady state.
My cyclic model simply places all the above in a contracting scenario where all mass will eventually clump into one singularity, and the mechanism for a Big Bang is that there will be no equivalent gravitational force acting upon this singular black hole. It will empty all of the mass of the universe via superluminal jets until its own extinction, leaving a sea of particles to then very slowly develop into clumps.
*
When you ask "What is it that dilates space?"
In my model it is the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M that is responsible for dilating space at h from M, and reciprocally - also contracting space as h reduces closer to M, (where h is height).
-
In Penrose's "Cycles of Time", he talks about black holes radiating away to extinction via Hawking's radiation, as a solution to the conservation of energy law anomaly surrounding black holes. He places this scenario as occurring in an ongoing expansion...
If one takes this scenario of black holes forming and radiating away to nothing over time, and places it in a steady state setting, then that which is radiated away from a black hole is then inherent to the open spaces in between masses that are not moving away from one another...
But this Hawking's radiation is a very slow process.
Radiation rides on the spectrum. Two BH's cycling around each other will cause radiation. There is no radiation inside of a black hole because there is no time nor energy inside a black hole. A black hole is completely kinetic energy. No radiation in and of itself. Nothing can get out.
You say that superluminal jet action occurs when 2 black holes are spinning around each other. As I have understood the subject, superluminal jets from a black hole are thought to occur when a black hole encounters any large body of mass that becomes trapped within its gravitational field and is consumed.
That is also acceptable if the mass is large enough and is spinning around the BH.
There are theories as to how the superluminal jet actions occur, mostly taking the school of thought that some, or maybe all, of the mass of the consumed object is thrown back out into space without entering the event horizon. I have yet to read an explanation as to the mechanics of how a star can be transformed into jets of particles by having a close encounter with a black hole.
(My model has a theory)
No mass is thrown out.
However, in that clumps of mass can be reduced to particle, or energy, form as such by the black hole phenomenon, this is a plus for a steady state balance between the inherent trend to clumping, giving mechanism for the required anti-clumping mechanics to achieve a balanced steady state.
There is no real steady state of course. Mass will be created until time energy of the universe is used up. Motion in the universe will stop unless there is a reversal in BH formation. Radiation is not the answer to kinetic matter (a black hole) where there are no electron motion.
My cyclic model simply places all the above in a contracting scenario where all mass will eventually clump into one singularity, and the mechanism for a Big Bang is that there will be no equivalent gravitational force acting upon this singular black hole. It will empty all of the mass of the universe via superluminal jets until its own extinction, leaving a sea of particles to then very slowly develop into clumps.
Unfortunately when energy in the universe is gone gravity will be gone also.
*
When you ask "What is it that dilates space?"
In my model it is the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M that is responsible for dilating space at h from M, and reciprocally - also contracting space as h reduces closer to M, (where h is height).
Fundamental time energy c is what is dilating. When mass reaches the speed of light attraction in a sun the dilation of energy can no longer keep protons and neutrons apart. So they funnel into the space energy once occupied. All energy is removed and a BH is created. A proton and electron in normal space occupies space in the ratio of a marble to the electrons cycle distance to a football field. A BH is the football field full of marbles. Our suns mass as a BH is about 1.6 to 1.8 miles in diameter.
-
That is an interesting perspective on events, but have you read this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Because this is the type of radiation that Penrose's is discussing in his book "Cycles of Time".
I have indeed read Stephen Hawking's book "A brief moment in Time", where he speaks in length about the black hole phenomenon.
I'm not sure that you are thinking of superluminal jet action as the same phenomenon that I am.
Please see:
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/jpl/pia20027/infrared-echoes-of-a-black-hole-eating-a-star
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/07/06/health/black-hole-star-radio-telescope/index.html?client=safari
*
I don't see why you would view a sea of particles as being devoid of energy.
...and, by adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation to open space in relation to M, and stating GR gravitational time dilation as an m in relation to M phenomenon experienced only by m - my model's black holes are the 'most' energetic places in the universe where, completely contrary to GR, time is running much faster than any other place in the universe. This then solving the conservation of energy anomaly concerning black holes, and causing this now altered remit of GR to 'not' mathematically break down inside of the black hole, as current GR does.
-
Distant objects are generally observed to have large redshifts, so either they are moving away from us or the gravitational field outside the observable universe is stronger than inside, which would, of course, make the distant objects accelerate away from us!
There is indeed an inherent flaw in this school of thought...
It can only really be mechanically viable if:
a) our observation point is exactly in the centre of the universe.
Otherwise more centrally located galaxy clusters, that are larger than our cluster, and therefore 'more' gravitationally attracted towards this greater gravitational force outside the universe, would be observed as blue shifting towards us as the bigger galaxy cluster closed distance on us.
b) our galaxy cluster is not moving through space at-all.
Because firstly we observe red shifts in every direction, and also we would see evidence of galaxy clusters that are smaller than our own being blue shifted as we close distance on them, as we will be more gravitationally attracted towards the outside of the universe than they.
c) all masses of the universe are in inertial free fall towards a greater mass that entirely and uniformly surrounds outside the universe. Therefore everything is accelerating uniformly away from our presumed central point.
This does actually work as a concept, but requires that one view the universe, to analogise: as being contained in something akin to a pocket that a gas bubble left behind in a pumice stone. I like this idea a lot but it does beg one to initially wonder, before addressing what a 'pocket in a pumice stone' might involve, why it is that all of the mass of our universe started out in the middle of the pocket, and if our galaxy cluster is also in free fall, which direction outwards is it free falling towards?
This concept clearly raises far more questions than it answers, which is most probably why Guth's inflationary model prevails, and GR requires dark energy to expand space between galaxy clusters in all directions
My model of the universe is comprised only of observable phenomenon. It unites all observed phenomenon and provides a complete picture of a mechanically viable system.
(That is 'if' my proposed alterations are, albeit for different reasons, proportional to current model)
-
Also, my model does not predict this contra directional time dilation as a replacement for GR gravitational time dilation. It predicts this contra directional time dilation as an additional time dilation for space surrounding mass that gives cause for the acceleration of gravity. This being the how I can hypothesise an additional time dilation...
But conventional GR time dilation is exactly correlated with the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration, with no requirement for any additional corrections.
But it is indeed because conventional GR time dilation is exactly correlated with the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration that it is actually possible to attribute this acceleration to a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, where GR gravitational time dilation is then an m near M phenomenon for m, where any motion of m at h from M is affected by the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M.
Thus giving the phenomenon of the acceleration of gravity a physical cause... a phenomenon which neither conventional GR itself, nor GR gravitational time dilation can give physical cause for!
(note: m in relative motion will also be subject to SR time dilation and my model uses all 3 time dilations to describe m in motion in a non uniform gravity field)
-
Now I'm going to show:
a) How a contra directional gravitational time dilation picture of open space in relation to M works with regards to light waves. (relativistic mass being redundant in my model)
b) How a contra directional gravitational time dilation picture works when adding GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M.
c) How m in motion in a non uniform gravity field is affected by SR within this picture of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M, when superimposed into the picture of a contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M.
Back soon...
-
Ok - before I start, I think it relevant to mention that when one considers this addition of a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, that one may view this addition as a means of describing an aether type scenario that all mass is moving through...
This, you will find, is entirely synonymous to the current GR remit of mass affecting the properties of space, and space affecting the motion of mass.
-
To create a picture of this contra directional gravitational time dilation and how it affects light waves:
In part 1 of this thought experiment we are going to be picturing cars moving at a constant speed, making marks on a track lane at a rate per second.
Each lane will be inherent with a different length of second that is represented by the time period between a start and stop light in that lane, this time period being 10 x seconds of the length of second inherent to that lane.
Each lane will have its own associated car that makes 10 marks per second that is the length of a second inherent to that lane.
All cars will travel at the same constant speed in all lanes.
We will be measuring
a) How many marks will be made in the observed lane, when measured via the length of second of the observation lane.
b) How much distance will appear to occur between the marks in the observed lane, when measured via the length of second of the observation lane
I'm going to use 0 as a number. This will become useful in part 2 of the thought experiment.
In lane 0 - the length of second is a standard second, and there are 10 x a standard second in the time period between start and stop light in lane 0. The lane 0 p car is making 10 marks per standard second, and these marks, when measured via a lane 0 second, are 1 metre apart in distance.
(p for 'photon' to distinguish from the lane 0 'mass' car in part 2 of the thought experiment),
In lane 1 - the length of second is 10% longer than a standard second. There are 10 x '10% longer than a standard second' seconds in the time period between start and stop light in lane 1.
The lane 1 p car is making 10 marks per a second that is 10% longer than a standard second, and the distance between these marks, when measured via a lane 1 second, is 1 metre.
In lane 2 - the length of second is 20% longer than a standard second and there are 10 x '20% longer than a standard second' seconds in the time period between start and stop light in lane 2.
The lane 2 p car is making 10 marks per a second that is 20% longer than a standard second, and the distance between these marks, when measured via a lane 2 second, is 1 metre.
When measuring what the lane 1 p car appears to be doing from lane 0 - lane 0 will observe the lane 1 p car make 90 marks that are a distance of 1.111 metres apart.
When measuring what the lane 2 p car appears to be doing from lane 0 - lane 0 will observe the lane 2 p car making 80 marks that are a distance of 1.25 metres apart.
If we continue this scenario:
A lane 3 p car will make 70 marks at a distance of 1.428 metres apart.
A lane 4 p car will make 60 marks at a distance of 1.666 metres apart.
A lane 5 p car will make 50 marks at a distance of 2 metres apart.
A lane 6 p car will make 40 marks at a distance of 2.5 metres apart.
A lane 7 p car will make 30 marks at a distance of 3.333 metres apart
A lane 8 p car will make 20 marks at a distance of 5 metres apart
A lane 9 p car will make 10 marks at a distance of 10 metres apart.
A lane 10 p car will make 0 marks at 100 metres apart.
Now we can split our lanes into sub- lanes where each lane is now split into 10 sub-lanes, in which the length of a second is becoming longer by 1% per sub-lane instead of 10% per lane.
So... Starting from a base of a standard second, lane 0(sub 1) is a second that is 1% longer than a standard second, and lane 0(sub 2) is a second that is 2% longer than a standard second.
This way, as the lane numbers that are inclusive of these these sub lanes escalate, we have a linear increase in the length of second relative to the length of the standard second in lane 0(sub0).
(As well as the sub-lanes having a length of 100 metres, it would be possible to give a sub-lane a width that could be proportional to actual observation. I'm not such of a mathematician that I can accurately work out at what h from M a 1% increase in a length of a second would occur, but it's the same h from M that a 1% decrease in the length of a second occurs under current GR remit.)
Now we will travel our lane 0 p car across the width of these sub-lanes from 0 to 10 at constant speed, but we will reset the car to make marks as per the length of the second of the sub-lane it is crossing as it crosses it.
What we are looking at now is marks that are being made at a slightly longer distance apart as the car travels across each sub-lane, and that these distance increases between the marks will be linear.
This is a description of how my model travels light through the non uniform gravity fields of open space in relation to M.
State the constant speed as being the speed of light, where the car makes marks at 299 792 458 marks per variable second - and from the perspective of a standard second, the sub-lanes of lane 0 through to lane 10 are describing redshift.
Reciprocally, the sub-lanes of lane 10 through to lane 0 are describing blue shift.
(Clearly this is an analogised description, using crude maths that are many orders too large)
I will add my model's interpretation of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M, and how this fits into the contra directional gravitational time dilation picture outlined above in part 2 of the thought experiment next post.
-
I don't see why you would view a sea of particles as being devoid of energy.
Mass and energy are two separate conditions. Mass has nothing but kinetic energy while energy is the motion of c. The motion of c gives electrons flow in what we call the electron cloud. While we cannot measure the speed and position we can postulate the electron motion is c (angular forward momentum) forced by space time energy (Or dark mass energy if you like).
So Black Holes have no space time energy inside same as electrons have no space energy inside. You are confusing gravity greater than the speed of light attraction to other mass as energy and it is not. Actually there is no kinetic energy with a BH. It just eats the other mass by consuming. There is no time in a BH it is a uniform gravity particle similar to an electron except in size of course. We measure time with the distance the electron moves in our frame as to the cycle time. Cycle times vary by distance due to differences in dilation with GR. Extra linear distance through space has to be added to cycle time of the electron. So it becomes a ratio with c.
...and, by adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation to open space in relation to M, and stating GR gravitational time dilation as an m in relation to M phenomenon experienced only by m - my model's black holes are the 'most' energetic places in the universe where, completely contrary to GR, time is running much faster than any other place in the universe.
We can follow relativity right up to a BH. Mass reduces cycle time of the electron so the event horizon would suck in the electron with no cycle time. No cycle time no energy. The dilation of energy would be to the point normal mass could not exist as an element. The BH being an electron in another fractal universe. If you were sitting on an electron as a planet could you view the Earth?
It is not the gravity field that has the slowest tick rate in a clock. Considering the earth the slowest tick rate would be found in the center of the earth where attraction of gravity does not exist in the exact gravitational center. A BH does not have a gradient to the center like normal mass. A BH is completely separate from time energy ratio to c which follows relativity. BH's interior does not follow relativity. Energy dilation which cause an attraction greater than the speed of light cannot keep normal atoms apart and they accumulate side by side. The ratio of normal mass in space is a marble to a football field. A BH is a football field full of marbles. All the mass of our sun would contract to ~ +/- 1.7 miles in diameter.
There is an aura to all mass where the threshold of dilation changes. The inverse square of the distance within the planet's mass and then the entire planet to another celestial body inverse square of the distance by the entire planet. That would be a different attraction of size where the dilation between points in space is much less then in the connected mass. Follow the energy c in relativity for a better perspective.
-
Thank you GoC.
I have read Einstein's own papers on GR, and SR as well as at least 5 different books by prominent physicists dedicated to the subject, while the dozens of other physics books I've read also make perfectly adequate description. The Susskind lectures on GR are also very informative.
Yes it is a well known fact that GR breaks down in a black hole directly because of the supposed lack of energy and time associated with a black hole under the remit of GR.
(Which is why my model is 'purposefully' different and replaces dark energy with the contra directional gravitational time dilation that my model then attributes as the physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.)
If I wanted a lesson in Relativity, I would have asked for one.
What I'm asking for is some help to create mathematical notation for the 'alternative' maths I am laying out in the thought experiment my posts are outlining. These maths being for this description of an 'alternative' cyclic model, posted here in New Theories...
(ie: Please 'do' expect this model to differ from GR, rather than be expecting to apply a conventional Relativity remit to its proposed dimensions)
If you do actually care to continue discussing the phenomenon of superluminal jets and the phenomenon of Hawking's radiation, as per the links I provided in post 25, and explore the possibilities of a balanced steady state versus an unbalanced cyclic model as I am describing, and this alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation that I put forward, or any other alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, I'd be delighted!
-
To create a picture of this contra directional gravitational time dilation and how it affects light waves:
In part 1 of this thought experiment we are going to be picturing cars moving at a constant speed, making marks on a track lane at a rate per second.
Each lane will be inherent with a different length of second that is represented by the time period between a start and stop light in that lane, this time period being 10 x seconds of the length of second inherent to that lane.
Each lane will have its own associated car that makes 10 marks per second that is the length of a second inherent to that lane.
All cars will travel at the same constant speed in all lanes.
We will be measuring
a) How many marks will be made in the observed lane, when measured via the length of second of the observation lane.
b) How much distance will appear to occur between the marks in the observed lane, when measured via the length of second of the observation lane
I'm going to use 0 as a number as it will prove useful within the thought experiment.
In lane 0 - the length of second is a standard second, and there are 10 x a standard second in the time period between start and stop light in lane 0. The lane 0 p car is making 10 marks per standard second, and these marks, when measured via a lane 0 second, are 1 metre apart in distance.
(p for 'photon' to distinguish from the lane 0 'mass' car in part 2 of the thought experiment),
In lane 1 - the length of second is 10% longer than a standard second. There are 10 x '10% longer than a standard second' seconds in the time period between start and stop light in lane 1.
The lane 1 p car is making 10 marks per a second that is 10% longer than a standard second, and the distance between these marks, when measured via a lane 1 second, is 1 metre.
In lane 2 - the length of second is 20% longer than a standard second and there are 10 x '20% longer than a standard second' seconds in the time period between start and stop light in lane 2.
The lane 2 p car is making 10 marks per a second that is 20% longer than a standard second, and the distance between these marks, when measured via a lane 2 second, is 1 metre.
When measuring what the lane 1 p car appears to be doing from lane 0 - lane 0 will observe the lane 1 p car make 90 marks that are a distance of 1.111 metres apart.
When measuring what the lane 2 p car appears to be doing from lane 0 - lane 0 will observe the lane 2 p car making 80 marks that are a distance of 1.25 metres apart.
If we continue this scenario:
A lane 3 p car will make 70 marks at a distance of 1.428 metres apart.
A lane 4 p car will make 60 marks at a distance of 1.666 metres apart.
A lane 5 p car will make 50 marks at a distance of 2 metres apart.
A lane 6 p car will make 40 marks at a distance of 2.5 metres apart.
A lane 7 p car will make 30 marks at a distance of 3.333 metres apart
A lane 8 p car will make 20 marks at a distance of 5 metres apart
A lane 9 p car will make 10 marks at a distance of 10 metres apart.
A lane 10 p car will make 0 marks at 100 metres apart.
Now we can split our lanes into sub- lanes where each lane is now split into 10 sub-lanes, in which the length of a second is becoming longer by 1% per sub-lane instead of 10% per lane.
So... Starting from a base of a standard second, lane 0(sub 1) is a second that is 1% longer than a standard second, and lane 0(sub 2) is a second that is 2% longer than a standard second.
This way, as the lane numbers that are inclusive of these these sub lanes escalate, we have a linear increase in the length of second relative to the length of the standard second in lane 0(sub0).
(As well as the sub-lanes having a length of 100 metres, it would be possible to give a sub-lane a width that could be proportional to actual observation. I'm not such of a mathematician that I can accurately work out at what h from M a 1% increase in a length of a second would occur, but it's the same h from M that a 1% decrease in the length of a second occurs under current GR remit.)
Now we will travel our lane 0 p car across the width of these sub-lanes from 0 to 10 at constant speed, but we will reset the car to make marks as per the length of the second of the sub-lane it is crossing as it crosses it.
What we are looking at now is marks that are being made at a slightly longer distance apart as the car travels across each sub-lane, and that these distance increases between the marks will be linear.
This is a description of how my model travels light through the non uniform gravity fields of open space in relation to M.
State the constant speed as being the speed of light, where the car makes marks at 299 792 458 marks per variable second - and from the perspective of a standard second, the sub-lanes of lane 0 through to lane 10 are describing redshift.
Reciprocally, the sub-lanes of lane 10 through to lane 0 are describing blue shift.
(Clearly this is an analogised description, using crude maths that are many orders too large)
I will add my model's interpretation of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M, and how this fits into the contra directional gravitational time dilation picture outlined above in part 2 of the thought experiment next post.
To add GR gravitational time dilation to the contra directional gravitational time dilation picture outlined above:
In part 2 of this thought experiment we will be considering cars moving in lanes as per in part 1, but we will be introducing the lane 'm' (for mass) car that will be experiencing a decreased length of second as the lane numbers escalate.
The decrease of the decreased length of second is equal in proportion to the increase of the increased length of second inherent to the lane of that escalated number.
In lane 0, both the lane and the lane 0 m car are using a standard second, as in part 1 of the thought experiment,
Lane 1 is inherent with a 10% longer second than a standard second, and the lane 1 m car is making x 10 marks per second that is a 10% shorter second than a standard second.
Lane 2 is inherent with a 20% longer second than a standard second, and the lane 2 m car is making x 10 marks per second that is a 20% shorter second than a standard second
Lane 3, etc...
Looking at how a lane 1 m car will appear to an observer in lane 0, the lane 1 m car will, according to the rate the car is making marks at, be making 110 marks that are a distance of 0.909 metres apart...
If we continue the scenario:
Lane 2 m car will be making 120 marks, that are a distance of 0.883 metres apart.
Lane 3 m car will be making 130 marks, that are a distance of 0.769 apart.
Lane 4 m car will be making 140 marks, that are a distance of 0.714 metres apart.
Lane 5 m car will be making 150 marks, that are a distance of 0.666 metres apart.
Lane 6 m car will be making 160 marks, that are a distance of 0.625 apart.
Lane 7 m car will be making 170 marks, that are a distance of 0.588 metres apart
Lane 8 m car will be making 180 marks, that are a distance of 0.555 apart
Lane 9 m car will be making 190 marks, that are 0.526 apart
Lane 10 m car will be making 200 marks at a distance of 0.5 metres apart.
... But the lane m cars will also be moving through the contra directional time dilation of the lanes which are inherent with longer seconds relative to lane 0's standard second.
(Here we may allude back to the remit of current physics. If lane 0 and the lane m cars do not realise that there is a contra directional gravitational time dilation that causes the cars to take that much extra time to cover a distance, then lane 0, and the lane m cars might be forgiven for believing that the length of a metre in space is a variable)
But within this contra directional gravitational time dilation picture, a metre 'should' remain a constant, as it is the length of the second in open space relative to M that is getting longer.
By overlaying the maths of the lane p cars on top of the maths of the lane m cars we can build the picture:
From the observation point of lane 0, via the remit of the standard second that is inherent to lane 0...
A lane 1 p car will make 90 marks at 1.111 metres apart.
A lane 1 m car will make 110 marks at 0.909 metres apart.
By adding 100/90 + 100/110 = 2.020/2 journeys = 1.010 metres
A lane 2 p car will make 80 marks at 1.25 metres apart.
A lane 2 m car will make 120 marks at 0.833 metres apart.
By adding 100/80 + 100/120 = 2.083/2 journeys = 1.041 metres.
A lane 3 p car will make 70 marks that are 1.42 metres apart.
A lane 3 m car will make 130 marks that are 0.769 metres apart
By adding 100/70 + 100/130 = 2.197/2 journeys = 1.098 metres
A lane 4 p car makes 60 marks at 1.666 metres apart.
A lane 4 m car makes 140 marks at 0.714 metres apart.
By adding 100/60 + 100/140 = 2.38/2 journeys = 1.190 metres
A lane 5 p car will make 50 marks that are 2 metres apart.
A lane 5 m car will make 150 marks that are 0.666 metres apart.
By adding 100/50 + 100/150 = 2.666/2 journeys = 1.333 metres
A lane 6 p car will make 40 marks that are 2.5 metres apart.
A lane 6 m car will make 160 marks that are 0.625 metres apart.
By adding 100/40 + 100/160 = 3.125/2 journeys = 1.562 metres.
A lane 7 p car will make 30 marks that are 3.333 metres apart.
A lane 7 m car will make 170 marks that are 0.588 metres apart.
By adding 100/30 + 100/170 = 3.921/2 journeys = 1.960
A lane 8 p car will be making 20 marks that are 5 metres apart.
A lane 8 m car will be making 180 marks that are 0.555 metres apart.
By adding 100/20 + 100/180 = 5.555/2 journeys = 2.777 metres.
A lane 9 p car is making 10 marks that are 10 marks that are 10 metres apart.
A lane 9 m car is making 190 marks that are 0.526 metres apart.
By adding 100/10 + 100/190 = 10.926/2 journeys = 5.263 metres
A lane 10 p car is making 0 marks at 100 metres apart.
A lane 10 m car is making 200 marks that are 2 metres apart.
By adding 100/0 + 100/200 = 100.5/2 journeys = 50.25 metres.
What becomes apparent is that a lane m car, travelling at constant speed, is travelling a distance that is longer than the speed its travelling at allows for, when measuring a speed as per metres per standard second.
The 2 time dilations in conjunction with each other are causing the lane m car to cover more distance than it would, at that speed in lane 0.
(We can now allude back to current physics remit...
Let's explore the notion that perhaps lane 0 and the lane m cars, as well as not being aware that the length of a second is getting longer relative to the standard second as the lane numbers escalate, are also unaware of the fact that the lane m cars themselves are experiencing seconds that are getting an amount that is 'equal in value' shorter as lane numbers escalate.
Perhaps current physics is looking at the maths as per the the results of the combination of these 2 time dilations occurring in relation to each other...)
Looking at the results of the combination, by deducting the value of 1 metre, which is the true distance that the car is making marks at, we can see that:
Lane 1: 1.010-1 = 0.010
Lane 2: 1.041-1 = 0.041
Lane 3: 1.098-1 = 0.098
Lane 4: 1.190-1 = 0.190
Lane 5: 1.333-1 = 0.333
Lane 6: 1.562-1 = 0.562
Lane 7: 1.960-1 = 0.960
Lane 8: 2.777-1 = 1.777
Lane 9: 5.263-1 = 4.263
Lane 10: 50.25-1 = 49.25
Again - by splitting the lanes into being comprised of 10 sub-lanes each (we could split then into 100 sub-lanes, or 1000 sun-lanes), we can observe a more linear increase in these distances.
Again - it would be possible to give these sub-lanes a width and travel a lane m car across these sub lanes from 1 through to 10, or 10 through to 1.
Taking these distances and subjecting them to the speed distance time formula, where the speed is our constant of 10 metres per standard second, we can obtain a time period from this 'extra' distance which we 'may' then attribute to time running faster at h from M, and that more distance is covered by the lane m cars in the lanes, as the lane numbers escalate, because more distance will be covered in the quicker time...
Please note that my model anticipates that this value of difference, (according to a lane 0 observation), between the distances travelled in the escalating lane numbers will be inclusive of both the current GR and SR considerations.
However, my model places this value of increase in the distance travelled in these escalating lane numbers, (according to a lane 0 observation), as being due to the combination of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M, when travelling through the contra directional time dilation of open space in relation to M.
And the effects of SR time dilation complete the picture.
I will add SR to the picture in part 3 of the thought experiment next post...
-
To add SR to this picture of a combination of my model's addition of a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M, and my model's interpretation of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M:
In part 3 of this thought experiment we are going to be observing the lane 1 m car from the observation point of lane 0 via the standard second of lane 0.
In part 2 of the thought experiment we considered that:
"A lane 1 p car will make 90 marks at 1.111 metres apart.
A lane 1 m car will make 110 marks at 0.909 metres apart.
By adding 100/90 + 100/110 = 2.020/2 journeys = 1.010 metres"
In this consideration I was using a rate or 'speed' of 10 marks per variable seconds...
If I were to state the speed as 20 marks per second that are 1 metre apart, will we get different results?
In lane 0, both the lane 0 p car and the lane 0 m car will be making 20 marks per standard second, within a 10 standard second time period.
In lane 1, the lane 1 p car is making 20 marks per second that is 10% longer than a standard second.
In lane 1, the lane 1 m car will be making 20 marks per second that is 10% shorter than a standard second.
From the observation of lane 0, via the lane 0 standard second, within the time period of 10 x lane 0 standard seconds:
The lane 1 p car will be observed as making 180 marks that are 1.111 metres apart.
The lane 1 m car will be observed as making 220 marks that are 0.909 metres apart.
By adding 200/180 + 200/220 = 2.020/2 journeys = 1.010
So we can see that the speed of the cars can be altered and that the maths will remain the same because they are the result of the variable length of seconds under this remit of these opposing directions of 2 separate gravitational time dilations.
Adding the sub-lanes, it is clear to see that a 1% increase in length of second, relative to the standard second of lane 0(sub0), for the lane 0(sub1) p car, and a 1% decrease in length of second, relative to the standard second of lane 0(sub0), for the lane 0(sub1) m car will result in the lane 0(sub1) m car appearing to travel 1.001 metres.
(I am aware this is a mathematically crude representation, and that if lane 2 is travelling metres that are 0.041 of a metre longer, then one cannot split the 0.010 of a metre traveled in lane 1, split them into 10 parts and then spread them evenly over 10 sub-lanes.)
Taking the 0.001 (or thereabouts) of a metre and the speed of 20 marks per standard second, we can establish the time period, and by associating this time period to the length of a standard second, this is by how much of a 'faster' time the lane 0(sub1) m car is travelling by in lane 0(sub1) relative to how it would travel in lane 0(sub0).
Not because time goes faster at that h from M, but because of the relationship between these opposing directions of two gravitational time dilations, one inherent to open space in relation to M, and the other due to an m in relation to M relationship, inherent to m...
But... before adding SR lets just for a moment consider the fact that this time period that we derived above for a distance of 0.001 metre could be just as indicative of a longer distance travelled due to a period of time that is longer than a standard second, (ie: it takes a longer time to cover the distance of a metre), as it is of a longer distance traveled in a period of time that is shorter than a standard second. (ie: a shorter second will more quickly cover the distance of a metre and within the remit of a standard second it will appear as if more distance than a metre has been covered)
Both will result in the same extra distance.
Now I will add SR:
We are now going to give the lane 1 m car a speed of 0.866c. We don't need to bother with marks because we know that for reasons of either a longer period of time, or a shorter period of time, from the observation point in lane0, the lane 1 m car will be travelling 0.010 of a metre extra per metre, than a lane 0 m car would in lane 0 at same speed.
When considering a speed of 0.866c we must remember that this speed is indeed inherent to the standard second, and will cause a 50% time dilation of a standard second.
(SR is, far as I can tell, calculated purely via the remit of a standard second in current physics...)
Lane 1 is inherent with a second that is 10% longer than a standard second and 0.866 of the speed of light per lane 1 second becomes 0.7794c per standard second.
So - at a speed of 0.7794c per standard second in lane 1, there will be a lesser percentage of time dilation for the lane 1 m car in lane 1 than there will be for a lane 0 m car in lane 0.
We can see that as the lane numbers escalate, and the second of the lane number is lengthening by 10% per lane number, that a lane 0 m car that is travelling at 0.866c in lane 0, despite maintaining a constant 'speed' when travelling in lanes 1,2,3,etc... will be dropping 10% of its percentage of the speed of light per standard second as it travels through each lane.
Because in my model light is not subject to the GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M, and is only affected by the contra directional time dilation of open space in relation to M, we 'must' make these related reductions in the percentage of the speed of light that m is travelling at, where m is subject to this contra directional gravitational time dilation at h from M.
So - as the lane0 m car, travelling at 0.866c per standard second, moves through the escalating lane numbers, the SR time dilation of 50% is reducing as the seconds inherent to these lanes are getting longer.
And - as the lane 0 m car travels through the contra directional time dilation of open space in relation to M, combined with the GR gravitational time dilation of m in relation to M, (we will say) we see the length of a second reducing(?) at h from m.
By overlaying the dilated seconds of the SR considerations upon (what we will say is) the CONTRACTED seconds of the combination of the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M, with the GR gravitational time dilation of m in relation to M - can this actually match the values of observed phenomenon?
Because we observe that SR time dilation considerations outweigh GR gravitational time dilations at a certain radius of orbit from M, I think the answer to the question above is likely to be no...
So - by overlaying the dilated seconds of the SR considerations upon (what we will say is) the DILATED seconds of the combination of the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M, with the GR gravitational time dilation of m in relation to M - can this remit match the values of observed phenomenon?
-
Here is where you are very close but do not fully understand relativity. We can use just one lane and one road one atomic clock and one measuring stick. Now lets adjust the speed of light to 990 feet per second in the Earth's center. The surface of the earth's gravity is 495 feet per second attraction by gravity. We have a mark at every 99 feet by our measuring stick on a pole. There was a hole in the planet and we flew away to a position in space the furthest point from any galaxy. We measured the pole again with our measuring stick and found the same exact measurement and the speed of light remained 990 f/s. We know the clock was ticking slower in the center of the Earth. How does this make sense? Its actually very simple your measuring stick and pole shrinks by the same ratio because it is less dilated by the gamma factor in GR. Measurements in any GR frame are confounded physically with the speed of light measurement. The equivalence with SR is not in the acceleration at the surface but the inertial position in the center of gravity.
Now lets look at SR equivalency. Your on a ship with your clock and pole and reach a relative 495 f/s which is some how equal to the center of earth's surface acceleration but you maintain an inertial speed of 495 f/s relative. You measure the pole with your measuring stick and measure the speed of light again. All measurements are the same again on the pole and the speed of light is measured to be 990 f/s. How can this be when we know our clock has a slower tick rate relative to the resting rate. Once again it is simple. The visual length of our measuring stick and pole are affected by geometry of motion relative to the speed of light. The visual of SR and the physical in GR are equivalent by there inertial positions. Why? Ok I will explain. Light from the back of the pole moves forward to the front of the pole. While the pole was moving forward the light was catching up. The pole moved two lengths before the light reached the front. Now on the return trip the pole moved forward 2/3's of a pole length before the light reached the return point. The total in feet for the reflection of light was 2.66 feet. Now 0.33 feet of the pole moved without a reflection. So we adjust the reflected feet to 2.33. When we divide by two we get a reflected visual length of ~ 1.165 visual length vs. 1.0 at relative rest. While this ratio is accurate it is not the precise value. I avoided the more complicated math to just show a rough ratio. The visual distance on the pole by your measuring stick will be the same in each and every frame. So your measuring stick at half the speed of light will actually be ~1.14 rounded off from 1.13025. The vector velocity measures the universe with a 1.14 length and believes the universe has contracted. Since the light clock is also affected by the 1.14 vs.1.0 distance the tick rate is reduced. You measure a longer distance in a vacuum with the slower clock to measure the same speed of light. Any angle of orientation with the clock will give the same tick rate.
GR is physical dilation and SR is visual dilation. The geometry of space expands in the presence of mass and the reflection expands with vector velocity in SR, This is the equivalence.
Now we get to what moves the electron and photon to be confounded? There has to be an energy of space controlling a slower electron to create a faster photon. Unless we use logic in science we have nothing.
-
Here is where you are very close but do not fully understand relativity.
Good Grief!
Is it not actually possibly to open a thread without this constant lament!
Millions of posts, in thousands of threads, in hundreds of forums!
Is there something the matter with you all?
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.
Get over it! Move on...
Now lets adjust the speed of light to 990 feet per second
My model sets out to purposefully and intentionally retain the speed of light as a constant. 299 792 458 metres per second of the reference frame it is travelling through. The seconds in each reference frame vary from each other (linearly in a reducing or increasing gravity field of open space), but the speed of light per metre in each reference frame is retained throughout.
Not only does this adhere to the equivalence principle, but it also renders distance as a constant, solving a whole host of other Relativity bug bears.
My model cannot be described with conventional Relativity. I don't know why you are even discussing poles and measurements, etc...
Clearly by all logical reasoning it must be apparent to you that if someone has read even 1 book by a prominent and qualified physicist, that is 300 pages long dedicated to the subject of GR and SR, that this will have informed them far more sufficiently than you ever could in a matter of a few paragraphs on a forum!!!
I've read dozens of books, to the point of the new books just being repetitions of that which I already read.
Again I say - if you care to continue our discussion of superluminal jets, during which btw, it appeared as if you might be guilty of confusing superluminal jets with the phenomenon of gravity waves - I'd be delighted...
-
My model cannot be described with conventional Relativity.
Then you do not understand relativity completely. If you did you probably would not consider unconventional physics. Math, geometry and angles all coincide with observations. Change one puzzle piece and it fails. And yes I feel I have a QM process that causes Relativity. There is no rest frame. You can read a 1000 books on relativity and not understand it. Many understand it mathematically only. It's very difficult without a mechanical basis. Each level of understanding can lead you astray. It does not matter if a person has the correct physical nature of relativity. Very few could follow the process in their mind. Their are some basics that need to be understood that go against main stream subjective beliefs. c as a constant, electron motion and electron photon being confounded in every frame. These are the items being ignored by main streams standard model of space not having a medium. How can anyone understand relativity when this is what they are taught.
I got over myself along time ago and I am sorry for upsetting you. That was not my intension. I believe my process follows relativity mechanically but you are correct there is no proof even when all tests are in favor of relativity. There is no proof relativity is correct even when it follows math. Math is only a tool to prove a theory is incorrect.
The seconds in each reference frame vary from each other (linearly in a reducing or increasing gravity field of open space), but the speed of light per metre in each reference frame is retained throughout.
To be more accurate the speed of light is measured to be the same in every frame. Some meters are longer than others.
-
Don't worry, the only thing that is upsetting me is that you are not continuing the discussion we 'were' having. Because that conversation 'was' interesting.
You are in fact displaying exactly the type of phycology that Lee Smolin discusses in his book "The Trouble with Physics".
There is absolutely no reason why you should believe that I cannot understand the books I've read and formulate a new theory, any more than you should believe that you cannot understand what you read and formulate a new theory.
I've noted that you make alterations to the current remit yourself. Do you see me jumping on this and telling you you do not understand relativity? Why would I? It's clear that you are posting in New Theories, and alterations are what I would expect.
Yes - it is understood that in current physics the speed of light remains the same in all reference frames, and it is the length of a metre that dilated or contracts.
Can you now understand that in my model - the speed of light remains the same in all reference frames, the length of a metre remains constant, and it is the length of the second in the reference frame itself that is the variable.
It's a simple matter of a swap of a distance for a time.
This being how GR mathematics approaches the remit of the black hole, so really, I just don't see what the problem is!
-
A black hole does not follow relativity.
Can you now understand that in my model - the speed of light remains the same in all reference frames, the length of a metre remains constant, and it is the length of the second in the reference frame itself that is the variable.
If the speed of light is constant and the meter is constant the tick rate cannot change. If it did we would measure a different speed of light in different frames. This is not what we measure. Or am I missing some understanding?
-
Yes - the fact that my model adds a contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M that gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.
A clock cannot measure open space, because when you put the clock into open space, the space is no longer open, but has the mass of the clock in it.
In my model the mass of the clock, and indeed any mass, is subject to an equal addition of gravity potential energy at h from M. It is h from M that determines this gravity potential value, where the mass value of m in relation to M is irrelevant.
That all mass is affected equally at h from M adheres again to the equivalence principle, and gives physical cause for the concept of a person ageing in keeping with the clock in their reference frame.
(and has astonishing consequences with respect to QM)
-
As well as my answer to your question as per post above...
A black hole does not follow relativity.
GR predicts black holes doesn't it?
In any case:
http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/general-relativity/2012/fall (http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/general-relativity/2012/fall)
Check out the black holes lecture, in particular the second half regarding event horizon and in-falling objects!
-
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.
In looking to make alteration to GR, clearly the logical approach is to explore a remit of GR that does not require dark energy or dark mass.
This is actually a lot simpler than one might imagine!
If we dispense with dark energy, the universe is no longer pushed outward.
Adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation gives alternative description of the red shift distance correlation, also giving a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.
In that we now have a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, we must look to the force of gravitational attraction.
This new cause of gravitational acceleration does not give physical cause for the 'attractive' factor of gravity, so we must look at the possibilities of the value of g and G being a split value.
The force of gravity is incredibly weak, and that the force of gravity is so weak is a confounding factor over vast distances between masses...
Therefore a split value between 'attractive' force, and 'accelerative' force is a distinct possibility.
Given that the attractive force will be of a far lesser value than the accelerative force, dark mass will no longer be necessary to stop galaxies flying apart.
(Edit: The acceleration of gravitational attraction causes an 'inward' stress factor, with the outer masses of the galaxy moving through 'slower' time than the inner masses.)
[/size][/color]
I think that the gravitational coupling constant may be of relevance here, and the "magnetic moment of a an electron responsible for an attractive force*"
(*The text in inverted comma's is not my idea, but one I read about put forward by John Faust)
-
It is h from M that determines this gravity potential value, where the mass value of m in relation to M is irrelevant.
Are you suggesting the h from say the center of the earth where your weightless, if there was a sphere in the center, is the same h you would have in open space away from the earth?
-
I'm not sure I understand your question.
h from M is height from M. In the middle of the earth there is no h from M.
In the middle of the earth gravity potential energy will be 0, but the contra directional gravitational time dilation giving cause for the 'acceleration' of gravitational 'attraction' will be at the maximum for that M.
This differs from current physics, in that it is gravity potential in current physics that is being used to describe the 'acceleration' of gravity.
In my model, gravity potential is the exact opposite to inertial free fall, inertial free fall being contra directional gravitational time dilation related.
In my model gravity potential is related only to the value of M and not of m, because we have split the value of G or g into 'attraction', and 'acceleration', and the 'acceleration' of m in relation to M is not based in the 'attractive' force.
Therefore we don't use the actual value of m to calculate the gravity potential energy for m at h from M, only the h of m from M...
...And it is the increase in gravity potential energy for m at h from M that causes increase in frequency for all m at h from M, including the mechanisms of clocks.
Higher frequency = faster tick rate.
As there is no h at reference frame middle of earth, there is no gravity potential energy, but the force of gravitational 'attraction' is greater where mass becomes more compressed, and a more 'attractive' force will cause the subsequent contra directional gravitational time dilation to be inherent with a shorter length of second.
So time dilation for m in relation to M is escalating with the greater gravity potential at h from M. (ie: getting faster/shorter length of seconds)
And the contra directional time dilation is diminishing with the diminishing gravity field of open space in relation to M. (ie: getting slower/longer length of seconds)
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.
(SR time dilation being additional to the picture)
-
Acceleration slows a clock tick rate. Deceleration speeds up a clock tick rate. Both cause gravity.
-
Acceleration slows a clock tick rate. Deceleration speeds up a clock tick rate. Both cause gravity.
Nowhere have I ever read that SR is the cause of gravity! Only that accelerations caused by gravity cause SR...
I can accept that what you have said 'may' form a part of your personal theory, but please be clear that this is not an accurate description of current physics remit!
-
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.
I realise I've been a bit loose in description - so just to clarify:
What I mean is that both gravitational time dilations will converge at the value of a standard second at a certain value of h from centre of M that should be somewhere around sea level.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
What part of 'a clock' is mass', are you not comprehending?
Yes - 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?
or
No?
-
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.
We can only view ratio's of tick rate for time. There is no rest frame. The clock dilates space even when in space, yes. But this is not the point of my claim. You have to understand relativity properly before you can expect to argue against its application. Observations prove clocks slow there tick rate as they descend a gravity well. It follows potential energy decrease approaching the gravitational center. Am I wrong when you suggested clocks tick rate increases as you approach the center of a planet?
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.
Both the observed tick rate and relativity says tick rate slows with the increase in mass M towards the center. A vacuum tube through the center of the earth would tick slower as it descended towards the center. Pressure has nothing to do with it other than compressing more mass in a shorter distance. This would affect the clock in a vacuum tube same as a pressure tube.
What part of 'a clock' is mass', are you not comprehending
Yes - 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?
We can use atomic clocks to obtain a ratio of tick rates. Time does not have a measurable rest state. There is no reference frame.
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.
Time cannot be measured at a fixed value when mass is in the universe. The added dilation in space is the same as the added dilation on earth for the clock. We can only get a ratio of tick rates.
Can you please understand this very basic premise?
Yes?
or
No?
Let's discuss your understanding of dilation. Dilation of mass is expansion in GR and causes light to travel further per tick. Your measuring stick increases by the exact amount light has extra to travel. So we measure the same speed of light in every gravity potential.
Now dilation in SR. Vector velocity increases space the cycle time of the electron has to travel through. Light also travels through the same amount of extra space. So the speed of light at any vector velocity measures the same as the cycle time of the electron. The speed of light is measured to be the same at all possible vector speeds
Now lets look at what is meant by contraction. When the distance light has to travel increases, the view decreases with distance and angle viewed. A visual contraction. When the distance the electron or photon has to travel increases, the tick rate slows in the light and physical clocks using cycle time.
Dilation of mass increases as potential energy decreases to the center of mass. Dilation of mass is the curve of space energy potential. Energy potential is at its least value in the gravitational center.
The center of mass is equivalent to the inertial speed of a space ship after the acceleration (gravity) from the surface of a planet decreasing to the center of a planet where it is inertial
You are trying to take an observed phenomena and change it to an unobserved phenomena. A theory has to follow observations and math.
Do you still question my understanding of what you are saying?
-
Yes I do still question your understanding of what I am describing...
No I am not taking one phenomenon and changing it into another.
I'm giving a physical cause to a phenomenon that has 'never' previously been given a physical cause.
And this physical cause then gives alternate reason for observation.
Firstly, as you do seem to have an understanding of conventional Relativity, surely you must be aware that while Relativity describes the acceleration of gravity, it provides no physical causation for the phenomenon.
Secondly, I sincerely doubt that it will have escaped your education that it is a well understood concept in physics that the act of incorporating a measuring device into a reference frame that one wishes to measure, physically changes the reference frame one is measuring.
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)
...and
b) 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...
...Although I do hold that a steady state would be possible in a balanced universe under this 'new' interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, as we were initially discussing, but point you to the fact of the Higgs Bosun value that physicists state is indicative of a non balanced universe, and therefore the possibility of a cyclic universe.
-
Please read why Maxwell could not explain gravity...
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm
In particular this:
Quote: Maxwell
"To account for such a force [of attraction between like bodies] by means of stress in an intervening medium, on the plan adopted for electric and magnetic forces, we must assume a stress of an opposite kind from that already mentioned. We must suppose that there is a pressure in the direction of the lines of force, combined with a tension in all directions at right angles to the lines of force. Such a state of stress would, no doubt, account for the observed effects of gravitation. We have not, however, been able hitherto to imagine any physical cause for such a state of stress."
...and I have been able to imagine a physical cause for such a state of stress.
-
timey
You 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.
-
timey
You 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.
GoC I'm terribly sorry, but as I am now placing you on my Ignore list, there is no further point in you posting in this thread.
I'm placing you on my ignore list because you are not engaging in any part of the discussion that I am putting forward.
Furthermore it would seem that your understanding of superluminal jets, SR causing gravity, and loose descriptions of space time are not based in current physics, while Einstein was reported to have stated that Relativity is so simple it can be understood by a six year old child!
I'm very sorry that you must spout these loose descriptions of Relativity 'at' me without engaging in the links and ideas that I put forward while I am trying to make description of my alternate model.
I am looking for someone to help create mathematical notation for the ideas that 'I' am describing that I may know if my ideas can be proven mathematically viable or not.
Clearly you are not interested in even listening to the description, or discussing any matter outside of your 'energy aura' intuitive interpretation of Relativity, which is so 'loose in description, there is no part at which I can engage in.
Good luck with your whatever that may be, and goodbye.
-
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)
...and
b) 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?
(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)
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?
The dilation of spaetime energy is the wavelength always at c but different distances.
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.
Energy is the reference frame and there is no standard second. We can only measure the ratio between frames.
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.
Still no standard reference we can measure.
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.
h in relation to M in what dilation or vector speed? We have no pin point.
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.
Open space in a solar system, galaxy or between galaxies has different dilations of space. There is no std fixed starting point.
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...
The distance of a meter is different in every frame. The dilation of the frame or speed of the frame determines the shift.
...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.
Lower energy?
This notion has astonishing consequences for QM and the interpretation of the ultraviolet catastrophe via Planck's h constant.
I do not think so.
-
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)
An observation of light being blue shifted 'could' perhaps be found within the LIGO gravity wave data.
The light in the tubes is being measured at 299 792 458 metres per standard second...
If we take the view point that the gravity wave increases the gravity field for the duration of its passing, and states the light in the tubes as blue shifted as a result - then by attributing the observed 'interference' pattern as being due to the light travelling at 299 792 458 metres per slightly shorter second, as opposed to a slightly longer second, one will find that the tubes have 'not' been contracted.
-
Again I'll make clear - This is an experimental model of a cyclic universe that makes all of its development in a very slow contraction period.
This model 'could' be viewed as a 'back to front' Bounce theory...
Back to front because all development into clumped mass occurs in a slow contraction period that speeds up as it progresses - as opposed to all development into clumped mass occurring in a fast expansion period that slows down.
Where Bounce theory does not provide the mechanics and physical cause of its outward expansion, my 'back to front' Bounce model states the black hole phenomenon as the physical cause and mechanics for its outward expansion, and states a split value gravity - both an 'attractive gravitational force', and my model's 'accelerative gravitational stress' - responsible for both the development of mass into clumps, and consequently, the contraction period that occurs as a result of mass developing into bigger clumps.
Again - in reading the above posts, one must 'expect' that a description of this 'different' contracting model will require an altered remit of GR and SR.
I am posting my description of this alternative model here at this site in hope of finding someone to help me create mathematical notation to describe this altered remit of Relativity that I am putting forward, to ascertain if this model can be mathematically viable.
(ie: that these altered dimensions can be, albeit for different reasons, proportional in value to GR mathematics and observation)
-
The interesting thing about this altered remit of relativity is that we now have 3 separate dimensions of time dilations...
GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M.
My model's contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space in relation to M. (ie: contra directional to GR gravitational time dilation)
SR motion related time dilation for m in relative motion
This arrangement of time dilations can be viewed as an annexed time matrix to the space time matrix, where there are 3 dimensions of calculable time dilations - which when taken into account result in the time component of the space time matrix.
I understand how matrix mathematics work, (in principle), but could use talking to a person who is trained in maths to understand how this concept I'm putting forward here 'may' or 'may not' be realised.
In posts 33 and 34, my thought experiment outlined, (with a rather crude representation of maths,) more or less how my model views these 3 time dilations interacting with each other, and that a resulting 'proper time' could be achieved.
This would render the space dimensions of the space time matrix as 'distance invariable', and the geometry of curved space as 'purely' time dilation related, also giving physics a 'never before realised', fully comprehensive and complete theory of the phenomenon of time itself.
-
To understand this 'back to front Bounce theory' type cyclic model that I propose, really does require the same type of paradigm shift in thinking that a person conditioned to think in terms of a Geocentric model would have had to employ to then think in terms of the superseding Heliocentric model.
All the measurements that described the Geocentric model, inclusive of the retrograde of the other planets of the solar system, remained relevant to describing the Heliocentric model, but for different reason.
I do hope someone 'will' help me calculate this alternative model of a cyclic universe that I propose...
I can't think why a competent mathematician would balk at the idea.
If a new mountain were to appear overnight, like a sinkhole in reverse, then all of the world's mountain climbers would be scrambling (excuse the pun) to be the person to climb it first...
Surely there must be a mathematician out there somewhere who would view my model as a challenge?
A welcome deviation from the well trodden pathways of convention, and therefore of interest as a pioneering project into the 'potentially' exciting unknown?
Hello - is there anybody out there?
-
Ok well - to alternatively analogise this proposed alternate interpretation of the red shift distance correlation:
Let's look at how a Doppler effect may be achieved 'without' motion...
Let us place a light emitter at a distance of 100 metres away from our stationary observation point.
We note that the frequency of the emitted light is the same frequency as it was when we checked up close before placing the emitter 100 yards away.
Now let us play with some time dilations...
Stating the light source emitter as emitting light at waves per standard second, and remembering that we are measuring the events of any change in frequency via a standard second...
We are going to increase the length of a second by 10% every 10 metres from the location of the light emitter that is 100 yards away.
In the first 10 metres the light travels it will take 10% longer for the light to travel that distance.
In the second 10 metres the light travels it will take 20% longer for the light to travel that distance
In the third 10 metres it will take the light 30% longer to travel that distance, etc..
Over the distance of 100 metres, light travelling under this remit will have taken x amount metre/c = a time value longer to travel.
(This is my model's interpretation of the red shift distance correlation)
Travelling within a 'uniform' time frame throughout, if the light source had moved x amount metres further away from the observation point within the time one would expect the speed of light to travel x amount extra metres as per the standard second being used to measure events with - the calculation would be x amount metre/c = a time value, where x amount meters/time value = speed that light source is moving away.
(This is Hubble's interpretation of the redshift distance correlation)
To reinterpret Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation - is it then possible to calculate: speed/x amount metres = time value?
(ie: frequency/wavelength = time value?)
(Edit: had to edit out metre value from 55 metre to x amount metre. 55 metres would have only been correct for a speed of 10 metres per second, sigh)
-
All measurements come from Relativity. Understanding of those measurements is by interpretation. Currently all red shift from galaxies are interpreted as SR red shift. If this is true and the light has taken 13.6 billion light years to reach us the size of the universe considering the expansion at the speed of light (which main stream does) the universe is basically 27.2 billion light years as a radius. Of course Main stream believes we are on a surface of a balloon in order to maintain the illusion of a BB. This idea of a BB is moving rapidly into the faith arena.
Light from galaxies come from the center 75% of a galaxy where light is GR red shifted while our observation of light from other galaxies is the outer 25% with much less GR red shift. Our instruments are blue shifted compared to the emitter. So naturally we view all galaxies as red shifted even if they are moving towards us. The Andromeda galaxy is red shifted from our vantage point. The only way we know it is moving towards us is the arm moving towards us is blue shifted more than the arm moving away is red from our position.
Timey
If your going to use values from Relativity and divert those values to claim a difference in the current understanding you need to maintain all ratios in relativity. Relativity is only ratios between sources using the energy of c as the difference in how you recognize time. There is no standard reference frame for time. There is only ratios of energy c. Energy c = total motion available = tick ratio to c.
The only real issue is the SR vs. GR in observing red shift. If you use Relativity measurements and divert those measurements away from relativity the original measurements become invalid. You either follow relativity or create your own theory. All observations have followed relativity postulates so far and I do not expect that to change. I do expect the subjective interpretations to change back more towards Einstein's 1920 papers on relativity where the main stream diverted from his ideas.
In the 1920 relativity papers Einstein claimed there was a transfer medium. While the MMX proved there was no stationary medium science went beyond the limits of the experiment to say there was no medium. There can be no moving medium because that would invalidate relativity. There can be no stationary medium because of the MMX. But there is one left. A spinning medium of stationary points rotating at c. This would move electrons and photons being a wave of the particles spinning at c to create Relativity. With out a medium of c the electron and photon being confounded would be magic.
-
...And clearly the energy of c, the frequency of c, and the speed of c are held by current physics as relative to a standard second:
c = 299 792 458 metres per standard second.
frequency = waves per standard second
energy = joules per standard second squared.
Ok well - to alternatively analogise this proposed alternate interpretation of the red shift distance correlation:
Let's look at how a Doppler effect may be achieved 'without' motion...
Let us place a light emitter at a distance of 100 metres away from our stationary observation point.
We note that the frequency of the emitted light is the same frequency as it was when we checked up close before placing the emitter 100 yards away.
Now let us play with some time dilations...
Stating the light source emitter as emitting light at waves per standard second, and remembering that we are measuring the events of any change in frequency via a standard second...
We are going to increase the length of a second by 10% every 10 metres from the location of the light emitter that is 100 yards away.
In the first 10 metres the light travels it will take 10% longer for the light to travel that distance.
In the second 10 metres the light travels it will take 20% longer for the light to travel that distance
In the third 10 metres it will take the light 30% longer to travel that distance, etc..
Over the distance of 100 metres, light travelling under this remit will have taken x amount metre/c = a time value longer to travel.
(This is my model's interpretation of the red shift distance correlation)
Travelling within a 'uniform' time frame throughout, if the light source had moved x amount metres further away from the observation point within the time one would expect the speed of light to travel x amount extra metres as per the standard second being used to measure events with - the calculation would be x amount metre/c = a time value, where x amount meters/time value = speed that light source is moving away.
(This is Hubble's interpretation of the redshift distance correlation)
To reinterpret Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation - is it then possible to calculate: speed/x amount metres = time value?
(ie: frequency/wavelength = time value?)
Maybe I 'could' clarify the above post into a more tangible context:
(I am looking at and understanding the architecture of geometry and shapes here. Maths doesn't come so easy)
Let's now 'say' that the light is travelling at 10 metres per standard second, (for convenience).
The light source emitter, placed 100 metres away, is emitting light waves at 10 waves per standard second, and the light is initially travelling at 10 metres per standard second.
After 10 metres the light waves are now travelling at 10 metres per second that is 10% slower, and during that slower second, the light waves will still number 10 at 1 metre long, but according to the maths of a standard second, the light will make 9 waves that are 1.1 metres long.
After the second 10 metres travelled, the light will make 8 waves that are 1.25 metres long.
7 waves at 1.42m
6 waves at 1.66m
5 waves at 2m
4 waves at 2.5m
3 waves at 3.33m
2 waves at 5m
1 wave at 10m
According to the reference frame of 10 metres distance from light source emitter, the light is making 10 waves that are 1 metre long.
It is only because we are calculating this reference frame from the time period of a standard second that we arrive at the maths of 9 waves that are 1.1 metres long.
Over the distance of 100 metres, the light wave will become 10 metres long at a frequency of 1 wave per standard second.
By adding up the increased lengths of wavelength per 10 metres of the journey, I arrive at a figure of 29.26*10 metres = 292.60-100m (true distance) = 192.6 metres
192.6 metres is the amount by which the light waves have been stretched over the slower times within the 100 metres, when taking into account the speed of 10 metre per standard second.
If one was not aware of the slower times stretching these wavelengths when measured via a standard second, then one might assume that the stretching was due to the light source emitter itself moving at away from the 100 metre distance at a speed that could be calculated as:
192.6 metres/10mp standard second = 19.26 standard seconds.
By the remit of my model and its interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, the red shifted light in my thought experiment above has travelled 19.26 standard seconds in addition to the 10 standard seconds light would normally travel 100 metres in at the (slothish) speed of 10 metres per standard second.
The light source emitter is not moving.
By the remit of Hubble's red shift distance correlation this extra 19.26 standard seconds is attributed to a speed that the light source is moving away from the 100 metre distance from observation point, where:
Speed of light (slothish 10mp standard second)*19.26 standard second = 192.6 metres/19.26 standard seconds = 10mp standard second...
...and Hubble interprets the light source as moving away from the 100 metre distance from observation point at 10mp standard second...
So by the remit of my model - to reinterpret Hubble's red shift velocities, would it be possible to calculate:
Observed redshift = 10mp standard second (recessional speed)*19.26 standard seconds = 192.6m/speed of the light(slothish 10mp standard second) = 19.26 standard seconds?
Or could we simply take the redshift observed at observation point 10 metres long at the frequency 1 wave per standard second:
10m/rate of 1 = 10 standard seconds+19.26 standard seconds = 29. 26 standard seconds.
Speed of light(slothish 10mp standard seconds)*29.26 standard seconds= 292.6m/speed of light(slothish 10mp standard second) = 29.26 standard seconds - (100m/speed of light(slothish 10mp standard second) = 10 standard seconds) = 19.26 standard seconds extra time, that over the 100 metres distance, as stipulated by the thought experiment, the rate of time has been slowed by.
Can anyone tell me if this remit will work with proper light speed, as per red shift distance correlation, and result in the observed data values for this given alternate reason?
(Remembering that my model's addition of this contra directional gravitational time dilation renders relativistic mass as redundant, where light is only affected by the contra directional time dilation, and is not subject to gravity potential energy like m is. This actually splits the value of G and g into attractive and accelerative forces, which changes the remit for m in relation to M, but to say so, the new remit remains proportional to current math, but for alternate reasons)
-
Once a wave is created it does not change its frequency. Main stream allows you to think that by suggesting light increases momentum down a gravity hole. This is not the case. The detector cell expands down a gravity well to measure the light created up the gravity well as blue shifted. Main stream does not follow the postulate of c being constant. They cannot pick and choose the consistency of light. The photon speed is constant even in dilated space but it has further to go through space. Red and blue shifted light are the same speed in the open vacuum of space. m and M are of very little consequence once in the open vacuum of space.
-
Once a wave is created it does not change its frequency. Main stream allows you to think that by suggesting light increases momentum down a gravity hole. This is not the case. The detector cell expands down a gravity well to measure the light created up the gravity well as blue shifted. Main stream does not follow the postulate of c being constant. They cannot pick and choose the consistency of light. The photon speed is constant even in dilated space but it has further to go through space. Red and blue shifted light are the same speed in the open vacuum of space. m and M are of very little consequence once in the open vacuum of space.
Haven't you got your own thread to push your ideas on?
I'm asking for help with a 'specific' maths consideration here... And you are not engaging with it!
-
Your fighting relativity not just my ideas. My ideas just put mechanics behind the postulates. If you use relativity numbers that are observed as a starting point and then deviate from relativity you have to explain why. Math is just a tool theories must follow to be valid. Mathematics does not prove a theory correct. The observations of all relativity tests have followed relativity mathematics. This is statistical proof but not a real proof that relativity is correct.
If you had a light bulb traveling through space the forward light is blue shifted and the rear moving light is red shifted in SR. What is the mechanics of your theory to show contraction in the universe? The word contra is just a word not a real physical explanation of cause.
-
Your fighting relativity not just my ideas. My ideas just put mechanics behind the postulates. If you use relativity numbers that are observed as a starting point and then deviate from relativity you have to explain why. Math is just a tool theories must follow to be valid. Mathematics does not prove a theory correct. The observations of all relativity tests have followed relativity mathematics. This is statistical proof but not a real proof that relativity is correct.
If you had a light bulb traveling through space the forward light is blue shifted and the rear moving light is red shifted in SR. What is the mechanics of your theory to show contraction in the universe? The word contra is just a word not a real physical explanation of cause.
In turn I will tell you that if you are going to comment on a thread, you must first make sure you read the thread, understand what is being said, and then comment upon that which is being said.
My thread gives clear indication in post 33 and 34 as to how my model views a relationship between GR, SR, and my model's addition of a contra directional gravitational time dilation that gives cause for the 'mechanics' of the acceleration of gravity.
I'm not fighting Relativity. I'm adding to it!
Now please pay attention - you are not engaging with the notions put forward in this thread...
You do not wish to discuss my ideas, and I, in return, do not wish to discuss yours...
And - I'm asking you, with all due respect, NOT to post here again!
-
speed of c = 299 792 458 metres per standard second
Frequency of light = waves per standard second
Energy of light = joules per standard second squared.
Ok well - to alternatively analogise this proposed alternate interpretation of the red shift distance correlation:
Let's look at how a Doppler effect may be achieved 'without' motion...
Let us place a light emitter at a distance of 100 metres away from our stationary observation point.
We note that the frequency of the emitted light is the same frequency as it was when we checked up close before placing the emitter 100 yards away.
Now let us play with some time dilations...
Stating the light source emitter as emitting light at waves per standard second, and remembering that we are measuring the events of any change in frequency via a standard second...
We are going to increase the length of a second by 10% every 10 metres from the location of the light emitter that is 100 yards away.
In the first 10 metres the light travels it will take 10% longer for the light to travel that distance.
In the second 10 metres the light travels it will take 20% longer for the light to travel that distance
In the third 10 metres it will take the light 30% longer to travel that distance, etc..
Over the distance of 100 metres, light travelling under this remit will have taken x amount metre/c = a time value longer to travel.
(This is my model's interpretation of the red shift distance correlation)
Travelling within a 'uniform' time frame throughout, if the light source had moved x amount metres further away from the observation point within the time one would expect the speed of light to travel x amount extra metres as per the standard second being used to measure events with - the calculation would be x amount metre/c = a time value, where x amount meters/time value = speed that light source is moving away.
(This is Hubble's interpretation of the redshift distance correlation)
To reinterpret Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation - is it then possible to calculate: speed/x amount metres = time value?
(ie: frequency/wavelength = time value?)
Maybe I 'could' clarify the above post into a more tangible context:
(I am looking at and understanding the architecture of geometry and shapes here. Maths doesn't come so easy)
Let's now 'say' that the light is travelling at 10 metres per standard second, (for convenience).
The light source emitter, placed 100 metres away, is emitting light waves at 10 waves per standard second, and the light is initially travelling at 10 metres per standard second.
After 10 metres the light waves are now travelling at 10 metres per second that is 10% slower, and during that slower second, the light waves will still number 10 at 1 metre long, but according to the maths of a standard second, the light will make 9 waves that are 1.1 metres long.
After the second 10 metres travelled, the light will make 8 waves that are 1.25 metres long.
7 waves at 1.42m
6 waves at 1.66m
5 waves at 2m
4 waves at 2.5m
3 waves at 3.33m
2 waves at 5m
1 wave at 10m
According to the reference frame of 10 metres distance from light source emitter, the light is making 10 waves that are 1 metre long.
It is only because we are calculating this reference frame from the time period of a standard second that we arrive at the maths of 9 waves that are 1.1 metres long.
Over the distance of 100 metres, the light wave will become 10 metres long at a frequency of 1 wave per standard second.
By adding up the increased lengths of wavelength per 10 metres of the journey, I arrive at a figure of 29.26*10 metres = 292.60-100m (true distance) = 192.6 metres
192.6 metres is the amount by which the light waves have been stretched over the slower times within the 100 metres, when taking into account the speed of 10 metre per standard second.
If one was not aware of the slower times stretching these wavelengths when measured via a standard second, then one might assume that the stretching was due to the light source emitter itself moving at away from the 100 metre distance at a speed that could be calculated as:
192.6 metres/10mp standard second = 19.26 standard seconds.
By the remit of my model and its interpretation of the red shift distance correlation, the red shifted light in my thought experiment above has travelled 19.26 standard seconds in addition to the 10 standard seconds light would normally travel 100 metres in at the (slothish) speed of 10 metres per standard second.
The light source emitter is not moving.
By the remit of Hubble's red shift distance correlation this extra 19.26 standard seconds is attributed to a speed that the light source is moving away from the 100 metre distance from observation point, where:
Speed of light (slothish 10mp standard second)*19.26 standard second = 192.6 metres/19.26 standard seconds = 10mp standard second...
...and Hubble interprets the light source as moving away from the 100 metre distance from observation point at 10mp standard second...
So by the remit of my model - to reinterpret Hubble's red shift velocities, would it be possible to calculate:
Observed redshift = 10mp standard second (recessional speed)*19.26 standard seconds = 192.6m/speed of the light(slothish 10mp standard second) = 19.26 standard seconds?
Or could we simply take the redshift observed at observation point 10 metres long at the frequency 1 wave per standard second:
10m/rate of 1 = 10 standard seconds+19.26 standard seconds = 29. 26 standard seconds.
Speed of light(slothish 10mp standard seconds)*29.26 standard seconds= 292.6m/speed of light(slothish 10mp standard second) = 29.26 standard seconds - (100m/speed of light(slothish 10mp standard second) = 10 standard seconds) = 19.26 standard seconds extra time, that over the 100 metres distance, as stipulated by the thought experiment, the rate of time has been slowed by.
Can anyone tell me if this remit will work with proper light speed, as per red shift distance correlation, and result in the observed data values for this given alternate reason?
(Remembering that my model's addition of this contra directional gravitational time dilation renders relativistic mass as redundant, where light is only affected by the contra directional time dilation, and is not subject to gravity potential energy like m is. This actually splits the value of G and g into attractive and accelerative forces, which changes the remit for m in relation to M, but to say so, the new remit remains proportional to current math, but for alternate reasons)
Can someone here please help with 'this' maths consideration?
-
Well to say so - as an architecture of moving geometry and shapes, geometry being the purest form of mathematics, I am 'almost' certain that my model's interpretation of the red shift distance correlation can be proportional to observation, inclusive of gravitational lensing...
...and that my model's description of an annexed time matrix to the space time matrix, given in post 59, can be a mathematical route to exact geometrical co-ordinates under any circumstance of the universe, with astonishing consequences with regards to QM.
Therefore, rather than waiting to have this mathematically confirmed - on the basis that I might get hit by a bus tomorrow, but mostly because I'm bored - I'm going to forge ahead to a more advanced aspect.
When launching a rocket into space, once in space, currently it is the purpose of the mission to achieve as much speed as possible to cover these vast distances in space more quickly.
Under the remit of my model, the interplay between SR time dilation occurring for mass, occurring within the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space will cause a mass travelling at constant speed to take longer to travel the same distance...
A big mass will cause the contra directional time dilation to be greater around itself, (ie: faster time = shorter lengthen seconds), as it moves through space, but this is a negligible effect for a mass such as a space rocket.
... As the contra directional seconds of space dilate into longer seconds with distance from big masses, the constant speed that the m travels at will be rising as a percentage of the speed of light per elongated second of the reference frame the m is moving through, and the SR time dilation effects for the rocket will escalate.
The rocket will experience it's journey as having taken a longer amount of time to complete, giving the false impression that the rocket has travelled a greater distance.
My model states this effect as travelling the 'curvature' of space, and that there exists the possibility, especially on an intergalactic scale, of travelling 'as the crow flies' far more quickly.
Now let me talk to you about implementing a reverse thrust via M-drive, or similar tech, in order to slow the rocket's forward motion...
As the rocket moves into a reference frame that is inherent with slower time, it must match its speed, ie: metres per standard second, to the length of second of that reference frame.
This way the speed of the rocket does not escalate the percentage of the speed of light per second of that reference frame, and the rocket's SR time dilation effects remain constant.
In the voids between galaxies the seconds of this contra directional time dilation will be very, very long indeed, and if a rocket follows the remit of matching speed to length of seconds, the rocket will be travelling at speeds, which comparable to earth's reference frame, will be 'negative' in value!
In this manner, the curvature of space can be avoided, and space travelled as the crow flies, over distances between masses and mass clusters that, by the remit of my model, are not as far apart as currently thought anyway.
-
Please read why Maxwell could not explain gravity...
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm (http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm)
In particular this:
Quote: Maxwell
"To account for such a force [of attraction between like bodies] by means of stress in an intervening medium, on the plan adopted for electric and magnetic forces, we must assume a stress of an opposite kind from that already mentioned. We must suppose that there is a pressure in the direction of the lines of force, combined with a tension in all directions at right angles to the lines of force. Such a state of stress would, no doubt, account for the observed effects of gravitation. We have not, however, been able hitherto to imagine any physical cause for such a state of stress."
...and I have been able to imagine a physical cause for such a state of stress.
The cause that escaped Maxwell is spacetime dilation. If you are mathematically inclined, you can prove this to yourself by injecting the Lorentz transform into Maxwell's wave equations. You will find that the equations are the same in both reference frames - the stationary one (unprimed) and the one that is moving with uniform velocity (primed.) For example:
d^2E/dt'^2-c^2d^2E/dx'^2=d^2E/dt^2-c^2d^2E/dx^2
x'=(x-vt)*gamma
t'=(t-xv/c^2)*gamma
gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
E=Eo*exp(2*pi*i*(x-ct)/wavelength)
-
I think people get confused about the Lorentz transform because each of the various parts of a moving object translates to different places and different times (relative to one another.) Moving observers do not perceive space any differently than the rest of us. They just perceive events to occur at different times and it is the perceived simultaneity of events that defines distances in space. In that respect, you (timey) are not far off base trying to interpret SR and GR in terms of time dilation alone. If you take simultaneity into account, you will find that you are arguing for Einstein's interpretation. No shame there, by the way. The giants of physics made all of these mistakes, too. Your Maxwell quotation is a prime example.
-
If I may, there are 2 other discussion threads that preceded this one. Both of them have been locked for technical reasons so a back reference is in order:
1) https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69032.0
2) https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69585.0
-
Please read why Maxwell could not explain gravity...
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm (http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath613/kmath613.htm)
In particular this:
Quote: Maxwell
"To account for such a force [of attraction between like bodies] by means of stress in an intervening medium, on the plan adopted for electric and magnetic forces, we must assume a stress of an opposite kind from that already mentioned. We must suppose that there is a pressure in the direction of the lines of force, combined with a tension in all directions at right angles to the lines of force. Such a state of stress would, no doubt, account for the observed effects of gravitation. We have not, however, been able hitherto to imagine any physical cause for such a state of stress."
...and I have been able to imagine a physical cause for such a state of stress.
The cause that escaped Maxwell is spacetime dilation. If you are mathematically inclined, you can prove this to yourself by injecting the Lorentz transform into Maxwell's wave equations. You will find that the equations are the same in both reference frames - the stationary one (unprimed) and the one that is moving with uniform velocity (primed.) For example:
d^2E/dt'^2-c^2d^2E/dx'^2=d^2E/dt^2-c^2d^2E/dx^2
x'=(x-vt)*gamma
t'=(t-xv/c^2)*gamma
gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
E=Eo*exp(2*pi*i*(x-ct)/wavelength)
Ah - yes, this is understood by me, and what the solution you use is lacking is a direct link with gravity.
You are using SR to describe wavelength "and" describe space dilation.
What Maxwell was looking for in his quote is "a physical cause to explain gravitational acceleration".
While the maths you provide only describe observation, not cause, and only on the remit that distance in space itself is variable in the face of a constant speed of light.
A constant speed that holds itself relative to a constant distance of 299 792 458 metres, and a constant period of time, this being a standard second, while SR is describing neither the metre, nor the second as constant.
My model adds the contra directional gravitational time dilation instead of the SR time dilation, states the value of the contra directional as equal in value but negative to GR gravitational time dilation at h from M. And then 'adds' SR time dilation into the picture of these two opposing gravitational time dilations for m at relative speeds.
Distances remain constant in space, and the notion of length contraction is shuffled over into a concept of 'observational time frame dependancy' that describes why an observed rate of time that is different to the observational rate of time will only be partially viewed, and this concept remains proportional to the Lorentz length contraction maths.
As far as I'm aware, SR and the Lorentz transformations do not take GR gravitational time dilation into account... (?)
My model directly combines all 3 time dilations and interacts them as a 3 dimensions of time annexed to the space time matrix.
All I'm doing with this model, after adding the contra directional time dilation in order to give physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, is shuffling concepts that already exist into a new arrangement.
(In the music business they'd call it a re-mix.)
-
There really is no necessity for a space that dilates in distance, within the remit of my model making all of its development - from sea of individual particles, to clumped mass, that eventually clumps into one mass, and then explodes in a Big Bang - in a period of contraction.
The remit of re-interpreting the red shift distance correlation, for my model, is to describe particles that are slowly being pulled together to create bigger masses, and open spaces that result as weaker gravity fields because masses are getting bigger as particles vacate open spaces, and that these masses being created by particles drawing together, are themselves being 'even more slowly' pulled closer together in a contraction.
-
It's not fair to other readers of this thread, but I received a PM from timey that provides more detail about his model than is available on these threads. He is reluctant to make them public because his ideas are expressed in rather unconventional terms. He is open to discussion though so I will attempt a translation here.
He starts with a conventional space-time grid in 2 dimensions and places an observer at the origin. He then adds a parallel time axis some distance away from the origin where an emitter will be located. The emitter's time axis is scaled according to an arbitrary formula involving the golden ratio (GR): t'=t/GR^10. (Arbitrary in the sense that he has no physical justification for that move. He just suspects that it's a good guess.) He then projects his coordinate system onto a rotated plane and attempts to compute the distance travelled from that perspective. He interprets curvature in terms of the height of a point on the rotated plane along the 3rd dimension. I am at a loss to explain the reason for scaling the time axis in the way that he does. It seems to be a red herring because he doesn't attempt to draw any conclusions from that. The rotation of the coordinate system is akin to SR, but it does not account for simultaneity so I think my original diagnosis must stand. This is not a new theory. It is an attempt to visualize Minkowski spacetime. For that, I refer you to https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/spacetime-diagrams-light-clocks/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/spacetime-diagrams-light-clocks/)
-
I guess it would also be unfair to readers if I now answered Mikes post in a pm, so...
Mike, firstly, I am a woman, who has self taught herself from age 11, is now 48, and has been studying physics for the last 9 years.
I am reluctant to post my diagrams, not because they are unconventional, but because should my model hold merit the publishing rights will be worth money, and should my model turn out not to have merit, it wouldn't be of consequence that I had posted them, but it is equally valid to say that it's of no consequence that I don't.
Yes - I am open to 'discussion'... however, my definition of discussion involves discussion.
I don't recall any 'conventional' representation of a space time grid constructed on the diagonal, using the square to diagonal relationship...
I do not add an observer at origin, the observer point you mention is the mass, (or mass cluster) of the gravitational field of the observation point...
(This being obviously 'earth', or our 'Milky Way Galaxy', or our the 'Galaxy cluster' that the Milky Way resides within - the relevance of which being dependant on the magnitude of the input distance)
The emitters time axis is not scaled to a formula, it is the path the light takes through space that is scaled to formula via knowing the 'parallax' ascertained distance from light source (the star) to observation point.
The path the light takes through space is calculated via an 'untested' formula, that uses the golden ratio as a means of equally dividing the input distance in relation to how much time the speed of light will take to travel the input distance.
The diagram provides a system by which the time it takes for the speed of light to travel the input distance, and the input distance itself, are now divided into 16.18 parts that are the equivalent of each other.
(Any distance ascertained of any light source can be plugged in as the input distance, and the 'time' it takes for speed of light to travel the distance equalised to distance in 16.18 divisions)
Mike says that I make arbitrary use of the golden ratio without giving justification. As a point of discussion, I'm now going to pretend that Mike has said:
"I see you have made use of the golden ratio here, can you please explain your reason for doing so?"
Where I say:
"Yes, of course Mike..."
... I am making use of the golden ratio for 3 reasons.
The first reason is because the golden ratio is mathematically represented in almost everything we 'look' at.
The second reason is that when ascertaining the distances that light sources are in relation to earth, a method of parallax is employed, which analyses angle in relation to motion, and any motion must be held relative to a rate of time. (a standard second)
The third reason is because in mathematics, the golden ratio symbolises that 'this is equal to that', as explained to me by a physicist here at this site, which is indeed how I'm using the golden ratio in the diagram.
So... the use of the golden ratio within the diagram is hardly arbitrary. It is my suggestion that the golden ratio is not only mathematically represented in everything we look at in terms of height and width, but also is represented in depth. And I am considering space itself as a depth.
Therefore the curvature of space time that the light travels in between mass of light source, and mass of observation point is subject to a sum that includes 360 degrees of angle in relation to the golden ratio, square root 2 and square root 0.5.
The use of these square roots is not arbitrary either. These square roots emerge as constants of the diagram due to the square to diagonal relationship that the diagram is using.
The conclusion drawn from the diagram is that an input distance is shorter than parallax method suggests, because time is shown (by the diagram) to be running at a rate that is becoming 'slower' further away from mass, causing the light to take longer to get to observation point.
And the purpose of the diagram is to re-scale that parallax ascertained distance, with the question being:
"Can the rescaled distance be matched to red shift observation if we attribute wave'length' being due to taking a longer 'time' to cover a metre, instead of and replacing the concept that metres are stretching in space?"
And the ultimate reason for attempting to re-interpret the red shift distance correlation is to attempt to describe a 'currently' contracting universe, as per my cyclic model, which clearly cannot be described via Hubble's velocity related interpretation.
The diagram is not a theory, it either is or is not a mathematical tool.
My model of a cyclic universe and the addition of a contra directional gravitational time dilation is the theory.
If I'd wanted to draw a representation of Minkowski space time, I would have. Although quite what the reason for doing so would be escapes me, as there are plenty of Minkowski space time diagrams out there to be used for purpose without going to the trouble of drawing one oneself.
-
P.S...
A conventional space time grid will show time, (as in sequenced time), on the vertical, and distance on the horizontal.
These vertical and horizontal lines will meet in the bottom left hand corner, with the light travelling on the diagonal rising from bottom left hand corner at an angle towards some point of the top of the right of the page, where the diagonal line relates at each stage to the distance line, as per how much distance has been travelled, and also to the time line, as per how much time has passed for the light to have travelled that amount of distance.
Mike is correct in saying that I have rotated the plane in my diagram. But he is missing the facts that:
a) my diagram is not moving light in a series of sequenced events like a conventional diagram, as the diagram itself is a formula.
By re-scaling a distance via this formula, it would indeed be possible to represent the results on a conventional space time grid as a distance travelled by light in a time sequence.
and:
b) my diagram, unlike a conventional space grid, is actually 'using' the square to diagonal relationship of its construct to describe a slowing of time in space.
If anyone else becomes interested in viewing these diagrams, I am happy to pm the same message that I sent to Mike.
If one wishes to retain their interest in this model as 'private', then please make the request to view these diagrams via pm, and I will respect your privacy.
-
I apologize for misrepresenting your gender. It's easy to get lazy with that kind of language. In my defence, the masculine default was a rule back in the 70s when I was learning proper English. I wasn't trying to embarrass you by exposing errors in your model or discourage your pursuit of knowledge. My intent was to provide context for other readers. Without that, my diagnosis would make no sense to anyone except you and me. I offer my opinion freely. You can take it or leave it as you wish. If you seek a second opinion, I recommend publishing your illustrations on this thread along with a walk-through like the one you provided to me. A picture is worth a thousand words.
By the way, if you're in this for the money, you will be sorely disappointed.
-
Gender isn't important and has no bearing here. Only the fact that I'm self educated is pertinent, in that my mind is not conditioned to answering exam questions.
I didn't think you were trying to embarrass me.
Your diagnosis didn't make much sense to me anyway, as you seem to be equating the diagram to concepts that 'stretch' space by variable metres, as in SR, Minkowski space time, and as per an expanding model...
Which has nothing to do with re-scaling a parallax distance ascertained of a light source, (star), as per light taking a longer amount of time to cover metres that remain constant.
But hey, don't worry about it!
One is either open to viewing physics under a new remit, or not... and it is understandable that you are indeed wrapped up in your own thoughts concerning your thread and the new metric, where the new metric is giving another method of calculating concepts predominant to the present expanding model - a model that is totally relying on the discovery of some mechanism to give cause for Dark Energy to be even be a 'valid' model.
I just don't get why it is that my model of a contracting, cyclic universe - that relies only upon the standard model without adding anything except this contra directional gravitational time dilation to give physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, and actually gives physical cause for the mechanics for Big Bang - should be less appealing than the current model that requires explanation for the physical cause for the acceleration of gravity, requires physical cause and mechanics for Big Bang, and relies upon the unobserved additions of Dark Energy and Dark Mass to balance the books, otherwise it 'doesn't work'...
Total mystery to me!!!
What no money in it? Shock horror! (chuckle)... In my experience there hasn't been any money in anything else either, so no panic, nothing that I'm not already used to...
Never the less, I will not be publishing my diagrams to the net. If anyone is interested I can pm them.
P.S.
Thanks for the link about rotated diagrams. That was interesting! Roberto is using the diagonal to represent temporal and spatial dimensions, and places light on the square to result in mathematised dimensions.
My diagram does the opposite, placing temporal and spatial on the square, and places the light 'path' on the diagonal where the rate of time is stretched, so no surprise wot-so-ever that my diagram does the opposite, because I am describing the current concept reversed to make description of a model that makes all of its development during the contraction period, which is the reverse of the current model making all of its development during an expansion period.
-
So first we take the distance to a star and divide this distance into 16.18 units of distance:
d/golden ratio power ten
Then we divide the time it takes light to travel that distance at the speed of light into 16.18 units:
d/c=t/golden ratio power 10
Now we have units of distance and units of time that are the equivalent to each other in value via the speed of light, which we will refer to as u units.
Now in order to 'stretch' time in space, and also show how much extra distance the light will 'appear' to be travelling under the remit of 299 792 458 metres per seconds that are getting longer, I am going to use the square to diagonal relationship to calculate:
Golden ratio power 10*square root 2=22.88u
or
Golden ratio power 10/square root 0.5=22.88u
Where we can calculate that:
22.88/square root 0.5 = 16.18
22.88*square root 2 = 16.18
and:
22.88/golden ratio power 10 = 1.4142
(1.4142 being square root 2)
and:
Golden ratio power 10/22.88 = 0.707
(0.707 being square root 0.5)
So now we have 16.18 units that we will refer to as r units, where:
r-u=0.4142
Now we will subject the r units to:
Golden ratio power ten/square root 2=11.44r
or:
Golden ratio power 10*square root 0.5=11.44r
Where we can calculate that:
11.44*square root 2 = 16.18
11.44/square root 0.5=16.18
and:
11.44/Golden ratio power 10 = 0.707
(0.707 being square root 0.5)
and:
Golden ratio power 10/11.44 = 1.4142
(1.4142 being square root 2)
So now we have a system by which it is possible to divide the distance, (any distance), to the star (any star), into 16.18 units of distance, and 16.18 units of time that we refer to as u units, that are the equivalent of each other via the speed of light, and stretch these units into r units by a value of 0.4142 per u unit.
What we have is a distance of 22.88u that is a distance of 11.44r units, which is the equivalent of 16.18 u units.
22.88u-16.18u = 6.701 extra distance travelled.
Which we are stating as being purely 'time' related, due to the light, travelling at the speed of light, being held relative to seconds at distance from M of star, that are becoming progressively longer than a standard second* as h from star M increases - and then progressively shorter in length again, as h from the observation M diminishes when the light approaches M observation point.
(*The star's rate of time will differ from a standard second, but by understanding the true distance, and the magnitude of luminosity in relation to that distance, a mass value is obtained that, under the remit of my model's contra directional gravitational time dilation, will define the rate of time of the star.)
Just to check.
If we then calculate:
r unit distance in u units, ie:
1r=1.4u
...and then divide by 0.4142*1
So:
1r=1.4142u/(0.4142*1)=3.4142
2r=2.8284u/(0.4142*2)=3.4142
Etc...
We see that the value 3.4142 is emerging as a constant.
So:
3.4142r*0.4142(extra time) =1.4142u
and:
6.701u*3.4142= 22.88u
In this manner, any distance to any star can be calculated keeping a metre and the speed of light constant, under the remit of variable time.
(This variable time being the contra directional gravitational time dilation that my model adds to GR for open space in relation to M, that my model states can be observed in the way light travels across open space, and the way m is accelerated towards M, or decelerated when moving away from M.)
The question being, can the 'extra time' depicted by this method of calculation match the 'extra distance' between masses caused by curvature?
(Please note that I've not bothered to write any digits after 4 places behind the decimal, but have factored them into each calculation)
-
Vikki check this out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar%E2%80%93tensor%E2%80%93vector_gravity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar%E2%80%93tensor%E2%80%93vector_gravity)
-
Yes - Lee Smolin, (I think I am remembering correctly), talks about discussions with John Moffat concerning MOG, and MOND in his book 'The Trouble with Physics'.
Smolin is also part of The Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics.
Oh for a diagram of lines and shapes though, those maths give me a headache and nothing to visualise.
Although MOG makes description of expansion, it does not give the mechanism for the expansion, so still Dark Energy related presumably, and I do believe that MOG is still relying on Dark Mass?
Am I correct?
-
The point is it matches the galaxy rotation profiles without the need for dark matter. I cannot verify those claims without investigating any peer reviewed material.
-
Ah Jeff, yes I re-read the link, and see that I missed the Dark Matter bit. (I can't believe I missed that actually, and I'm blaming it on the 2 shandies I had with dinner, I very rarely drink these days).
I'm not sure for how long this MOG notion has been fully realised. I'll have to check my copy of Lee's book that related to MOG and read up what he said again, although the book was written pre 2008, and will be wildly out of date to progress.
So - with regards to my model, the difference from MOG would be, in loose terms, that my model doesn't require a greater force of gravity than Newton predicted far from source, or the mathematically derived 5th force (not given physical cause) close to source.
This being because in my model the acceleration of gravity is time related, the actual 'attraction' of gravity is very weak, and the universe is very slowly contracting at a very slowly accelerating rate, rather than expanding quickly at an accelerated rate.
All that is required to calculate my model is to consider that where GR is calculating for 'spatially' variable spaces, my model transfers 'spatially' variable, to 'temporally' variable, due to the addition of the contra directional gravitational time dilation for open space that gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.
-
Anywhere in the current maths where G or g is being used, will already be calculating this 'contra directional gravitational time dilation'!
And the further adding of 'spatially' variable spaces to space via SR, which are instead, (by remit of my model), 'temporally' variable spaces, is what I think will be throwing the current physics maths off kilter. This being because these 'temporally' variable spaces are already accounted for in the maths in the form of G, or g.
However, these temporally variable spaces will not be accounting for the full value of G, or g, because there will be a small value of gravitational 'attraction' that will contribute to the gravitational acceleration in addition to the acceleration caused by these temporally variable spaces that my model states as the physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.
Taking the wave'length' of light as being a temporal measurement rather than a spatial measurement where Planck's h constant is related via:
E = hv
and:
wavelength =h/p
where:
p = h*vbar
or
p = hbar*k
h in relation to E can then be measurement that is temporally relevant.
Using h as a temporally oriented measurement, I think that it could be possible to derive the true value of these temporally variable spaces in space. And by subtracting this value as the accelerative oriented force of gravity from G, or g will result in the remainder being attributed to the attractive oriented force of gravity.
Taking this mode of a temporally accelerative force of gravity into the quantum region should result in a continuum in quantum, but it requires that one consider that the black body radiation experiment is inclusive of atoms that are increasing in their own rate of time, as energy is added, in order to emit higher frequency photons with time related wavelengths.
Calculating these wavelengths under the remit of the rate of time the energy charged atom is emitting them at, will result in the same length of wave for all frequencies of light, where frequency is then merely a measure as per measuring wave cycles via our standard second, rather than measuring the wavelength via the rate of time of the energy charged atom that emitted the light at this frequency.
-
E = hv
and:
wavelength = h/p
where:
p = h*vbar
or
p = hbar*k
So in an effort to calculate lights wavelength as being temporally derived, instead of spatially,
can:
time dilation = h/p/c (?)
And if not, can someone please tell me how can I get there?
-
So:
vbar = v/a
Where the dimension of v/a is time (in general)
hbar = h/2pi
And:
k = R/NA
(which is temperature in relation to energy, and doesn't concern light moving across space, but does concern the atoms of the black body experiment being heated and emitting photons.)
Therefore it is:
p = h*vbar
...that is relevant to light that has already been emitted.
For light in a gravitational gradient we encounter the concept of relativistic mass where for particles with mass:
E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2
And for light where m = 0:
E^2 - (pc)^2 = 0
And therefore:
E = pc
And:
pc = E*v/c
Resulting in an relationship between E and v, which after some 'juggling' can be represented as
Eo = mc^2
E = square root 1*mc^2
And:
P = m*v*square root 1
"Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:
"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself."
So if we are talking about the time component of a 4 vector that is a geometric property of space time itself, can:
CDG time dilation = h/p/c (?)
(Where CDG time dilation stands for the 'contra directional gravitational time dilation' that my model adds to open space to give physical cause for the acceleration of gravity)
And if not, can someone please tell me how to get there?
-
In my model, under the remit of an altered interpretation of the equivalence principle, the atom will have a higher energy at h from M than it does at lesser h from M, due to gravity potential energy, that - in keeping with the observation of the fact that m of any value will free fall towards M at same rate - will affect any value of m equally.
In this manner a person ageing in keeping with their time dilated clock is given a physical cause, because all of the atoms that the person is comprised of will be experiencing the same increase in potential energy that the clock is.
And reciprocally, the fact that a person with a time dilated clock will not register that their own clock is experiencing time dilation is also given a physical cause.
And furthermore, under this remit it becomes clear that were our bodies not inherent with internal cooling or heating systems to regulate body temperature, then adding heat energy, or subtracting heat energy would also have a bearing on how a person ages.
A direct correlation between temperature energy and gravity potential energy being clearly apparent where the black body experiment is related to the Planck Einstein relationship via Planck's h constant.
-
To calculate gravitational acceleration (or deceleration) as a contra directional gravitational time dilation phenomenon, could it just be as simple as:
v*a = d
and
d/v = t
So long as d matches the current maths of a dilation of the metre, then t is describing why that metre is temporally longer (or shorter) instead of spatially longer (or shorter).
The only blot on this landscape then is the value of the phenomenon of gravitational 'attraction', which I anticipate will have something to do with the magnetic moment of the electron.
The change my model makes to the equivalence principle will mean that any particle at h from M will be of a higher energy than the same particle at a lesser h from M, and this will describe why a ball thrown with force x away from M, when decelerated by the increasingly slower seconds at h from M, does not continue out into space, but is attracted back to M, where the increasingly faster seconds that the ball moves through on its way back down accelerate that attraction. ie: the balls magnetic moment is weaker closer to M than it is further away from M, unless it can maintain an orbital speed, where speed itself is reducing the energy of the electron resulting in weaker magnetic moments, or more precisely, less of them.
Now the blot on the landscape is the ratio of input energy to throw the ball, in relation to the mass value of the ball, and the distance that a ball will travel when thrown directly upwards - which I know is extremely relevant, but tbh is giving me a right proper headache.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trajectory
Katherine Johnson was calculating a parabolic trajectory for re-entry from an orbital.
She had to resort to Euler's method in order to do so.
The orbital velocity of a body travelling along a parabolic trajectory can be computed as:
v = square root 2*standard gravitational parameter/radial distance of orbiting body.
At any position the orbiting body has the escape velocity for that position.
If the body has the escape velocity with respect to the Earth, this is not enough to escape the Solar System, so near the Earth the orbit resembles a parabola, but further away it bends into an elliptical orbit around the Sun.
This velocity (v) is closely related to the orbital velocity of a body in a circular orbit of the radius equal to the radial position of orbiting body on the parabolic trajectory:
v = square root 2*v orbital
Then we can also see that a radial parabolic trajectory is a non periodic trajectory on a straight line, where the relative velocity of the two objects is always escape velocity.
There are two cases: the bodies move away from each other or towards each other.
There is a rather simple expression for the position as a function of time:
r = (4.5*standard gravitational parameter*t squared)1/3
t = 0 corresponds to the extrapolated time of the fictitious starting or ending at the centre of the central body.
At any time the average speed from t = 0 is 1.5 times the current speed, ie: 1.5 times the escape velocity.
To have t = 0 at the surface, apply a time shift for the Earth (and any other spherically symmetrical body of similar density) as central body this time shift is 6 minutes and 20 seconds: seven of these periods later the height above the surface is 3 times the radius, etc.
My diagram tells me that this:
v = square root 2*standard gravitational parameter/radial distance of orbiting body.
and this:
v = square root 2*v orbital
Can be calculated to establish distance travelled due to a 'time dilation' related gravitational acceleration, this being because v for orbital is established by multiplying square root 2 by the standard gravitational parameter and then dividing by radius, and for the parabolic trajectory velocity is equal to square root 2 multiplied by orbital velocity.
So:
v = square root 2* v orbital
and
d = v/0.4142
where
d/v = contra directional time dilation.
I think this can work, maybe (scratches head, how do I check it, hmmm), but it occurs that perhaps for the reason that orbital velocity already uses a square root 2 multiplication, this might complicate matters.
My thought path for the day...