[jeffreyH (OP)]

From a mass as the gravitation reduces so must the time dilation. How would the momentum and trajectory of a another mass be effected moving through this varying time dilation? Even though the differences would be small, the portion of the effected mass nearest the original mass would be in a slowed frame compared to the mass that is furthest away.

[yor_on]

Are you thinking that as you move you meet different 'time spaces'?  Nist has proven gravitational time dilations at centimeters, here on Earth. Do you feel them, moving? A time dilation is a relation between your 'proper time', loosely defined by your 'wrist watch', relative whatever other 'frame of reference' you compare that time keeping too. Ones 'proper time' should always stay the same locally measured, although ones relation to other frames of reference can change considerable, just by accelerating, or changing ones gravity.

[yor_on]

To make my view possibly clearer Think of two observers, passing our solar system at different speeds, relative it. They will find two different time dilations, and two different Lorentz contractions, measuring. Which one do you think is the correct time dilation/Lorentz contraction? Can both, passing each other close by, be in two different 'time spaces'? You can up that by considering all matter existing in a universe. Presuming them to have different speeds relative each other, they also will measure different 'universes', time dilations and Lorentz contractions.
=

You're not alone interpreting it that way though. It seems to come with the conception of a 'container universe', which view Einstein shared too as I understands it, although I never have seen him state that there 'exist' different 'spaces' containing different 'times'. In a container universe such a statement becomes inconsistent as anything having a speed inside this container should find a different measurement.

In a universe defined by local constants, those having a communication with other frames of reference, creating a 'universe', the 'arrow of time' and 'c' becomes equivalent to me. Both staying local 'constants', through all circumstances, speeds as mass. Using that 'frames of reference', comparing those to your local constants, becomes another expression. Not about illusionary time or illusionary Lorentz contractions, but about the relation between our shared (locally defined) constants, and other frames of reference. That makes communication, 'c', the question to me, and also what dimensions and 'degrees of freedom' really mean? Because that's not a 'container universe' in where we 'exist', that's purely about communicating, and how this communication is able to create a 'universe' to us observing and measuring on it.

[Bill S]

. How would the momentum and trajectory of a another mass be effected moving through this varying time dilation?

This may be wildly wide of the mark, but isn’t time dilation relative?  Gravitational time dilation must be relative to the body responsible for the gravitation.  For example, the time on GPS satellites is measured as different from time at the Earth’s surface, but neither is a measure of “absolute time”.  If there were an observer on the satellite, he/she would measure no change in the passage of time as the satellite came down to Earth. 

How, then, could you measure any variation in the momentum, trajectory or passage of time of one body as it passed through an area in which there was time dilation relative to another body? 

[yor_on]

Nice point Bill.

[Pmb]

From a mass as the gravitation reduces so must the time dilation.

To begin to attempt a response to your question I have to understand what this means. For the life of me I can't figure it out. Can you explain it to me, please?

How would the momentum and trajectory of a another mass be effected moving through this varying time dilation?

What varying time dilation are you talking about?

I find it strange that others have answered you when these two things seem to make no sense to me whatsoever.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

From a mass as the gravitation reduces so must the time dilation.

To begin to attempt a response to your question I have to understand what this means. For the life of me I can't figure it out. Can you explain it to me, please?

How would the momentum and trajectory of a another mass be effected moving through this varying time dilation?

What varying time dilation are you talking about?

I find it strange that others have answered you when these two things seem to make no sense to me whatsoever.

Within a gravitational field the time dilation will be strongest at the surface of the mass generating it. This will lessen with distance as does gravitation. Think of a very long rod moving through the atmosphere perpendicular to the surface of the earth. The portion of the rod nearest the surface will experience a greater effect than that further away. Think of it another way. Take as an example a planet with no atmosphere at all so we rid ourselves of the effect of air resistance. We could calculate the relative effects with distance from the surface. I would imagine time dilation and length contraction to lessen in an inverse square manner. I may be wrong. Even small differences in these effects between the portion of a mass nearest another body and that furthest away must produce some measurable effect.

[yor_on]

A time dilation doesn't make itself noticeable locally, Relativity is about measuring and comparing your frame of reference to another frame of reference, and it is in that relation you find time dilations. A Lorentz contraction, might be noticeable in a single object though, as measured by all observers. What I'm thinking of is a plate or disk, spinning, very close to the speed of light. The further out you go out from its center on that disk, the faster its 'circumference', (at its distance from a center), will spin, not unlike riding a carousel. and the further out you go the stronger the Lorentz contraction should be, in the end 'cracking it', as I understand. Don't know if that one been solved yet? But if it crack then Lorentz contractions are as real as can be. Possibly we could study it outside a spinning black hole, as some seem to spin close to 'c'?  I don't know there.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

A time dilation doesn't make itself noticeable locally, Relativity is about measuring and comparing your frame of reference to another frame of reference, and it is in that relation you find time dilations. A Lorentz contraction, might be noticeable in a single object though, as measured by all observers. What I'm thinking of is a plate or disk, spinning, very close to the speed of light. The further out you go out from its center on that disk, the faster its 'circumference', (at its distance from a center), will spin, not unlike riding a carousel. and the further out you go the stronger the Lorentz contraction should be, in the end 'cracking it', as I understand. Don't know if that one been solved yet? But if it crack then Lorentz contractions are as real as can be. Possibly we could study it outside a spinning black hole, as some seem to spin close to 'c'?  I don't know there.

Why do you think time dilation wouldn't propagate through a mass? The spinning disk would have different time at the edges than at the center. Why can't multiple frames of reference be overlaid within a large rotating mass?

[yor_on]

Because everything inside this 'container' making up the universe we should exist in, be it 'energy', 'light' or mass will have a different interpretation of time, and distance, as far as I can see Jeffery. Assuming it to be a container, even if 'infinite' we should be able to define positions inside it, but assuming ten different observers (different speeds and mass) observing a spinning rod at that position, all will give their own interpretation of a time dilation and Lorentz contraction (as well as the distance  each one measure to that rod). The only way then to make it work is to define both distances and time as 'illusionary' as far as I can see. And as you can split your arrow relative the definition of 'c', both having the same 'constant' properties, relative yourself locally measured, no matter where you are, or what mass you're on it makes more sense to me to accept them both equivalent, as being local constants.

In fact relativity does not allow simultaneity, as we would define it being at rest with Earth, and if it doesn't? Also assuming a Lorentz contraction being a complementary definition to a time dilation, (as when describing why a muon can reach further 'down' into earths gravitational field than should be possible, classically defined) the universe you see even when not moving relativistically, should, defined from some very small plane, be unique for you, measuring it. And that is also, to my eyes, questioning the idea we have of that 'commonly same universe' in which we exist, like fishes swimming in its ocean. The universe we see is defined from our measurements, they are what defines our experiments.

Locally defined we have constants, things that are the same for us all, making repeatable physics experiment possible, but that doesn't state that we live in a 'container', as I think. If you define it from local constants instead, being equivalent for all frames of reference we can observe, using 'c' as the limit of communication, of all 'forces' and all 'meaningful communication', you get to another type of universe. In that universe everything we observe is belonging to those constants, and what we won't observe, should follow different principles, (possibly, this one is impossible to prove though, as I think.)
=

'simultaneity' should then, ideally be when you displace a frame of reference, to joining another, superimposing them. Doing so we will agree on both distance and time, comparing our local constants to some other frame of reference. But as soon as we 'split' we, as I think of it, must find unique definitions of distances and 'time', relative any other frame of reference. Although there it is our tools that sets the limit for how far down in scale we can measure, as well as indeterminacy/HUP. There exist physical limits quantum mechanically, even if we had 'perfect tools'.

[Pmb]

Within a gravitational field the time dilation will be strongest at the surface of the mass generating it.

Oh. I don't quite understand why but you seem to have a strange way of making simple questions harder than they need to be.

Jeff - Please know that I don't say these things just to be mean. Far from it in fact. I've kept silent for a long time about this because I didn't want to hurt your feelings. However that ended up meaning that I'd be unable to respond to most of your questions and I want to be able to help you. I'm saying this now in hopes you can figure out how to explain yourself in a way that scientists can more readily reply and the way to do that is to state your case as clearly as possible. E.g. when I asked for clarification on the question you made yourself very clear. I'm hoping that you can start out with it being that clear in the future. Okay, my friend?

This will lessen with distance as does gravitation. Think of a very long rod moving through the atmosphere perpendicular to the surface of the earth. The portion of the rod nearest the surface will experience a greater effect than that further away. Think of it another way. Take as an example a planet with no atmosphere at all so we rid ourselves of the effect of air resistance. We could calculate the relative effects with distance from the surface. I would imagine time dilation and length contraction to lessen in an inverse square manner. I may be wrong. Even small differences in these effects between the portion of a mass nearest another body and that furthest away must produce some measurable effect.

If I'm correct then those things are ill defined in GR because there's no unique way to add things located at different events in a curved spacetime.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Within a gravitational field the time dilation will be strongest at the surface of the mass generating it.

Oh. I don't quite understand why but you seem to have a strange way of making simple questions harder than they need to be.

Jeff - Please know that I don't say these things just to be mean. Far from it in fact. I've kept silent for a long time about this because I didn't want to hurt your feelings. However that ended up meaning that I'd be unable to respond to most of your questions and I want to be able to help you. I'm saying this now in hopes you can figure out how to explain yourself in a way that scientists can more readily reply and the way to do that is to state your case as clearly as possible. E.g. when I asked for clarification on the question you made yourself very clear. I'm hoping that you can start out with it being that clear in the future. Okay, my friend?

This will lessen with distance as does gravitation. Think of a very long rod moving through the atmosphere perpendicular to the surface of the earth. The portion of the rod nearest the surface will experience a greater effect than that further away. Think of it another way. Take as an example a planet with no atmosphere at all so we rid ourselves of the effect of air resistance. We could calculate the relative effects with distance from the surface. I would imagine time dilation and length contraction to lessen in an inverse square manner. I may be wrong. Even small differences in these effects between the portion of a mass nearest another body and that furthest away must produce some measurable effect.

If I'm correct then those things are ill defined in GR because there's no unique way to add things located at different events in a curved spacetime.

Would you like to help correct that? By that I mean the ill defined things.

[Pmb]

Would you like to help correct that? By that I mean the ill defined things.

They can't be corrected. The things you're looking for are undefined.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Would you like to help correct that? By that I mean the ill defined things.

They can't be corrected. The things you're looking for are undefined.

Surely this just involves a modification of scalar field calculations

http://www.dilationasfield.net/eng/step-one.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register].

There is also this.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0041v1.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

Actually I just figured it has to be a tensor and can't be a scalar.

[Pmb]

Surely this just involves a modification of scalar field calculations

Not to my knowledge.

There is also this.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0041v1.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

Actually I just figured it has to be a tensor and can't be a scalar.

That article makes the mistake of thinking that spacetime is the medium for the propagation of EM waves when in fact EM waves require no medium. Gravitational waves uses spacetime as a medium but that's about it.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Surely this just involves a modification of scalar field calculations

Not to my knowledge.

There is also this.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0041v1.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

Actually I just figured it has to be a tensor and can't be a scalar.

That article makes the mistake of thinking that spacetime is the medium for the propagation of EM waves when in fact EM waves require no medium. Gravitational waves uses spacetime as a medium but that's about it.

Well those articles are not applicable really. I must agree with you now that Planck scale is in fact invariant. Using Minkowski diagrams and looking at Lorentz transformations it has to be invariant. Minkowsk space shrinks towards the vector for light, at infinity. This is obvious really when you think about light speed being constant. It also means that we have a universal reference frame at the Planck scale, it being invariant for all frames. This also shows that length contraction and time dilation has nothing to do with spacetime. If it did then the Planck scale would be variant. Just think about that for a while and I mean really think about it. It is all mass compression under those circumstances and the retardation of quantum fluctuations. Spacetime doesn't curve at all. Don't just dismiss this notion. Once you actually see what I mean it is obvious.

Also light, moving as it does at the Planck scale must be the only particle to traverse this global universal frame of reference without distortion effects. It has to if Planck scale is invariant. Moving one Planck length at a time for the duration of one Planck time is the key. Every other mass being at a momentum and never at rest within this universal frame will always experience some degree of distortion. This all started with the big bang where the properties of light came into existence, at least as far as we are concerned.

If we take light and its motion through its universal frame as our starting point we can then translate from that reference frame to any other frame. We could even plot the gradient of a gravitational field for both time dilation and length contraction. We would have to take into account not only the momentum of the mass over the universal frame, but also the added effect of gravitation. This is only possible through this relationship with light. This is how to make different frame variables additive because of our universal reference frame.

Length contraction over this universal frame is crucial. Is it inversely proportional under gravitation? It isn't be that way at relativistic velocities. It has a proportionality to light speed.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

That article makes the mistake of thinking that spacetime is the medium for the propagation of EM waves when in fact EM waves require no medium. Gravitational waves uses spacetime as a medium but that's about it.

Maybe gravitation also requires no medium. I don't think it does.

[yor_on]

Well, as we've moved out in the hypothesizes field here I would define light as 'non propagating' myself, although to us measuring, 'propagating at 'c'. Maybe it's better to move this to the new theories section actually.
 

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Well, as we've moved out in the hypothesizes field here I would define light as 'non propagating' myself, although to us measuring, 'propagating at 'c'. Maybe it's better to move this to the new theories section actually.

So what is your argument against light in a universal frame? Does the speed of light vary? Does the Planck scale vary? Momentum of a mass moving over the light frame balances out all the effects. You can show it graphically.

[Pmb]

That article makes the mistake of thinking that spacetime is the medium for the propagation of EM waves when in fact EM waves require no medium. Gravitational waves uses spacetime as a medium but that's about it.

Maybe gravitation also requires no medium. I don't think it does.

Spacetime is the medium since its spacetime itself that is disturbed by the propagation of a gravitational wave.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

That article makes the mistake of thinking that spacetime is the medium for the propagation of EM waves when in fact EM waves require no medium. Gravitational waves uses spacetime as a medium but that's about it.

Maybe gravitation also requires no medium. I don't think it does.

Spacetime is the medium since its spacetime itself that is disturbed by the propagation of a gravitational wave.

You said yourself that electromagnetic waves need no medium. Electromagnetic waves travel through invariant Planck dimensions at all times. They cannot be invariant for light and variant for mass under momentum. That is a paradox.

[yor_on]

No, 'c' is 'c'. It's a distance and a time giving us a speed, defined locally. And it's 'plastic', meaning that it will give the same speed, no matter your own velocity, as defined relative lights blueshift. And whatever 'contraction' you find at your relativistic speed won't matter either, for such a measurement. As for a 'universal frame', I guess that you by that would mean what I refer to as a 'global' definition of a universe, aka a 'container' of sorts. In relativity you have all sorts of frames, but you don't have a 'universal', as far as I know? The closest I would expect us to get to that conception should be using Lorentz transformations. The idea of a 'common container' comes from our archetypes I would say, it is what we see when we look out at the world and the universe, each one of us.

[Pmb]

You said yourself that electromagnetic waves need no medium.

That's correct.

Electromagnetic waves travel through invariant Planck dimensions at all times.

What the hell are " invariant Planck dimensions"?

They cannot be invariant for light and variant for mass under momentum.

What are you talking about when you say "They"? Are you referring to EM waves? What do you mean by them being invariant for light and variant for mass under momentum? Again, you're not making much sense.

The speed of light is invariant. The wave itself is not. And it has nothing to do with the "variant for mass under momentum" which is a very unclear term in itself - again. Please stop taking very simple things and making them sound complex. I'm begging you to stop. It works against you by making it hard for everyone who's following to understand what you're trying to say. If you're doing it to "sound/look more intelligent" then that's a very bad reason for using strange language.

I've asked you this many many many times in the past and I've grown weary of asking. From now on if it's not clear to begin with then I won't even ask for you to rewrite it again for clarity since by now you should know better and start by making it clear from the start. I hope I don't come off like a jerk but I'm tired of this.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I bumped this thread to mention the fact that I am now convinced that the density of mass-energy has no influence on gravitational field strength at all. I have found a constant value in Newtons for any mass-energy value compressed to its Schwarzschild radius. This is irrespective of density and relates only to the mass and the radius. This also means that the singularity remains valid and is not what I had hoped to find. It also indicates no mass loss through a brane.

This value in Newtons must also relate directly to c.