0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Your statement of increasing distance from a source of gravitation being an explanation for your logic is basically saying that spacetime 'relaxes' with radial distance from a source. This does not imply that time slows down with radial distance, as the force applied to an object will also 'relax' in proportion to distance. It is like the difference between wading through mud as opposed to water. Your 'relaxed' spacetime is the water and an intense gravitational field is the mud. Think of the voids between galaxies. With your logic time should be at its slowest in these regions. One way this could work is via the expansion of the universe. However, mass must also expand to compensate for the change in spatial dimensions. In which case you arrive back at the status quo with no change from GR.EDIT: The only way to check this is via galaxy survey data. Looking for galaxies isolated in the voids to see if they have any anomalous features.
I have to agree with David here. There are self-contradictions in your wording. I will have to wait until you have figures that justify what you say. If what you say were true it would be much easier to achieve relativistic velocities within the voids between galaxies without extra effort. That I can't accept.
If you're going to have the speed of light slow down in deep space, that's going to cause strange optical effects wherever you stick a galaxy in the way, because it will have to speed up as it passes through or close to that. That would result in a lensing effect opposite to gravitational lensing, and the effect would be dramatic if the difference between your slowed "coordinate time" is significantly different from a normal kind of coordinate time. If these two kinds of time are ticking at a similar rate though, your reduction in the scale of the universe won't be significantly different from its apparent size. So, how big a difference do you think there will be between these two kinds of time, e.g. for a clock running on the Earth and another clock running in deep space perhaps five billion lightyears from any galaxy? Do you have a rough estimate such as 2x, 10x, or 100x?
Yes... the time differences will be massive between a density of mass, such as a black hole, and deep space.
How we are viewing what we are viewing "may" be analogised, in the case of fast time in space, to a light cone type structure that has coordinates comprised of shutter speed filters that let less light into the picture. In the case of slow time in space this will be an inverted light cone structure, to the same effect...if we were to observe events in a much slower time or faster time reference frame from our reference frame that we observe from, events would appear fragmented. What we are "seeing" of light sources across space are just fragments.
Quote from: timey on 08/06/2015 00:17:00Yes... the time differences will be massive between a density of mass, such as a black hole, and deep space.If you have a massive slowing in the speed of light in deep space, you will end up with gravitational lensing opposite to what we see. When we look past other galaxies we would see background galaxies stretched out in line with it instead of seeing things being stretched into rings around them. We would also be able to measure these distortions when watching the background of space past Jupiter. If you can work out how to put figures on the speed of light as you move away from Jupiter, you'll be able to work out what lensing there should be, and then you'll be able to disprove your theory and move on to doing other things.QuoteHow we are viewing what we are viewing "may" be analogised, in the case of fast time in space, to a light cone type structure that has coordinates comprised of shutter speed filters that let less light into the picture. In the case of slow time in space this will be an inverted light cone structure, to the same effect...if we were to observe events in a much slower time or faster time reference frame from our reference frame that we observe from, events would appear fragmented. What we are "seeing" of light sources across space are just fragments.You appear to be suggesting that if you look into a gravity well from another gravity well you will see more light coming from it than someone half way in between the two because their slower "coordinate time" (which isn't coordinate time) is preventing them from seeing all of it, but what experimental evidence do you have for this? All that is seen is a reduction in frequency caused by proper time running slower in a gravity well, but if you send one photon at a time you would expect to lose some along the way, but you would always detect more of them at the midway position than you would from inside the other gravity well. Your faster "coordinate time" cannot magically increase the amount of light that is visible any more than your slower "coordinate time" can hide the amount of light from an observer further out of a gravity well.
I read some of your post. I gave up on Einsteinian space time long ago. In my "Cosmology of God and the Universe" (c) 2015 book I rewrote my chapter from "Doppler Space Time" (c) 2000. Einsteinian space time is good for orbital motion whereas the root mean square of the Doppler Equations equals Einsteins equations. Doppler space time has no clock paradox problem. One thing for sure there is no such thing as equivalent reference frames. No two reference frames in the entire universe is equal to any other reference frame. The measured speed of light will vary depending upon the gravitational field density, the speed of the spaceship, the speed of the Earth, the sun, and the galaxy. The maximum speed of light or ideal speed in pure outer space will be slightly higher than as measured here. In addition if you null the measuring instrument upon this Earth, it will not null in pure outer space. Einstein's theory are excellent but not perfect.My Doppler space time is only an approximation as well because it is just too complex. The best we can do is best fit or engineering approximations. Each theory we devise is an attempt to produce a best approximation to measured reality. However true reality has more unmeasurable qualities than measurable qualities. I can only work with my simple algebraic equations of the universe which shows me how gravity and the universe works. The various theory which depend upon scientific measurements can never really account for the truth of existence. All you get is little bits and pieces of reality as measured by our instruments. We get the trees but not the forest.
I don't think you are quite grasping my mechanics of the filtering of a light source due to viewing it through the ratios of variable lengths of moment.
Try to imagine a whole bunch of rotary fans set inline on a long rod. At the far end of this rod we have a light beam pointed back through the inline rotary blades. All the rotary blades are in the same position. As we look along the rod from the front view we can see 3 blades and we can see 3 spaces in between these blades that light is passing through.We start rotating the blades. First we rotate all the blades at the same speed. The light source is now flickering but still bright. Then we rotate the middle blade slowly with the series of rotary blades inline to the front and the back of the assembly line each rotating slightly faster than the last. Now we will see less light. (this being equally true if the middle blade is rotated fast to the outer blades running slow). Now set the ratios of the speeds of the rotary blades more closely aligned to each other. You will see more light.
Viewing events of a moment of time that is running significantly faster or slower than the rate of a moment where you are viewing from, you will quite simply not have "the time" to view the events in. You will not be viewing the entire picture. (ie: black holes, quantum)
Right, gravity lensing. The mechanics I have described above will indeed make Einstein rings. As the body of mass comes inline between us and the light source, the light speeds up in the vicinity of this gravitational field of an escalated ratio of moment.
Our rotary blades in the middle of the rods rotary blade assembly are now running faster than the blades in between the middle and each end with the blades at the very ends rotating fast as they were before. This will let more light through and, I believe, in the case of time ratios, absent of the physicality of rotary blades, this will cause a ring of light and is in fact synonymous to a magnification.
I believe that you would be correct in believing that slow time would cause a trailing of light effect when viewing deep space, but only in an expanding universe. There is no stretching going on in my model. It's not expanding.
Quote from: timey on 08/06/2015 21:24:41I don't think you are quite grasping my mechanics of the filtering of a light source due to viewing it through the ratios of variable lengths of moment.I think you're describing something impossible.QuoteTry to imagine a whole bunch of rotary fans set inline on a long rod. At the far end of this rod we have a light beam pointed back through the inline rotary blades. All the rotary blades are in the same position. As we look along the rod from the front view we can see 3 blades and we can see 3 spaces in between these blades that light is passing through.We start rotating the blades. First we rotate all the blades at the same speed. The light source is now flickering but still bright. Then we rotate the middle blade slowly with the series of rotary blades inline to the front and the back of the assembly line each rotating slightly faster than the last. Now we will see less light. (this being equally true if the middle blade is rotated fast to the outer blades running slow). Now set the ratios of the speeds of the rotary blades more closely aligned to each other. You will see more light.If you have one of these fans at every point in space and they're running at lots of different speeds, on any given path it is highly unlikely that any light will be able to get through at all on any path. If you're looking from an area with a fast fan through a whole lot of areas with slow fans towards another area with a fast fan, you will see nothing of it. That means when you look past a black hole, the blackness would extend out for a very long way past the event horizon.QuoteViewing events of a moment of time that is running significantly faster or slower than the rate of a moment where you are viewing from, you will quite simply not have "the time" to view the events in. You will not be viewing the entire picture. (ie: black holes, quantum)You would have to get rid of the idea of fans blocking light and replace it with something that involves some light not being detected where time is running at a slower rate than the place where the light was emitted while the light is actually still there, but there is no evidence of any light going missing in the first place - if you measure it from a place where there is less gravity, you simply see the same amount of light but with a lower energy, and that energy should be missing because the light was generated by a slowed mechanism and not a faster one.QuoteRight, gravity lensing. The mechanics I have described above will indeed make Einstein rings. As the body of mass comes inline between us and the light source, the light speeds up in the vicinity of this gravitational field of an escalated ratio of moment.And if the light speeds up there, you've got the wrong kind of lens - a concave one instead of a convex one (to use terminology that's more appropriate to a lens made of glass). Such a lens cannot create rings of light.QuoteOur rotary blades in the middle of the rods rotary blade assembly are now running faster than the blades in between the middle and each end with the blades at the very ends rotating fast as they were before. This will let more light through and, I believe, in the case of time ratios, absent of the physicality of rotary blades, this will cause a ring of light and is in fact synonymous to a magnification.I don't think the fan idea helps at all. A better mechanism for bending light the right way would involve a contraction of space in the absense of gravity in order to allow light to travel faster past a galaxy further out from it, but then you'd have an even faster apparent speed of light within the contracted space, which is the opposite of what your theory says.QuoteI believe that you would be correct in believing that slow time would cause a trailing of light effect when viewing deep space, but only in an expanding universe. There is no stretching going on in my model. It's not expanding.It has nothing to do with whether it's expanding or not - the lensing effect would be the opposite of what we see in the real universe.
Well...perhaps you are right about the fan analogy that I devised as a pictorial visualisation of the mechanics of a filtration of light...it's just an analogy.
You are correct that such a filtration system would indeed block out the majority of the light, but miss the fact that these light sources are, in my model, much closer to us than current thinking believes. These two facts in conjunction with each other kind of cancel out your argument.
Because my model is a closed system, if it wasn't for this filtration of light in space, the whole universe would be completely flooded with light.
Also...it would be impossible for any gravitational lensing to become the "opposite" of what we observe. In my model the light is not "bending" because light has no mass and time ratios will not act in the same way as concave glass.
The light simply passes through the gravitational field of the inline body of mass faster, in reference frames of faster time which are more aligned to ours and then back into reference frames of slower time. This creating the appearance of a ring of brighter light around the body of mass.
(Edit: because the ratio of time between the reference frame of the inline galaxy and the observation reference frame are more aligned, the light is in effect "closer" to us in "time". Looking at star displacement - we have a scenario whereas the light source is behind the moon and the star is behind the sun. All of the reference frames in between these inline masses will be experiencing an escalation of gravitational force and be running faster time than before. This escalation of time in these reference frames causes the star behind the sun to appear "closer" to us.)
You think it impossible that the difference in extreme time ratios over space could act as a light filtration system?
Hmmm...and the alternative, that the whole universe is being expanded, some of it faster than the speed of light by a mysterious force of "dark energy" actually "is" possible?
Quote from: timey on 09/06/2015 22:57:18Well...perhaps you are right about the fan analogy that I devised as a pictorial visualisation of the mechanics of a filtration of light...it's just an analogy.Yes, but even if you somehow allow all the light to get through so that it will show up further away were the local "coordinate time" is faster, you still have the problem that all the light can be detected in an area where the "coordinate time" is running slower - none of it goes missing and there is no fragmentation.QuoteYou are correct that such a filtration system would indeed block out the majority of the light, but miss the fact that these light sources are, in my model, much closer to us than current thinking believes. These two facts in conjunction with each other kind of cancel out your argument.I don't see how.QuoteBecause my model is a closed system, if it wasn't for this filtration of light in space, the whole universe would be completely flooded with light.The light is not going missing. It is not being absorbed by fans or anything else.QuoteAlso...it would be impossible for any gravitational lensing to become the "opposite" of what we observe. In my model the light is not "bending" because light has no mass and time ratios will not act in the same way as concave glass.Then you've disproved your theory again because it doesn't fit the reality of the universe.QuoteThe light simply passes through the gravitational field of the inline body of mass faster, in reference frames of faster time which are more aligned to ours and then back into reference frames of slower time. This creating the appearance of a ring of brighter light around the body of mass.It isn't a mere ring or brighter light - it's a distorted image of a background object with the light following curved paths.Quote(Edit: because the ratio of time between the reference frame of the inline galaxy and the observation reference frame are more aligned, the light is in effect "closer" to us in "time". Looking at star displacement - we have a scenario whereas the light source is behind the moon and the star is behind the sun. All of the reference frames in between these inline masses will be experiencing an escalation of gravitational force and be running faster time than before. This escalation of time in these reference frames causes the star behind the sun to appear "closer" to us.)It doesn't appear closer, and there's nothing magic about alignments to ramp up your "coordinate time" either.QuoteYou think it impossible that the difference in extreme time ratios over space could act as a light filtration system?You're describing an imaginary universe which would be better suited to a science fiction novel set under different physics from our universe - that could be worth exploring.QuoteHmmm...and the alternative, that the whole universe is being expanded, some of it faster than the speed of light by a mysterious force of "dark energy" actually "is" possible? The expansion in any given place is tiny. Different parts of the universe which are far apart are moving apart at a speed faster than light, but there's no reason why they shouldn't because the speed of light is only a speed limit for things moving through the fabric of space and it does not apply to the fabric of space moving through something external.
What you fail to understand is the difference in magnitude of time dilation in any two points in the 'normal' parts of the universe. They are insignificant when compared to extremal environments. There are two extremal environments. The first is near a black hole and the other is at infinity. Since we cannot be at infinity then we can observe only 1 extremal environment. Anywhere else in the universe the differences are inconsequential. I think pmbphy said it right, and I paraphrase, when he said in most of the universe gravity is absent. This is because it is far too weak to have any significant effect. You appear to have ignored this altogether.
Well clearly David, you have not disregarded my analogy of fans in space as discussed. I do not suggest that there are fans of any sort in space, and furthermore you have introduced this new phenomenon called "magic" into the equation. Funny how this word crops up at the first mention of "dark energy"..,lol.
My model is a non expanding universe that appears expanded because time and distance are linked in time.
Slow moments make for long distances in time. Any escalation of these moments due to greater gravity field shortens these distances in time, to the point that these distances become small inside clumped mass and minuscule when mass is compressed in a black hole.
A universe of reference frames of "uniform" time would be a sea of particles at roughly the same distance apart. When mass is clumped, time goes faster in the clumped area and slower in the areas vacated of these now clumped particles. It is "time" that is expanding space in my model. It's different, I'll admit , but it's a simple enough concept.
However, I'm glad that you have brought up this additional phenomenon of "magic". This "magical" phenomenon being useful to explain why it is that although time is supposed to slow and stop in a black hole, we observe stuff happening really fast around them.
Oh yes, and this "magical" dark energy that expands this "magical" invisible cloak of the fabric of an expanding space that "magically" stretches faster than the speed of light far away, but "magically" manages to only stretch a little bit close up, all the while stretching itself through this "magical", invisible and unknown quantity of "something external".
Yes, alrighty...and it is definitely a most "magical" quality that obscures the view of the quantum world behind the uncertainty principle,
and relativity just "magically" disappears the possibility of measuring from anything other than an observer dependant reference frame.
Not forgetting that the Big Bang just "magically" happened out of a really, really, tiny "magical" nothing.
With regards to my model, if your eyes have glazed over my dear, then well...that is fair enough, no problem. But based on all the "magical" phenomenon surrounding current theory, you "might" excuse me for exploring my idea?
P.S. My maths skills are improving
Quote from: timey on 10/06/2015 22:52:06Well clearly David, you have not disregarded my analogy of fans in space as discussed. I do not suggest that there are fans of any sort in space, and furthermore you have introduced this new phenomenon called "magic" into the equation. Funny how this word crops up at the first mention of "dark energy"..,lol.I said "It is not being absorbed by fans or anything else". It is not being absorbed - all the light that should be there is there and it can be detected as being there from any depth or height in a gravity well.I also said "there's nothing magic about alignments to ramp up your "coordinate time" either", and the point was that the alignments don't make any difference to the local speed of light. If you have planet B half way between planets A and C, the gravitational effect on the speed of light at B caused by A and C will be the same as in a case where A and C are still equidistant from B but not in line.QuoteMy model is a non expanding universe that appears expanded because time and distance are linked in time.How spread out is your universe and when did it stop expanding to switch to your model of pretending to expand while no longer doing so?QuoteSlow moments make for long distances in time. Any escalation of these moments due to greater gravity field shortens these distances in time, to the point that these distances become small inside clumped mass and minuscule when mass is compressed in a black hole.What use are these short moments when the actual behaviour of stuff behaves in completely the opposite way, becoming progressively more frozen still by high gravity?QuoteA universe of reference frames of "uniform" time would be a sea of particles at roughly the same distance apart. When mass is clumped, time goes faster in the clumped area and slower in the areas vacated of these now clumped particles. It is "time" that is expanding space in my model. It's different, I'll admit , but it's a simple enough concept.Quite apart from not working optically (which you'll be able to see once you've done the maths), you don't appear to have a mechanism to go on producing apparent expansion because your mechanism as described so far will be identical for a piece of space that shows no sign of expanding and for a piece of space which appears to be expanding (and for a piece of space which appears to be contracting).QuoteHowever, I'm glad that you have brought up this additional phenomenon of "magic". This "magical" phenomenon being useful to explain why it is that although time is supposed to slow and stop in a black hole, we observe stuff happening really fast around them.There is no contradiction between things happening fast and time being slowed for them - a clock held at the event horizon will not tick, but all manner of events may happen to it with particles knocking microscopic chunks out of it, all spread out over a million years.QuoteOh yes, and this "magical" dark energy that expands this "magical" invisible cloak of the fabric of an expanding space that "magically" stretches faster than the speed of light far away, but "magically" manages to only stretch a little bit close up, all the while stretching itself through this "magical", invisible and unknown quantity of "something external".It works with sound waves travelling through a piece of elastic which is being stretched, so what's your problem with it?QuoteYes, alrighty...and it is definitely a most "magical" quality that obscures the view of the quantum world behind the uncertainty principle,There's a partial view through into it, which is more than can be said for your "coordinte time" which no clock can measure.Quoteand relativity just "magically" disappears the possibility of measuring from anything other than an observer dependant reference frame.No magic required there - it's just a necessary consequence of mathematics that if you have a speed limit which governs all clocks, you can only run a clock outside of that governance by placing it outside the universe.QuoteNot forgetting that the Big Bang just "magically" happened out of a really, really, tiny "magical" nothing.Anyone who calls it nothing is venturing into philosophy and talking beyond their competence.QuoteWith regards to my model, if your eyes have glazed over my dear, then well...that is fair enough, no problem. But based on all the "magical" phenomenon surrounding current theory, you "might" excuse me for exploring my idea?I have no objection to you exploring your theory, but it would be good if you could recognise the points where it doesn't work and stop pushing it as if they do work when they don't.QuoteP.S. My maths skills are improving That'll help.
I did not say any light was being absorbed. In an open system expanding universe light will just carry on going. In a closed system non expanding universe the light does not carry on going, it stays. A closed system universe will be "flooded" with light.
The extreme difference in gravitationally dilated/contracted time ratios renders us unable to observe the whole picture of what we are viewing, therefore my closed system universe is not observed as flooded with light.
Seismic activity on earth "is" emphasised during major planetary alignments.
Pound Rebka experiment. Light has higher frequency coming into gravity field and lower frequency going out.
Compressed gas particles become more active when compressed. The "fine particles" of sand become more active when compressed. Gun powder explodes when compressed. Matter that is being compressed from more than one direction gets hot. ... Seems to me that compressing stuff gives it more energy not less.
QuoteQuite apart from not working optically (which you'll be able to see once you've done the maths), you don't appear to have a mechanism to go on producing apparent expansion because your mechanism as described so far will be identical for a piece of space that shows no sign of expanding and for a piece of space which appears to be expanding (and for a piece of space which appears to be contracting).Actually it would only be an absence of mass in distance that would be expanding in time. The length of a moment for the particles would be contracted in accordance with the magnitude of their now collective mass.
Quite apart from not working optically (which you'll be able to see once you've done the maths), you don't appear to have a mechanism to go on producing apparent expansion because your mechanism as described so far will be identical for a piece of space that shows no sign of expanding and for a piece of space which appears to be expanding (and for a piece of space which appears to be contracting).
QuoteThere is no contradiction between things happening fast and time being slowed for them - a clock held at the event horizon will not tick, but all manner of events may happen to it with particles knocking microscopic chunks out of it, all spread out over a million years.Of course there is a contradiction. Firstly "we" observe that mass falls into a black hole in an escalated fashion, but time is supposed to slow towards the greater gravity field. Let's say that time stops beyond the event horizon. You say a clock stops ticking but somehow events (being ripped apart) can still happen, albeit incredibly slowly. What sort of time are these events happening in? Non-existent time?
There is no contradiction between things happening fast and time being slowed for them - a clock held at the event horizon will not tick, but all manner of events may happen to it with particles knocking microscopic chunks out of it, all spread out over a million years.
Ok, I get it from an observer travelling with the clocks reference frame. Time due to motion is slowing time down from the perspective of the observer travelling with the clock. But you say time from the perspective of the reference frame of the black hole has stopped? Please..tell me, how could anything happen there? ...and stuff is happening there independently of any observer, right?
QuoteIt works with sound waves travelling through a piece of elastic which is being stretched, so what's your problem with it?Ok, I can accept that sound waves "may" be analogised to gravity waves but what are you analogising the elastic to?
It works with sound waves travelling through a piece of elastic which is being stretched, so what's your problem with it?
We have evidence of gravity, where is the evidence of this elastic? The "elastic" is a supposition, not a fact and is based on suppositions, not facts, concerning redshift, whereas the elastic becomes necessary to explain observation based on our suppositions of redshift
QuoteThere's a partial view through into it, which is more than can be said for your "coordinte time" which no clock can measure.Yes there is a partial view into quantum, fragmented I believe. We can't see where something is and how fast it is going at the same time. Pieces of the picture are missing.
There's a partial view through into it, which is more than can be said for your "coordinte time" which no clock can measure.
You miss the point, we don't need a clock to tell us how fast my "coordinate time" (time dilation due to gravity field) is running. The strength of the gravity field will do that for us. Our concerns then as an observer travelling through a gravity field being time dilation due to motion and length contraction.
QuoteNo magic required there - it's just a necessary consequence of mathematics that if you have a speed limit which governs all clocks, you can only run a clock outside of that governance by placing it outside the universe.Why would you want to place a clock outside of that governance?
No magic required there - it's just a necessary consequence of mathematics that if you have a speed limit which governs all clocks, you can only run a clock outside of that governance by placing it outside the universe.
If you know what the length of a moment is where you are and how these lengths of moment change over the distance that you travel, and how they change the perception of the distance that you travel...and then you work out by how much your time is slowed by your velocity and by how much the perceived length of your journey has contracted according to your velocity.
These are the only aspects of an "actual" or "absolute" time that you need...
QuoteAnyone who calls it nothing is venturing into philosophy and talking beyond their competence.The only reason that you refer to this "nothing" as philosophy is because we haven't "got" the physics for it. The idea of a unified theory is that it has the physics to get behind the Big Bang.
Anyone who calls it nothing is venturing into philosophy and talking beyond their competence.
QuoteI have no objection to you exploring your theory, but it would be good if you could recognise the points where it doesn't work and stop pushing it as if they do work when they don't.Well really David, on the basis that current theory has glaring points whereas it does not work and that people both here and everywhere else push these theories as if they do work when they don't, and are proven not to, I think that you are being a tad unfair.
I have no objection to you exploring your theory, but it would be good if you could recognise the points where it doesn't work and stop pushing it as if they do work when they don't.
I don't believe any of my ideas are as fantastical as some proposed by current theory and I have given far more explanation of causality for my ideas than current theory affords it's suppositions.
Furthermore, I'm not pushing my idea as a theory that works, ie: is viable...what I am doing is expressing this model as a piece of logic. You never know David, different strokes for different folks, something I say may gel with someone somewhere. Lee Smolin said he wanted a new theory of time... All that is required is to look at the observed data from a different perspective.