0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Continuation of reply # 2 of this post.If the Milky Way has a density gradient of 100 fold (thanks Clifford) from center to periphery then presumably it has a 100 fold time dilation gradient. If time at the periphery is passing 100 times faster than at the center,.
Quote from: MikeS on 02/05/2012 07:11:04Continuation of reply # 2 of this post.If the Milky Way has a density gradient of 100 fold (thanks Clifford) from center to periphery then presumably it has a 100 fold time dilation gradient. If time at the periphery is passing 100 times faster than at the center,.That doesn't follow. Time dilation might be 100 times greater, but that wouldn't mean time itself is running 100 times faster.
That time contraction does not lead to time passing faster (from the reference frame of a distant observer).orThat time contraction may be 100 times greater but time would not be running 100 times faster. Are you questioning the numeric relationship between time contraction and time passing faster.
Quite nice work Clifford What strikes me immediately though is "What I found for my stylized galaxy was that the inward component of the gravity was lowest at the middle of the galaxy, and increased towards the outer edge of the galaxy, not too unlike theories of zero gravity in the middle of the Earth." Wouldn't that imply, if applied as a model of our universe, that we now have a center defined? == That is, if I assume that this can be applied on all galaxies together, as the main idea is that it must be decided from all mass in the universe That is assuming the universe to be isotropic and homogeneous. The same everywhere. then treat it like a fractal This is also assuming that gravity is a 'frame of reference' constantly measurable for us in the universe. Although? Ouccch need to think about that one..
Quote from: MikeS on 03/05/2012 09:00:09That time contraction does not lead to time passing faster (from the reference frame of a distant observer).orThat time contraction may be 100 times greater but time would not be running 100 times faster. Are you questioning the numeric relationship between time contraction and time passing faster.The latter. If time contraction at the periphery is say 0.01% (and I have no idea whether that is the right figure, probably nowhere near) and at the centre is 100 times this because the density is also 100x, then time dilation at the centre would be 1%. Hence time at the centre would run at about 99% that of the periphery.Just because time dilation is 100 times greater does not necessarily mean time runs 100 times slower. It might, but not necessarily and probably not in the case of the Milky Way, whose density is very low anyway.
The difference in time dilation between the Earths surface and a few hundred miles above the surface is minute but it is enough for the surface of the Earth to accelerate at 1g. Scaling that up to the size of a galaxy it must become very significant and should not be ignored.
Quote from: MikeS on 04/05/2012 06:44:38 The difference in time dilation between the Earths surface and a few hundred miles above the surface is minute but it is enough for the surface of the Earth to accelerate at 1g. Scaling that up to the size of a galaxy it must become very significant and should not be ignored.Nonsense. Don't even try to explain what you think you mean by this, I will just avoid your posts in future.
Quote from: yor_on on 01/05/2012 18:30:40 Quite nice work Clifford What strikes me immediately though is "What I found for my stylized galaxy was that the inward component of the gravity was lowest at the middle of the galaxy, and increased towards the outer edge of the galaxy, not too unlike theories of zero gravity in the middle of the Earth." Wouldn't that imply, if applied as a model of our universe, that we now have a center defined? == That is, if I assume that this can be applied on all galaxies together, as the main idea is that it must be decided from all mass in the universe That is assuming the universe to be isotropic and homogeneous. The same everywhere. then treat it like a fractal This is also assuming that gravity is a 'frame of reference' constantly measurable for us in the universe. Although? Ouccch need to think about that one.. This is a common mistake, applying Newton's shell theorem to the universe while pretending not to assume the universe is finite. The shell theorem assumes that the outermost shell is finite and nothing exists outside of it. If the universe is homogeneous, isotropic and infinite, then every point is equivalent to every other point. Therefore, gravitational potential is the same everywhere and the gradient of gravitational potential (i.e. field strength) is zero everywhere. A big bang universe may be self-consistent, but an infinite universe can also be self-consistent.