0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Multiple password problems now resolved. If you read my last post on the other thread you will see the problem with inverted time dlation.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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?
But conventional GR time dilation is exactly correlated with the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration, with no requirement for any additional corrections
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?
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.
QuoteBut conventional GR time dilation is exactly correlated with the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration, with no requirement for any additional correctionsAlanThis is not exactly accurate. Acceleration has nothing to do with time dilation and there is only a correlation to the same GRframe. 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 distanceto 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.QuoteSame 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?TimeyFirst 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 yearswe 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 picturerather 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 galaxyis 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 usedlonger 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.
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.
QuoteSo 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!
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.