# A theory of inverted time dilation

• 114 Replies
• 10951 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### A theory of inverted time dilation
« on: 01/06/2015 16:32:23 »
Hi, my name is Vikki Ramsay and I thank you in advance for taking the time to read my thread.

This thread is about a model of the universe that I have been developing for the last 5 years, having been inspired by Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics".
This alternative hypothesis relies on a theory of inverted time dilation for "coordinate time". (Please note this inversion theory is not applied for time dilation due to motion. ie: "proper time").

To summarise:
My model of the universe relies only on "confirmed" observed data and negates the necessity for Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy.  This model also gives cause for the Big Bang and the Big Crunch.
This model depicts the universe as a cyclic phenomenon in a closed system - inside of which the considerable energy to both end and begin the cycle is found within the system.
This model recognises all "confirmed" physics post Big Bang and contradicts no "confirmed" working hypothesis apart from several aspects of SR and GR for which it attempts to make alternative explanation.
On the basis that the maths for GR break down in black holes and that there is yet to be discovered a unifying theory of gravity concerning GR and Quantum Theory, I feel justified in my exploring alternatives.
Due to the fact that I am juggling concepts that are so closely related with SR and GR, a reader may be tempted to conclude that I am the victim of a series of misconceptions.  Please note that all deviations from current thinking are intentionally derived for the purpose of my model and not because I have not understood SR or GR.  If you bear with me - the logic holds. (It is appreciated that this does not mean my model is viable )

I will get straight into the nitty gritty of how this model differs from SR and GR and how I envisage, as far as I am able, the mathematical considerations associated being equivalent or symmetrical to existing space time mathematics before going on to explain how inverting time dilation affects certain perceptions of the universe.

My model differs from SR and GR on three counts:
1) Time dilation due to gravity field is inverted.
2) Light has no relativistic mass
3) Without the notion of relativistic mass, the concept of the speed of light as a "universal" constant is redefined and relocated exclusively under the remit of the equivalence principle.

It is an observed fact that clocks tick faster in elevation - it is thought that they do so because they are ticking in a weaker gravity field.  My theory of inverted time dilation looks at the possibility that clocks are observed ticking faster in elevation for an alternative reason. We'll come back to that.

Whereas current theory sets the theoretical "fastest" rate in the change in time due to gravity field at 0 gravity field, my model sets the theoretical "slowest" rate in the change of time to a 0 gravity field.  The concept of time dilation for coordinate time is inverted, so coordinate time now runs fast in a black hole and slow out in space.

It occurs to me that the Lorentz Transformations can be used to calculate this theory.  The inverse transformations of velocities or  "the metric" "may" perhaps be directly transferrable for calculating inverted time dilation.

Looking at the Pound Rebka experiment and light travelling with a lower frequency as it moves away from a gravity field and a higher frequency as it moves towards a gravity field.  Without the concept of relativistic mass attached to light, I introduce the notion that light travels at lower frequencies when moving away from a greater gravity field, through progressively weakening gravity fields - not because it has relativistic mass that is being gravitationally affected - but because it is moving through reference frames that are experiencing slower rates of coordinate time.  Travelling into a gravity field, light is moving into reference frames that are experiencing faster rates of time and the lights frequency is escalated.

Taking this notion through logical progression, the concept of a speed of light that is constant is now compromised.  We know that the speed of light is constant when measured in a given reference frame, therefore we "may" now consider the possibility that the speed of light must only be a constant to its own ratio in relation to the length of a moment.  The speed of light then being variable over reference frames of variable lengths of moment.

Now before you fall off your chair to ROTFL... let's just take these concepts to the event horizon of a black hole and consider them.  With gravitational time dilation inverted, the trajectory of mass or a rocket falling into a black hole will not slow to infinity never to reach the event horizon, (not in coordinate time at least).  It will be the opposite, as we do rather "observe" mass to behave near black holes from our reference frame.  The person in the rocket that is falling into the black hole "will" experience from the rockets reference frame a slowing of its time, but this being due to time dilation due to motion under the terminology of "proper time".
The equivalence principle now states that as the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, the speed of light is only a constant to its own ratio relative to the length of a moment.  Time is going very fast in the black hole.  We now have a greatly escalated speed of light to plug into e=mc2 that "may" explain the energy of a black hole more comprehensively.  I will come back to the black hole phenomenon in more detail later on.

Returning to the Lorentz Transformations and the inverse transformation of velocities that I conceptually adapted to calculate inverted time dilation.  These equations produce distances that increase between coordinates with distance from mass.  I suspect that these distances can be equated with the lengths of variable reference frames moments expanding in weaker gravity fields. The measure of this distance "may" perhaps be (inversely cubed?) to create 3 dimensions of a geometric space and a consequent curvature of these spaces.  However these measures of distance are not actual distances, they are distances in "coordinate time" and we will call them "coordinate distances".
The concept of there being an "actual distance" and an "actual time" in relation to a "coordinate distance" in a "coordinate time" being relevant.
"Coordinate time" being the time "at" the coordinates of a reference frame. "Actual time" being the time one experiences "in" a reference frame dependent on that reference frames circumstances.  Actual time will include considerations of coordinate time, "changes" in gravitational relationships between mass in close proximity and time dilation due to motion, this being "proper time"
"Coordinate distance" being a distance that is "experienced" by a reference frame in coordinate time.  "Actual distance" being the "real" and "actual" distance between coordinates in space. (It is appreciated in view of GR's complicated tensor maths that a case of inversely cubing distances that are progressively increasing to create curvature may be somewhat of an oversimplification

The physical dimensions and curvature of space are now "filled out" with reference frames of progressively slower "coordinate times" producing progressively longer "coordinate distances".
To analogise: Taking 2 ball bearings and placing them on a rubber sheet a distance apart, we can see that the "actual distance" between the ball bearings is one length, and the "coordinate distance" of the curve in the rubber between the ball bearings is another longer length. The "actual distance" of space is shorter than the "coordinate distance" of space, we will come back to this.

Having calculated that a greater radius from mass produces a longer length of moment and having determined by how much moments are lengthened progressively over reference frames of progressively greater radius to each other, we are now in a position to create a scale of the ratio of the speed of light to the lengths of these variable lengths of moment.
Clearly having a scale of the variable speeds of light would be useful but to create a tensor equation on the basis of variable speeds of light would be of greater use.  I have no idea how to do this but I can see that it "is" possible and that it "would" be a simplifying factor in certain types of mathematics.

We have explored the possibilities of an inverted time dilation theory and how light slows when traveling into weaker gravity fields when we do not attribute light a relativistic mass.  The light is not slowed by the gravitational field but by the longer lengths of moment that are caused by the weakening gravitational field.
A clock in elevation and its associated mass "is" located in a weaker gravity field, but it "is" also in a gravitational relationship with and affected by the mass of the earth.  The gravitational effects of each body of mass upon each other, the mass associated with the clock and the mass of the earth, in respect to the gravity field induced effects of local coordinate time dilation will equally and oppositely cancel each other out...leaving the observed faster time difference of the elevated clock entirely due to the "change" in gravitational relationship caused by the distance between these bodies of mass.
If observing the reference frame of the elevated clock and the reference frame of the earth from another separate reference frame, we "might" observe that it is in fact earths clock that has started running slower because it is feeling less of a gravitational field due to the mass associated with the clock now being positioned at a distance in a weaker gravity field relative to the mass of the earth, than it did when this mass associated with the clock was positioned on the earth.
The gravity field for the mass associated with the clock being upheld as more uniform to the collective mass of itself and the mass of the earth because it is the smaller body and is more greatly affected by the bigger body.
In other words, although the clock is ticking in a reference frame of a weaker gravity field, it's mass is not "experiencing" a lesser force of gravity field.
Ground level experiments with clocks also observe the more elevated clock ticking faster.  A clock on a mountain, a tall building or a clock placed on a shelf at a metre above another clock "may" all tick faster due to an increase in gravity field, not a decrease.
I'm not sure what tests have been carried out in this sphere other than those that have been reported.  It would be telling to place an atomic clock on an area of the earth that is not in an elevated position but that we know to be of a very dense consistency.

Ok...despite the fact that of course no observations of our universe are actually changed in any respect, inverting time dilation for coordinate time and having a variable speed of light does make for a "very" different universe in some respects.  The observations that we observe require alternative explanations.

Firstly let us consider the beginning and the end of the universe.  The Big Bang and the Big Crunch.
We are looking at a universe that is filled with reference frames of variable lengths of "coordinate distance", in variable lengths of "coordinate time."  Time goes fast in the black hole and slow in space.
It is a popular theory that there were no black holes in the early universe.  Black holes being the product of stars reaching critical mass and imploding.  Therefore it follows that the universes mass has clumped together from small to large.
Looking around my model of the universe for a phenomenon that has enough energy to end and begin the cycle of my model, the black hole phenomenon has now become the most likely candidate.
Every galaxy is considered as having a black hole at its centre, but there are a few rogues that are less certain in their trajectories!
Considering that black holes are "observed" (loosely speaking) as consuming mass, jetting particles and merging with each other into one bigger black hole, we "may" consider that as the progression of the black hole phenomenon takes it course throughout the universe, it is conceivable that black holes "may" start consuming more condensed/clumped mass than can be produced by star formations.
To analogise: The black hole phenomenon in relation to the phenomenon of mass, being a predator prey scenario...  As the black holes take over the universe, meeting each other too closely they will merge and as this process progresses we "may" end up with a singular massive black hole - with all the mass of the universe inside it.  Coordinate distance will be at its shortest and coordinate time will be running at its fastest.
Taking the speed of light in relation to this uppermost fastest length of moment and plugging this uppermost fastest speed of light into the equation e=mc2, we now have enough energy for the Big Bang.
The singular massive black hole jets out the mass of the universe across distance in particle form.  A gravitational equilibrium is achieved and the black hole winks out of existence leaving a sea of particle plasma strewn across distance in space.
During the Big Crunch/Big Bang scenario, inside the black hole coordinate time is at its upper limit and coordinate distance is at its lower limit.

I have made a table (loosely speaking ) of the balance between coordinate time, coordinate distance and actual distance below in relation to the extremes.
(Please note that "actual time" has "not" been represented here.  Actual time can only be determined from the perspective of an observer "in" the reference frame when the gravitational relationship of the associated mass of an observer and any motion related time dilation aspects of "proper time" are considered - or when determining how a reference frame of mass moves in relation to a reference frame of coordinate time.
"Actual distance" on the other hand, although relevant to an observer in the reference frame, "is" actually a physicality in the absence of an observer status!!!)

BIG CRUNCH/BIG BANG BLACK HOLE
Coordinate time - fastest
Coordinate distance - shortest
Actual time - ?
Actual distance - shortest

SEA OF PARTICLES
Coordinate time - balanced - slower
Coordinate distance - balanced - longer
Actual time - ?
Actual distance - longest

SPACE REGION - ABSENCE OF MASS IN DISTANCE
Coordinate time - slowest
Coordinate distance - longest
Actual time - ?
Actual distance - balanced - lower scale shorter

REGION OF ORDINARY MASS
Coordinate time - balanced - faster
Coordinate distance - balanced - shorter
Actual time - ?
Actual distance - balanced - upper scale longer

Looking at the sea of particles, imagine a pile of logs and then imagine that pile of logs put through a wood chipper with regards to how much space each will take up in relation to each other.  Now imagine all the mass in the universe reduced to particle form.   I put it to you that the distance in space "may" be nothing more than the areas that have been vacated by these particles clumping together.  Could the perceived vast distances of space be partly a product of "coordinate distances"?
If coordinate distances can be thought of as an "ether type" scenario, and "actual distances" as constant, then bodies of mass in the universe "may" be closer together than we think.

Let's look at what is involved when viewing events that are occurring in reference frames that are of a faster time or slower time than the reference frame we are them observing from.
To analogise, a camera's shutter speed in relation to a motion shot.  The faster the shutter speed the less light in the picture. ie: Observing a black hole from earth.

For the purpose of creating a visual picture we can say the same of a black hole that is running a slow time or a fast time... Now take into account the fact of time running either slow or fast in the vast distances of the space we are viewing the black hole through.  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...
In respect to gravity lensing, light moving over faster time frames near large bodies of mass will appear to bend because the ratios of moments between the light bending and the observational reference frame of earth become more closely aligned with each other and the picture is letting in more light.
So... we "may" have the possibility that light sources in outer space are closer than we believe.

But hang on!  We are an expanding universe aren't we?  Let's look at this.  My model has already stated the metric expansion as time related not distance related.  We have established "coordinate distances" and we have re- established redshift as variable speeds of light over coordinate distances...
The gravitational coordinate time relationship between two bodies of mass in space is such that each body of mass is travelling into the future faster than the space in-between them is.  Our universe "may" only be expanding in "coordinate time" and "coordinate distance", not in "actual distance".

I will quickly end with the concept that in a 0 gravity field time does not happen at all, it comes to a halt and without time existence cannot exist.
Also I suspect that my inverted time dilation theory "may" allow us to behold what lies behind the cloud of the "uncertainty principle".

I have, for the purposes of my model, more detailed explanations for quantum, gravity lensing, galaxy rotation, and for the Bullet cluster amongst other considerations, (you'll notice that I haven't mentioned Lorentz contractions ) ...these considerations include a theory on how the universe may have transpired from zero into the cyclic phenomenon that I have described above... but I reckon this post is probably long enough already .

If I was a mathematician I would have attempted to calculate my model before "sharing" it.  However, I'm not a mathematician!  I understand what is going on when these types of maths are explained on a white board.  Maybe if I keep on watching The Theoretical Minimum, I might just get it together one day.  In the mean time, if you are a mathematician or have a computer program that you can plug these parameters into that would calculate this theory and you are interested, I'd dearly love to "know" if my model is viable..!

I thank you for reading this alternative hypothesis through to the end and wish you well.

Vikki
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #1 on: 01/06/2015 19:47:14 »
I think there's a really creative idea at the heart of that which is well worth exploring, but it's hard to load it all into my head, so I'm going to home in on one small piece of it:-

Quote
Whereas current theory sets the theoretical "fastest" rate in the change in time due to gravity field at 0 gravity field, my model sets the theoretical "slowest" rate in the change of time to a 0 gravity field.  The concept of time dilation for coordinate time is inverted, so coordinate time now runs fast in a black hole and slow out in space.

Let's dangle a clock on a long cable so that it's held at the event horizon of a black hole. This clock will stop ticking. Let's put another clock far away from the black hole. This other clock will record time passing (perhaps not recording all of it, but it is certainly registering some). How fast is your coordinate time ticking at these two locations relative to the two clocks, and how fast is your "actual time" ticking at these two locations relative to the clocks?

Quote
In the mean time, if you are a mathematician or have a computer program that you can plug these parameters into that would calculate this theory and you are interested, I'd dearly love to "know" if my model is viable..!

You need to spell out exactly how time and space work in your model before it can be simulated.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #2 on: 02/06/2015 01:05:55 »
Hi David

Ok... By inverting time dilation for "coordinate time", this being time dilation due to gravity field, time in my model runs fast in a black hole.
So a clock near the event horizon of a black hole would, according to those coordinates and the time that is running at those coordinates, not halt or run slow.  It would instead be running incredibly fast.

However a clock has mass, so let's look at the situation with a light clock.  Note that in my model the concept of relativistic mass for light is eliminated.  Light has no mass.  Building ourselves an "impossible" light beam mechanism that also has no mass, a beam of light is sent vertically down an arm towards the black hole, it hits a mirror at bottom of arm and travels back up.  Along the arm at regular intervals there are sensors that record the lights frequency.  These sensors record that the lights frequency steadily increases on its way down and steadily decreases on its way back up the arm.  The light has no mass, it is not gravitationally affected, it is being affected by gravitational time dilation and light retains a constant ratio of its speed, the speed of light,  to the ratio of a length of a moment.  It is traveling through reference frames of progressively changing lengths of moments, the speed of light being variable to the length of variable lengths of moment.

(I am going to start talking about the relationships between mass next.  A rock weighs less on the moon than it does on earth because it feels a lesser force of gravity.  When you see me adding and subtracting masses, I am referring to the force of gravity that mass feels in that coordinate system)

Now let's look at the clock situated near the event horizon that is dangling on a cable.  In fact let's imagine that the cable has a hook on it and it has been lowered into the black hole and has picked up one of two identical clocks from inside the black hole, (another impossibility), and the clock is now dangling in a position near the event horizon.  This clock is an atomic clock.  The clocks coordinate position's time "coordinate time" is running fast.  The clock has associated mass.  The mass of the clock is in a relationship with the mass of the black hole.  It "was" in a closer relationship with the black hole before its coordinate position changed with distance.  The clocks mass was more gravitationally affected inside the black hole than it is at its new position.  The gravitational field of the black hole is now weaker by minus the mass of the clock in its original position, plus the mass of the clock in its new position.
The gravitational field of the clock is the mass of the clock in its new position, plus the mass of the black hole, plus the clocks mass in its original position, minus the clocks mass of its new position.  The clock that is in elevation from the black hole is ticking fractionally faster than its counterpart left inside the black hole.

Now let's take the perspective of a rocket falling into the black hole.  We will record its time at the same coordinates as the previous clock.  This mass is in a gravitational relationship with the mass of the black hole.  The mass of the rocket is an "added" mass and speeds up the time in the black hole fractionally.  The rockets time will run fractionally faster than the black holes by the same means as the dangled clock.
However, the rocket is in motion and is experiencing time dilation due to motion.  We have to establish "proper time" considerations...

I have indicated that the Lorentz Transformations that establish proper time - which in their inverse form are "the inverse transformations of velocities" - "may" be used to calculate inverted time dilation for coordinate time.  Using these equations in their original form to produce coordinate distances, (that we may have inversely cubed as to be the geometrical dimensions of space) we can see that the rocket is not only travelling through reference frames that are experiencing progressively faster time, but that these reference frames also comprise of progressively shorter coordinate distances.  The rocket is travelling at say 1000 miles per earth hour.  This speed will be lesser in a faster time frame and become progressively lesser as it travels closer to the black hole.  But the coordinate distances are also becoming progressively shorter and the rate of time gets progressively faster, so the speed of the rocket will appear to uniformly increase, apart from within the rocket.  The rocket will experience a slowing of its proper time due to its motion.  This proper time is calculated in exactly the same equations that I have conceptually used in their inverse form for calculating inverted time dilation due to gravity field which  "also "are the equations calculating the change in distance between coordinates.

Calculating the "actual time" for the rocket at the same coordinates as the dangled clock would involve, the mass of the rocket according to the gravity field in its coordinate position, plus the mass of the black hole, establishing the time dilation factor for the gravitational field of these combined masses, minus the proper time.

Time in space runs slow.  Using coordinate time we can work out what the rate of time is at any coordinate in the universe purely from the strength of the gravity field.  This comprises us an inertial reference frame from which the universe can be measured for coordinate time, coordinate distance, actual distance, and by working out the gravitational relationship of mass in close proximity with other mass, or mass moving in coordinate time, we can calculate the actual time experienced by said mass.

Hope this helped... Vikki
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #3 on: 02/06/2015 21:47:53 »
I find your coordinate time very puzzling. If we were looking at SR/GR, coordinate time there is tied to a single frame of reference and acts as if it is an absolute time. This allows moving clocks or clocks experiencing different amounts of gravity to run at a different rate from the coordinate time such that one clock may record less time than the other during a set amount of coordinate time. If you imagine a spaceship hovering near a black hole, it could lower a clock on a cable towards the black hole and then pull it back up again. The lowering would start at time zero (coordinate time) and the raising would end at time 100 (coordinate time), and one clock might record 90 units of time going by during those 100 units of coordinate time while the other clock records 80 units of time, but the duration of the event is the same for both clocks in coordinate time.

With your kind of coordinate time you appear to have something very different happening, because if we run the same experiment with a clock being lowered and raised from a hovering spaceship, the clock that's lowered and raised would record 80 units of time during the 100 units of normal coordinate time while perhaps 120 units (that's a guess) of your weird coordinate time go by for it, and, during the same 100 units of normal coordinate time, the clock in the hovering rocket would record 90 units of time going by while perhaps 110 units of your weird coordinate time go by for it. What sense does it make to call your weird "coordinate time" coordinate time when it doesn't serve as coordinate time at all? What use are the coordinates that you get from your coordinate time if you try to plot the events out on paper? You'll have the two clocks starting at coordinate time zero and being reunited with event-meshing failure as the time coordinate for one of the clocks at the meeting point is 110 and the time coordinate for the other clock at the meeting point is 120. I don't know what your "coordinate time" is or what it's for, but it can't serve as a coordinate time and should be called something else.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2015 21:57:42 by David Cooper »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #4 on: 02/06/2015 23:04:43 »
You would have to invert relativistic gamma in order for this to work. Although you say you ignore relativistic mass you can't in fact do that unless it is due to a constraint that you are applying upon the system for some reason. The other major issue is the fact that this would cause relativistic mass to decrease with velocity meaning it would get easier to accelerate the nearer to light speed a mass was traveling. I can't accept that one I'm afraid. The only way this could work would be at a turning point of some kind. It may be useful to study your theory with respect to the ergosphere of a black hole. However I am not sure what the results would be as I would need to work it out.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #5 on: 03/06/2015 00:41:27 »
David, Ok, I see what I have done.

"The formal definition of proper time involves describing the path through spacetime that represents a clock, observer, or test particle, and the metric structure of that spacetime. Proper time is the pseudo-Riemannian arc length of world lines in four-dimensional spacetime.

From the mathematical point of view, coordinate time is assumed to be predefined and we require an expression for proper time as a function of coordinate time. From the experimental point of view, proper time is what is measured experimentally and then coordinate time is calculated from the proper time of some inertial clocks."

Unfortunately David maybe I have interchanged terms.  I'm sorry if this is confusing.
I am using the term "coordinate time" to describe the time at any coordinate in the universe according to its gravity field.  I am calculating this coordinate time using "the metric" Lorentz transformations which are the inverse velocity transformations.

The inverse velocity transformations in their non inverse form are the equations used to calculate time dilation whereas time is getting faster in space as with SR and GR...I don't use this equation for time dilation in my model.

I use the inverse velocity equations twice.  Once to calculate time dilation due to gravity (time gets slower in space by the same amount that distances get longer) and using these equations again, taking these increasing distances and inversely cubing them to create the geodesic structure of space.

From this basis we have an "observer independent" reference frame from which we can measure the universe once we have determined the mass involved.

If the Lorentz Transformations that calculate time dilation due to motion are in fact the same equations, "the inverse velocity transformations"? I am then using this equation again, if not then I'm using whatever Lorentz Transformation "is" used to calculate time dilation due to motion usually, which (I may have this wrong) are the same equations used to calculate length contraction except in their inverse form.

I have been referring to a time consideration of time dilation due motion as "proper time".  I'm sorry, this I realise is confusing but I can't go back and edit it all so we'll have to live with it... To clarify... in my model of the universe:

"Coordinate time" is time dilation due to gravity field. (This time dilation departs from SR and GR in that it has been inverted.  An increase in gravity field speeds time up)
"Proper time" is time dilation due to motion. (Motion slows time down).
"Actual time" needs coordinate time and proper time as a function to determine actual time.  Taking coordinate time (predetermined by strength of gravity field) and subtracting proper time (determined by velocity) from it.  Then, unless we are talking about light, the mass that is in motion through coordinates needs to be taken into consideration in relation to other mass in the vicinity and this other masses affect on its force of gravity field and added into the equation.

David...are the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to motion that are inverted for length contraction the same equations as the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to gravity that are inverted for velocity transformations?  In that they hold the same values?
« Last Edit: 03/06/2015 01:40:45 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #6 on: 03/06/2015 02:02:36 »
You would have to invert relativistic gamma in order for this to work. Although you say you ignore relativistic mass you can't in fact do that unless it is due to a constraint that you are applying upon the system for some reason. The other major issue is the fact that this would cause relativistic mass to decrease with velocity meaning it would get easier to accelerate the nearer to light speed a mass was traveling. I can't accept that one I'm afraid. The only way this could work would be at a turning point of some kind. It may be useful to study your theory with respect to the ergosphere of a black hole. However I am not sure what the results would be as I would need to work it out.

Hi JeffreyH

You say that relativistic gamma would have to be inverted.  I've looked this up and it seems relativistic gamma is something to do with the Lorentz transformations. Does anything I've said in post above gel?

Also:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu › tdil

"The increase in relativistic effective mass makes the speed of light c the speed limit of the universe."

You have said that I'd need a constraint to ignore relativistic mass... Does making the speed of light constant only to the ratio of the length of a moment over reference frames of variable lengths of moment rendering the speed of light coordinate variable constitute such a constraint?

Thank you very much for the positive ergosphere of black hole comment and nice to meet you.

Vikki
« Last Edit: 03/06/2015 11:45:07 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #7 on: 03/06/2015 23:38:50 »
If we take the equation for gravitational acceleration:

$$\frac {-GM}{r^2}$$

We can integrate this:

$$\int \frac{-GM}{r^2}\, dr$$

Since the term GM is a constant we can rewrite as

-GM$$\int \frac{1}{r^2}\, dr$$

Then as

-GM$$\int r^{-2} \, dr$$

This can then be integrated as

-GM$$\int \frac {1}{-2+1} r^{-2+1}\, dr$$

This then changes the sign

$$+ \frac {GM}{r}$$

So like escape velocity the direction is away from the source. Since escape velocity for a black hole is c we we can divide by this velocity to obtain the minimum velocity required to remain stationary near the horizon.

$$+ \frac {GM}{rc}$$

I have attached a graph of the results for an earth sized mass. The tidal forces are so strong that the effects on time are to slow it down.

Edit: Normally we would end up with $$+ \frac {GM}{rc} + C$$ where C is the constant of integration. I am assuming a value of zero for C so it vanishes.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2015 23:47:00 by jeffreyH »

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #8 on: 04/06/2015 00:01:23 »
I am using the term "coordinate time" to describe the time at any coordinate in the universe according to its gravity field.

So in the scenario I presented in my previous post, I have a normal coordinate time ticking out 100 ticks while the hovering rocket only experiences 90 ticks of proper time (meaning its own time) [if you count that as proper time - it's running at a slowed rate due to gravity rather than movement], and you have it undergoing perhaps 110 ticks of your own special kind of coordinate time. I want to understand how that faster ticking rate of this special coordinate time relates to anything that's going on where the rocket is. It certainly can't be measured as 110 ticks by the rocket, and it doesn't show up as 110 ticks to any observer of the rocket, so what is this special kind of time actually doing? Who can measure it and how? If it can't be measured but is important for something, what is its role? What is it useful for?

Quote
I use the inverse velocity equations twice.  Once to calculate time dilation due to gravity (time gets slower in space by the same amount that distances get longer) and using these equations again, taking these increasing distances and inversely cubing them to create the geodesic structure of space.

I can't follow this without seeing some actual numbers being put to specific events. What are these distances that are getting longer? What are these distances between and what do you have to be doing to make them appear longer?

Quote
...are the same equations used to calculate length contraction except in their inverse form.

I need to see worked examples of what you're doing - I can only follow something like this when the numbers are put in front of me.

Quote
"Coordinate time" is time dilation due to gravity field. (This time dilation departs from SR and GR in that it has been inverted.  An increase in gravity field speeds time up)

It sounds as if you should have two kinds of proper time - one which clocks record when they're moving in deep space and another which clocks record when they're in a gravity well, but I can't work out whether you count that one at all, because your strange coordinate time which deals with "time dilation" due to gravity field does not tell you what a clock will record in a gravity well as it does the opposite, asserting that time is faster when the clock is ticking slower and that time is slower when the clock is ticking faster. This is making it difficult to understand your model because you haven't pinned down what the different kinds of time are in it and you haven't named them correctly.

Quote
"Actual time" needs coordinate time and proper time as a function to determine actual time.  Taking coordinate time (predetermined by strength of gravity field) and subtracting proper time (determined by velocity) from it.

Again I need to see a worked example or two with the actual numbers for some situation/event/scenario which I can visualise.

Quote
David...are the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to motion that are inverted for length contraction the same equations as the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to gravity that are inverted for velocity transformations?  In that they hold the same values?

I don't use the Lortentz transformations, but work everything out through trigonometry instead. I get a value for time dilation and length contraction by the following method: speed = 0.866c --> arcsin 0.866 = 60 degrees (the angle that light will actually travel at if a moving light clock is lined up across the direction of travel) --> cos 60 = 0.5, so 0.5 is both the time dilation and the length contraction for that speed. There is no inversion involved for calculating either of them. The way(s) of calculating time dilation under gravity look quite different and I don't know if they can be shown to be equivalent in any way. I'm looking at one in which proper time for an object in a gravity well is calculated by taking coordinate time from some distant clock and multiplying it by the square root of 1-(2GM/rc^2) taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation. Clearly this formula will give you proper time under gravity and not your special kind of coordinate time, so if you're wanting a formula for the latter, you can use whatever you find fits your needs. Then you need to explain what your special kind of coordinate time is useful for in some way that will help me get the point, because at the moment I'm at a complete loss as to what it's for.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #9 on: 04/06/2015 08:58:21 »
I am using the term "coordinate time" to describe the time at any coordinate in the universe according to its gravity field.

So in the scenario I presented in my previous post, I have a normal coordinate time ticking out 100 ticks while the hovering rocket only experiences 90 ticks of proper time (meaning its own time) [if you count that as proper time - it's running at a slowed rate due to gravity rather than movement], and you have it undergoing perhaps 110 ticks of your own special kind of coordinate time. I want to understand how that faster ticking rate of this special coordinate time relates to anything that's going on where the rocket is. It certainly can't be measured as 110 ticks by the rocket, and it doesn't show up as 110 ticks to any observer of the rocket, so what is this special kind of time actually doing? Who can measure it and how? If it can't be measured but is important for something, what is its role? What is it useful for?

Quote
I use the inverse velocity equations twice.  Once to calculate time dilation due to gravity (time gets slower in space by the same amount that distances get longer) and using these equations again, taking these increasing distances and inversely cubing them to create the geodesic structure of space.

I can't follow this without seeing some actual numbers being put to specific events. What are these distances that are getting longer? What are these distances between and what do you have to be doing to make them appear longer?

Quote
...are the same equations used to calculate length contraction except in their inverse form.

I need to see worked examples of what you're doing - I can only follow something like this when the numbers are put in front of me.

Quote
"Coordinate time" is time dilation due to gravity field. (This time dilation departs from SR and GR in that it has been inverted.  An increase in gravity field speeds time up)

It sounds as if you should have two kinds of proper time - one which clocks record when they're moving in deep space and another which clocks record when they're in a gravity well, but I can't work out whether you count that one at all, because your strange coordinate time which deals with "time dilation" due to gravity field does not tell you what a clock will record in a gravity well as it does the opposite, asserting that time is faster when the clock is ticking slower and that time is slower when the clock is ticking faster. This is making it difficult to understand your model because you haven't pinned down what the different kinds of time are in it and you haven't named them correctly.

Quote
"Actual time" needs coordinate time and proper time as a function to determine actual time.  Taking coordinate time (predetermined by strength of gravity field) and subtracting proper time (determined by velocity) from it.

Again I need to see a worked example or two with the actual numbers for some situation/event/scenario which I can visualise.

Quote
David...are the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to motion that are inverted for length contraction the same equations as the Lorentz transformations for time dilation due to gravity that are inverted for velocity transformations?  In that they hold the same values?

I don't use the Lortentz transformations, but work everything out through trigonometry instead. I get a value for time dilation and length contraction by the following method: speed = 0.866c --> arcsin 0.866 = 60 degrees (the angle that light will actually travel at if a moving light clock is lined up across the direction of travel) --> cos 60 = 0.5, so 0.5 is both the time dilation and the length contraction for that speed. There is no inversion involved for calculating either of them. The way(s) of calculating time dilation under gravity look quite different and I don't know if they can be shown to be equivalent in any way. I'm looking at one in which proper time for an object in a gravity well is calculated by taking coordinate time from some distant clock and multiplying it by the square root of 1-(2GM/rc^2) taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation. Clearly this formula will give you proper time under gravity and not your special kind of coordinate time, so if you're wanting a formula for the latter, you can use whatever you find fits your needs. Then you need to explain what your special kind of coordinate time is useful for in some way that will help me get the point, because at the moment I'm at a complete loss as to what it's for.

David, to clarify, in my model a gravity well has a faster rate of time because an increase in gravity field makes the frequency of stuff faster. It makes the frequency of light faster, the cessium atoms frequency runs faster. Gravity is compressing the length of everything, including the length of a moment.  Of course it would be stupid to think that time runs faster when a clock is telling you that it is running slow or the opposite.
My model states that clocks tick faster in elevation because they are experiencing a greater gravity field because of the relationship of their associated mass in relation to earths mass.
Apart from clocks ticking faster in elevation, there is no other reason to think that an increase in gravity field slows time down and there is, within the Pound Rebka experiment every reason to think that it doesn't.

What is my universes coordinate time for?  Ok... well, let's start from the end results of making the changes that my model makes from current theory and work backwards.
The end result of the changes that I make to current thinking renders the universe as a closed system, non expanding, cyclic phenomenon.
My goal is to be able to measure "this" universe from an "observer independent" reference frame as well as from an observers reference frame.

I am inverting gravitational time dilation because my model needs to find the energy to both end and begin the cycle within the system relying only on observed data.  With time running "fast" in a black hole, the black hole phenomenon "has" that energy.

By using "the metric" equations to invert gravitational time dilation I am linking the concept of gravitational time dilation to the concept of distance (both in space and within mass itself).  You realise that this means that as these distances increase in space (an absence of mass in distance) that the length of a moment will be "massively" increased.  In a black hole the length of a moment will be "massively reduced".

We then have a problem with the speed of light as outlined by JefferyH above.  However my model, having eliminated the notion of relativistic mass for light, now views the change in the frequency of light as time related and has consequently redefined the speed of light as only being constant to the ratio of a length of a moment.  I believe that solves this problem. (Am I right JefferyH?)

What we have as a result is a system by which to measure the universe that has a lot more scope, a lot more scale to operate with and this is good news indeed because the maths for GR break down in black holes and the cloud of the "uncertainty principle" hangs over quantum.  Planck's constant h, this being a quantity with dimensions of an "action" of an energy multiplied by a time, or a momentum multiplied by a distance, would also be rendered as only constant to the ratio of the length of a gravitationally time dilated moment, then giving the microscopic region more mathematical scale to work in.

Space time has 3 dimensions of space and one of time.  In the maths these are 3 positives and 1 negative of time.  My model adds that time has 4 functions, 1 of gravity, 1 of motion and 2 of distance.  Gravity, motion and distance expansion are positive and length contraction is negative.

So David, this is what I see my models "coordinate time" and it's subsequent "coordinate distance" , as opposed to "actual distance" being useful for.

However, what is abundantly clear is that we can see that the maths for GR work very well in the lower to midrange scale of gravitational field so we can deduce that there "is" a lot that is right about them.  I am attempting to realign the concepts behind the equations by rotation (not really sure if rotation is the right word )
...for instance - if I am now using the inverse velocity transformations to calculate time dilation, then the relativistic gamma equations are relevant elsewhere.  These as per SR/GR (correct me if I'm wrong) describe gravitational time dilation that causes clocks to tick faster in space.  I now look at this relativistic gamma quantity as being relevant to the gravitational relationship between the associated mass of that elevated clock in relation to the mass of the earth and an increase in the clocks gravity field...and so on.

P.S  I just noticed as I'm posting this reply JefferyH that you have also made a reply, I'll have to get my head round that one later on.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #10 on: 04/06/2015 23:13:46 »
David, to clarify, in my model a gravity well has a faster rate of time because an increase in gravity field makes the frequency of stuff faster. It makes the frequency of light faster, the cessium atoms frequency runs faster. Gravity is compressing the length of everything, including the length of a moment.

This is what I'm trying to understand. If you put your caesium atom deeper into the gravity well, it will lowerthe frequency and the clock slows down.

Quote
Of course it would be stupid to think that time runs faster when a clock is telling you that it is running slow or the opposite.

So why think it?

Quote
My model states that clocks tick faster in elevation because they are experiencing a greater gravity field because of the relationship of their associated mass in relation to earths mass.

So are you saying they're deeper in the gravity well the further out of the gravity well they get? You also say that time (this strange kind of coordinate time, I think) runs slower in deep, empty space, so it appears that you're saying that when a clock is raised out of a gravity well, it's actually going deeper into a gravity well and it ticking faster because the greater gravity of being in less gravity speeds up your coordinate time, and yet time further out in space where there is no clock will run slower because it really is further out of a gravity well due to the lack of a physical clock there. The problem I see with that is that a clock is just a special case of the speed of light, and light moving through deep space is not slower than light moving through a light clock.

Quote
Apart from clocks ticking faster in elevation, there is no other reason to think that an increase in gravity field slows time down and there is, within the Pound Rebka experiment every reason to think that it doesn't.

If you have two identical clocks hovering over a planet (so they aren't orbiting the planet), both reading the same time and ticking at the same rate, you can lower one of them and leave it there for a long time, then lower the other clock to the same altitude later on. Any effect caused by the movement of the clocks will be the same for both and will thus cancel out. You will find that the clock which spent more time lower down has ticked less. There are clocks that could do this experiment in a lab just by moving one of them down from a high shelf to a low shelf, though because the planet is going round it might be necessary to move the lower one about from side to side to make sure they are both moving exactly the same distance through space.

Quote
I now look at this relativistic gamma quantity as being relevant to the gravitational relationship between the associated mass of that elevated clock in relation to the mass of the earth and an increase in the clocks gravity field...and so on.

The mass of the elevated clock is infinitesimal, and radically different masses of clock perform the same (one gram versus one ton), so what relevance does it have when it makes no detectable difference in the time recorded by different masses of clocks?

If your theory has legs, it should be able to make sense in the context of the above experiments. I want to see it fit, but it doesn't look as if it can.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #11 on: 04/06/2015 23:33:51 »
If we take the equation for gravitational acceleration:

$$\frac {-GM}{r^2}$$

We can integrate this:

$$\int \frac{-GM}{r^2}\, dr$$

Since the term GM is a constant we can rewrite as

-GM$$\int \frac{1}{r^2}\, dr$$

Then as

-GM$$\int r^{-2} \, dr$$

This can then be integrated as

-GM$$\int \frac {1}{-2+1} r^{-2+1}\, dr$$

This then changes the sign

$$+ \frac {GM}{r}$$

So like escape velocity the direction is away from the source. Since escape velocity for a black hole is c we we can divide by this velocity to obtain the minimum velocity required to remain stationary near the horizon.

$$+ \frac {GM}{rc}$$

I have attached a graph of the results for an earth sized mass. The tidal forces are so strong that the effects on time are to slow it down.

Edit: Normally we would end up with $$+ \frac {GM}{rc} + C$$ where C is the constant of integration. I am assuming a value of zero for C so it vanishes.

Hi JefferyH

Ok...as I am a non-mathematician trying to transpose visualised concepts into mathematical concepts, well  ...there are inherent problems to say the least

I'm recognise the mathematics, I think (scratches head )...but I'm not sure what you are relating them to.  To a greater force of gravity slowing time down?  To the escape velocity of mass? Or light?

I'm afraid that I'm a bit in need of a white board narrative that explains what the objective is and then walks me through the process.  I'm not sure which bit of what your saying relates to which bit of what I'm saying, other than that you are calculating a strong gravity force and that a strong gravity force slows time down.
I'm not getting how the maths are deriving a stronger gravitational force as being "responsible for" or "connected to" a slowing of time rather than an increase in the rate of time.

Other than the massless photon being given relativistic mass and the fact that clocks tick faster in elevation and that this is currently attributed to the fact of the clock being located at a coordinate in a weaker gravity field, (whereas the associated mass of the clock and its relationship with the mass of the earth is not currently accounted for) ...I can see no other reasons given  in physics to support the concept that a stronger gravity field slows time down. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #12 on: 05/06/2015 00:02:42 »
Ok David, just a quick footnote to my last reply to you.

I think it better if I dispense with trying to identify these equations by name and just describe what they are doing.

With regards to gravitational time dilation. The theoretical minimum (being time stopped) is set at a 0 gravity field.  The equations that produce progressively increased distances are what I see as calculating this increase in the length of a moment.
(if this is not viable then I'd be looking at this time dilation being subject to the inverse square law proportional to distance from mass)

The equations that produce progressively longer distances also being used to produce my "coordinate distance", this being not an "actual distance" but a distance of/in time.

If it is possible to create a matrix from the 4 functions of time, gravitational time dilation, time dilation due to motion, space expansion and length contraction, I'd be looking for some balancing factors...
This giving your rockets travelling through space a balanced ratio of time to distance factors, no matter what velocity you move them at through whichever strength of gravitational field.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #13 on: 05/06/2015 15:16:13 »
Actually David, in moving your rockets around my models universe I realise that I haven't given you the full set of the parameters...

Having created our time matrix of time to distance ratios we are now in a position to look at this in relation to velocity with regards to our variable speeds of light.  These will be significant factors in the rockets progression through space with regards to time dilation due to motion and length contraction and how these factors relate to moving through progressively gravitationally lengthened time dilated moments in my progressively lengthening time related "coordinate distances".  Time dilation due to motion and length contraction are both motion related and are now part of another sliding scale in relation to velocity and variable speeds of light.
The coordinate time and coordinate distance of any reference frame are unaffected by the upper speed limit (the speed of light) of that reference frame but time dilation due to motion and length contraction will be affected. How do we view this?

Clearly we have set the theoretical lower limit, or longest moment of gravitational time dilation (this being time stopped) at a 0 gravity field, this being 0 coordinate time and the theoretically shortest coordinate distance (this being equal to the fastest coordinate time) at 0 distance.  Length contraction is at 0 and time dilation due to motion is also at 0.
When a rocket takes off from earth, to plot our course through space and these reference frames of slower time, do we view time dilation and length contraction as starting at 0 from this point, or do we have to work out by how much the earths time is being dilated and length contracted and start our journey plotting from those parameters?

Well... we must now remember that we have calculated our progressively increasing distances using the speed of light relevant to earths reference frame.  We have set the parameters of our coordinate time and coordinate distance calculations using earths reference frame as a "key " so our "balancing factors" are slanted, however...our time dilation due to motion and length contraction factors are also calculated using the same speed of light, so by setting our velocities to miles per earth hour we will counteract this slanting, re-balancing our factors.  This means that we "must" set our time dilation and length contraction parameters at 0 when calculating from the reference frame of an observer travelling through space.

Here we have the makings of another matrix whereas we have the speed of light, length contraction and "actual distance" as negatives with velocity being the positive.  This matrix is symmetrical to the time matrix and now you can calculate your rockets journey.
(remember that an "actual distance" is shorter than a coordinate distance. I'll get into that ratio sometime, not today)

To create a visual picture of this, imagine a rocket travelling through progressively longer moments at x miles per earth hour, this speed being a progressively faster speed in reference frames of progressively slower time.  The upper speed limit of the speed of light per reference frame reduces progressively and as a result of this the percentage of your length contractions will be shorter than your coordinate distances and the percentage of your time dilation due to motion will be producing longer moments than your coordinate time.
Your journey's "actual time" length in relation to the "actual distance" will be longer and will get even longer if you go faster.
If you travel at progressively slower speeds through reference frames of progressively slower time and then progressively faster again through reference frames of progressively faster rates of time...ie: moving from a stronger gravitational field into a weaker gravitational field and then back into a stronger gravitational field...the "actual time" length of your journey will be reduced to the time it would take you to travel the "actual distance" at the x miles per earth hour you started out at.
« Last Edit: 05/06/2015 17:22:31 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #14 on: 05/06/2015 19:25:48 »
Hi JefferyH

Ok...as I am a non-mathematician trying to transpose visualised concepts into mathematical concepts, well  ...there are inherent problems to say the least

I'm recognise the mathematics, I think (scratches head )...but I'm not sure what you are relating them to.  To a greater force of gravity slowing time down?  To the escape velocity of mass? Or light?

I'm afraid that I'm a bit in need of a white board narrative that explains what the objective is and then walks me through the process.  I'm not sure which bit of what your saying relates to which bit of what I'm saying, other than that you are calculating a strong gravity force and that a strong gravity force slows time down.
I'm not getting how the maths are deriving a stronger gravitational force as being "responsible for" or "connected to" a slowing of time rather than an increase in the rate of time.

Other than the massless photon being given relativistic mass and the fact that clocks tick faster in elevation and that this is currently attributed to the fact of the clock being located at a coordinate in a weaker gravity field, (whereas the associated mass of the clock and its relationship with the mass of the earth is not currently accounted for) ...I can see no other reasons given  in physics to support the concept that a stronger gravity field slows time down. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

If you don't understand the mathematics and how they were derived then I can't see how you can develop a new theory. The mathematics as they stand have been verified experimentally and do not agree with your theory. They model spacetime in a verifiable way. There are an awful lot of results from experimentation that back up both SR and GR. You need to understand both of these theories at least in a basic way before you can proceed. There are plenty of text books that give a description of both. Just ask in the main Astronomy/Cosmology forum and someone will give you examples.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #15 on: 05/06/2015 19:52:04 »
Hi Vikki,

I'm sure you know what you mean, but it's all getting tied up in knots in my head. I need to see specific worked examples with numbers so that I can begin to build up an understanding of this and have something solid to pin all your technical terms to. Until you do that, it's just too impenetrable. I want to see enough detail to make it possible to write a computer program to simulate a small part of it - for a theory to be taken seriously, it has to provide that level of detail and not just be a pile of confusing words.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #16 on: 05/06/2015 21:53:23 »
Hi JefferyH

Ok...as I am a non-mathematician trying to transpose visualised concepts into mathematical concepts, well  ...there are inherent problems to say the least

I'm recognise the mathematics, I think (scratches head )...but I'm not sure what you are relating them to.  To a greater force of gravity slowing time down?  To the escape velocity of mass? Or light?

I'm afraid that I'm a bit in need of a white board narrative that explains what the objective is and then walks me through the process.  I'm not sure which bit of what your saying relates to which bit of what I'm saying, other than that you are calculating a strong gravity force and that a strong gravity force slows time down.
I'm not getting how the maths are deriving a stronger gravitational force as being "responsible for" or "connected to" a slowing of time rather than an increase in the rate of time.

Other than the massless photon being given relativistic mass and the fact that clocks tick faster in elevation and that this is currently attributed to the fact of the clock being located at a coordinate in a weaker gravity field, (whereas the associated mass of the clock and its relationship with the mass of the earth is not currently accounted for) ...I can see no other reasons given  in physics to support the concept that a stronger gravity field slows time down. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

If you don't understand the mathematics and how they were derived then I can't see how you can develop a new theory. The mathematics as they stand have been verified experimentally and do not agree with your theory. They model spacetime in a verifiable way. There are an awful lot of results from experimentation that back up both SR and GR. You need to understand both of these theories at least in a basic way before you can proceed. There are plenty of text books that give a description of both. Just ask in the main Astronomy/Cosmology forum and someone will give you examples.

Well... In a sense you are correct JefferyH one cannot develop a "theory" without understanding the values behind the current mathematics.  Therefore what I have developed here is not a theory as such but a piece of logic.

You disappoint me in your response as I had thought that you were "engaging" in this piece of logic, (experimentally of course). You stated that relativistic gamma would have to be inverted for my theory to work.  I pointed out that this relativistic gamma is used within the Lorentz transformations and how I saw a different equation, the equation that describes distances increasing progressively, (also a Lorentz transformation equation) being used for the purpose of inverting gravitational time dilation.

You also stated that inverting gravitational time dilation would result in more easily achieving the speed of light, that it would run into velocity problems.  I asked you if my models relocation of the speed of light to the remit of the equivalence principle as being only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment would solve this.

Without answering these responses, you then post me the equation that describes the event horizon of a black hole and tell me that the manipulation (how was this relevant to my model?) that you made (for the purpose of and under what objective?) produces stronger gravitational tidal waves which slow time down.  I already watched Professor Susskind's no:8 lecture  on GR at event horizon.

I then ask you to explain what reason is given in physics, other than clocks ticking faster in elevation (which my model makes alternative explanation for), to support the notion that an increase in gravity field slows time down.  You don't answer.

I am well read in physics across the board, including at least 5 or so books that include SR and GR, plus 3 books that dealt with it exclusively, and Einstein's own papers on the subject.  Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics" gives concise description of exactly what is experimentally verified and what is not and where in physics current thinking does not mesh between GR and Quantum.

...I'm sorry to say JefferryH that I find this last post of yours to be a bit of a cop out tbh, but nice to meet you anyway.

((Edit)...actually I offer an apology on 1 count because I suspect I have wrongly stated concerning your equation in relation to the event horizon of black hole.  I did say that I am a non-mathematician, therefore any equations do really need to be explained in words as well for me to understand what is happening. (This won't actually be true for very much longer ))
« Last Edit: 06/06/2015 13:39:22 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #17 on: 05/06/2015 22:01:38 »
Hi Vikki,

I'm sure you know what you mean, but it's all getting tied up in knots in my head. I need to see specific worked examples with numbers so that I can begin to build up an understanding of this and have something solid to pin all your technical terms to. Until you do that, it's just too impenetrable. I want to see enough detail to make it possible to write a computer program to simulate a small part of it - for a theory to be taken seriously, it has to provide that level of detail and not just be a pile of confusing words.

Aw...David ... Well, I have identified the Proffesor Susskind lectures that I need to study further and I reckon I'll be able to give you some values in a few weeks (or so...) ...and Thanks !!!
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #18 on: 06/06/2015 14:03:28 »
JefferyH - in response to your saying that you do not understand how someone can come up with a theory if they do not understand the maths:

- In exactly the same way that musicians can compose music without being able to script notation.

DavidCooper - in response to your saying that my words are confusing (and I do understand your complaint from your own personal point of view):
- I do believe that a physicist of a pioneering mind set, also in possession of a degree in advanced mathematics... "Could" ...in fact decipher the overview of the conceptual mathematical considerations that I have posted, not without difficulty on account of my terminology, but the parameters are all present.

The problem being David, that to establish actual numerical values from these parameters I suspect that new tensor equations need to be established and THAT is going to be a difficult task for me.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2015 14:20:33 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #19 on: 06/06/2015 16:56:19 »
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.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2015 17:00:54 by jeffreyH »

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #20 on: 06/06/2015 20:01:27 »
Hi Vikki,

Okay - looking forward to seeing numbers once you've found out how to calculate them. I just want to see how to calculate the numbers for the different kinds of time at different locations and how to calculate the local speed of light and the lengths of objects, etc. - all the stuff required to write a program to simulate a simple scenario. Once you can demonstrate how your theory works and fits the known facts, then it'll be easier for me (and other people) to explore it further.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2015 20:03:02 by David Cooper »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #21 on: 06/06/2015 20:40:39 »
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.

Oh goodly good, your back! (rubs hands together ) ... I am pleased!

Ok...so regarding:

"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. "

Yes... and that's a good way of describing it!

"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."

Ah yes... .  But now we get into the fact that my model of the universe is not expanding and these progressively increasing distances are "time related".
Let us imagine a distance from one body of mass in space to another of exact same mass.  Across the space in between these bodies of mass the progressively increasing distances will stop increasing mid point and start decreasing.  The non time related "actual distance" between these bodies of mass can be arrived at by taking the increased portion of each increased distance, adding these up and subtracting this sum from the sum total of the increased distances. (Edit: it's not clear to me if it is the result or the remainder of these increased distances that is relevant, the perhiliion of Mercury is pertinent here) This is your "actual distance", therefore there will be no relaxing of any force for an object travelling through or into slower time because the expanded distance is time related.
In fact the velocity of the craft, as per miles per earth hour - in relation to the upper speed limits (which will be progressively reducing) of the reference frames it is passing through - will progressively increase...  which is where time dilation due to motion and length contraction then become important factors.

Over to you
« Last Edit: 07/06/2015 00:14:09 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #22 on: 07/06/2015 04:23:23 »
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.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #23 on: 07/06/2015 12:21:41 »
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.

Ok...but before I get stuck into another Professor Susskind marathon I shall:
a) Buy myself some biscuits or cake, that dude is always munching and it makes me jealous
And
b) Explain to you this:

Current thinking has these expanding distances getting so greatly expanded that the speed of light (as it's current constant ) does not travel fast enough to keep up with this expansion and therefore it is thought that we will eventually loose visual contact with these far flung light sources of galaxies across these voids.

My model is not expanding.  These voids in between far flung galaxies are filled with slow time and these far flung distances of an absence of mass in between these far flung galaxies are time related not "actual distances".

In my model, in the depths of these voids between galaxies, the upper speed limit, the speed of light, is proportionally lower, proportionally in relation to these expanded distances, (and this is where I believe you believe I am contradicting myself).  The velocity of a craft travelling into this void will not be "relaxed" as it travels into this void of "relaxed time" because (unlike the speed of light) the craft is subject to an "additional" force of energy propelling it. (by additional I mean not naturally occurring)

Its velocity in relation to the reduced upper speed limit of the void will be proportionally higher, perhaps the percentage may even reach 86.6% of "this" reduced speed of light. (I think this is the percentage you use David?)  It is now experiencing its own time as being slowed by 50% and is experiencing a 50% length contraction of its journey, however this will be a 50% slowing of its gravitationally dilated time and a 50% reduction of this time related distance, not the "actual distance".

This is creating a 4 way manifold of the time related factors of this void that are then related back to the time aspect of the "space time" manifold (this being the "actual time") and the expanded time related distances related back to the "actual distance" of the space time manifolds 3 dimensions of space.

The fact of my implementing this system of variable speeds of light acts as a constraint to the system...  (I think...scratches head )

Alrighty...I'm off to buy biscuits...hmmm....and a cake I think, why not aye?  ... All the best to you 's.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #24 on: 07/06/2015 18:43:43 »
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?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #25 on: 08/06/2015 00:17:00 »
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?

Let's do the last bit first...
Although I have in fact opened the biscuits, I haven't actually been studying Prof Susskind today...lol...so I can't tell you exactly by what means these progressively increased distances are calculated yet...
However, (I think?) I can say (earth parameters being our "key"), that if you start these distances off from 0 at the point of the middle of the earth, by the time we get to the edge of the earths crust we have "a distance" and we have the earths speed of light to relate to this "distance" these being the parameters at edge of earths crust.

Then with the next increased distance, the speed of light is slowed to the same proportion as the proportion that this distance is increased and so on.  So the speed of light and time dilation due to gravity field will slow to the same proportion that the distances are increased.  Yes... the time differences will be massive between a density of mass, such as a black hole, and deep space.

Ok, gravitational lensing:
My model is a non expanding closed system universe.  One of the main arguments of opposition to our universe being a closed system has been that the universe would be flooded with light.

Let's look at what is involved when viewing events that are occurring in reference frames that are of a faster time than the reference frame we are observing them from.
To analogise, a camera's shutter speed in relation to a motion shot.  The faster the shutter speed, the less light in the picture. ie: Observing a black hole from earth.

For the purpose of visualisation we are now looking at the scenarios of either fast or slow time in space.  Both will produce exactly the same visual results...
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.
In respect to gravity lensing, light moving over the faster or the slower time (theory dependent ) reference frames near large bodies of mass will appear to bend because the ratios of the variable length moments of the reference frames where the light appears to be bending and the observational reference frame of the earth become more closely aligned with each other and the picture is letting in more light.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• 781
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #26 on: 08/06/2015 02:00:50 »
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.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #27 on: 08/06/2015 18:16:16 »
Yes... 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.

Quote
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2015 18:18:25 by David Cooper »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #28 on: 08/06/2015 21:24:41 »
Yes... 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Ok David...again, last bit first.

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.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #29 on: 08/06/2015 21:46:48 »
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.

Hi Jerrygg38

I agree that it would be hard to measure every quantity of the universe, there are so many immeasurable qualities, however we should at least be able to measure gravity, space, black holes and quantum by now.
Obviously my thoughts are that the maths aren't complete and don't reach far enough.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #30 on: 09/06/2015 19:19:04 »
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.

I think you're describing something impossible.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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)

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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 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.

Quote
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2015 19:26:44 by David Cooper »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #31 on: 09/06/2015 22:57:18 »
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.

I think you're describing something impossible.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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)

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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 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.

Quote
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.

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.)

Now David, having read some of your subject matter, I rate you as being a "clever chap".
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?
« Last Edit: 10/06/2015 03:33:42 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #32 on: 10/06/2015 21:02:30 »
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.

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.

Quote
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.

I don't see how.

Quote
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.

The light is not going missing. It is not being absorbed by fans or anything else.

Quote
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.

Then you've disproved your theory again because it doesn't fit the reality of the universe.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
You 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.

Quote
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?

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.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #33 on: 10/06/2015 22:52:06 »
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.

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.

Quote
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.

I don't see how.

Quote
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.

The light is not going missing. It is not being absorbed by fans or anything else.

Quote
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.

Then you've disproved your theory again because it doesn't fit the reality of the universe.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
You 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.

Quote
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?

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.

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
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #34 on: 10/06/2015 23:31:56 »
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.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #35 on: 11/06/2015 00:12:07 »
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... JefferyH... I think maybe I would be using the right terminology when I say that I am taking a more Newtonian view on the force of gravity, but seeing as I am completely useless at terminology, I will explain.

In my non expanding universe, whereas all distance has been achieved during Big Bang and space is just a vacation of particles clumping together.  As mass clumps, the motions of the clumps bump, clump and fall into rotations of themselves and into centrifugal forces with other clumps.  Progressing into what we see today.  As earth is in a gravitational relationship with other planets, gas giants and then sun, the sun is in gravitational relationship with other stars, the gas giants of galaxy, all of galaxy is in relationship with galaxies black hole and galaxies are in a gravitational relationship to each other.  Any shift or change in any gravitational relationship anywhere in the universe will have an effect on a gravitational relationship somewhere else in the system. Butterfly effect.

So no, I'm not ignoring areas of extremely weak or non existent gravitational field, I'm placing them at the edge of the universe.

I do not fail to understand that because clocks only tick a minuscule bit faster in elevation to earth, that consequently "normal" time dilation is inconsequential apart from within the extremes. These maths break down in the one extreme we can observe.

My model gives time dilation a much broader scope and reins in actual distance in favour of distance in time.  This should give the maths I'm trying to come up with more "reach".
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #36 on: 11/06/2015 20:43:57 »
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.

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.

Quote
My 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?

Quote
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.

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?

Quote
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.

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).

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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".

It works with sound waves travelling through a piece of elastic which is being stretched, so what's your problem with it?

Quote
Yes, 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.

Quote
and 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.

Quote
Not 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.

Quote
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?

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.

Quote
P.S. My maths skills are improving

That'll help.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #37 on: 12/06/2015 00:08:54 »
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.

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.

Quote
My 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?

Quote
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.

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?

Quote
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.

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).

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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".

It works with sound waves travelling through a piece of elastic which is being stretched, so what's your problem with it?

Quote
Yes, 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.

Quote
and 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.

Quote
Not 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.

Quote
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?

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.

Quote
P.S. My maths skills are improving

That'll help.

You said:

""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 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.  We observe only the light source itself, this being the brightest point and furthermore we will view this point of a light source, not in its true position, but in its time distance position due to the curve of slower time frames in space.

""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.""

Exactly what would you render relative to this scenario in order to check... ?
Seismic activity on earth "is" emphasised during major planetary alignments.

""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?""

I'd have to work out the gravitational force of all the mass of the universe inside a black hole, determine what the speed of light is and then plug this escalated speed of light into e=mc2 to determine the force of energy.  Then explode the mass in particle form with this energy to determine distance.  My model doesn't "pretend" to further expand.  It does further expand, just not in distance.

""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?""

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.  Atoms don't compress, they rearrange more efficiently under compression.  Maybe they do explode under extreme compression, what are those jets observed racing away from a black hole into space?
Seems to me that compressing stuff gives it more energy not less.

""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).""

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.

""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.""

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?
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?

""It 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?  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.

""There'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.

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.

""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.""

Why would you want to place a clock outside of that governance?  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 and you take this time back to your space time matrix as the time aspect in conjunction with your "actual distances" of three dimensional space.  (In my non expanding model that is, it wouldn't work for current expanding universe theory)

""Anyone 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.

""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.""

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 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.

My maths skills?  Yes, indeed.  In fact my journey into maths is proving more interesting and compelling by the day.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2015 01:08:14 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #38 on: 12/06/2015 19:36:32 »
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.

What stops it being flooded with light then if the light isn't absorbed? Where is it going?

Quote
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.

But we see all the light regardless, so we're not missing any of the picture.

Imagine an experiment in which you have a light source deep in a gravity well. You have a detector over it which has a square area of X. It also has a hole in it of area X. Every photon that hits the detector is detected. You have another detector higher up which will detect every photon that goes through the hole. It registers the same number of photons hitting it, but their frequency (energy) is taken to be slightly lower (until you allow for the emitter running at a slower rate than normal due to its depth in a gravity well, at which point you can see that no energy has been lost at all). There is nothing being hidden from any of these locations - all the light is seen.

Quote
Seismic activity on earth "is" emphasised during major planetary alignments.

Have you ever heard any warnings on the news predicting earthquakes on the basis of planetary alignments? They can't even do it for the moon which puts astronomically greater forces through the Earth's crust as the planet rotates.

Quote
Pound Rebka experiment.  Light has higher frequency coming into gravity field and lower frequency going out.

...which means that it is generated at different frequencies. There is no viable alternative explanation for this.

Quote
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.

Energy is being added in and that causes the heat. Leave it for a while and the heat energy is radiated away, so you have more stuff there but no extra movement.

Quote
Quote
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).

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.

My question was about what causes the apparent expansion in your model - you need a direct equivalent of dark energy to drive it.

Quote
Quote
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.

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?

This needs two different answers to deal with it from the perspective of different theories. In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is only an apparent slowing of time caused by gravity, so a clock that is slowed or stopped by it is only measuring an apparent time while real time races on at full speed. In Einstein's theory it may be more problematic, but that isn't my problem: any amount of events can go by for an object in as short a time as you like - the events just happen closer together in time, and for a clock suspended at the event horizon that means that an infinite number of events can pass for it in zero time (and if that sounds impossible, the get-out clause for GR is that it's impossible to suspend a clock at the event horizon).

Quote
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?

You ask about time due to motion slowing, so that's another case - if a space ship could travel at the speed of light, it could travel many lightyears while recording zero passage of time, and yet it could be systematically eroded away by collisions with dust. Again there are two explanations for this for LET vs. SR, and again SR has a get-out clause in that it's impossible for a space ship to reach the speed of light (while LET again has no trouble handling the impossible case).

Quote
Quote
It 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?

I was comparing the sound waves to light. The speed of a wave through a fabric is limited by the fabric's ability to transmit it. If the fabric is moving, the wave will still have its speed controlled relative to the fabric, so in an expanding fabric it can be faster relative to light going in the same direction in a different part of the fabric.

Quote
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

The fabric of the universe isn't necessarily being stretched like elastic, but could be acquiring new "material" to enable its extension. Where that might come from is unknown and it is certainly a puzzle, but we do see an expansion, so we have to accept that there is some kind of extension going on. (Some people think they can avoid the problem by not having a fabric, but that's a mistake and it doesn't actually fix anything.) Whatever is going on though, you have to be able to account for the same evidence with your theory.

Quote
Quote
There'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.

We're trying to see something using tools which interfere with what we're trying to see - that's all.

Quote
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.

If we do use a clock, it shows the opposite of what your theory suggests. Your theory merely asserts that there is a special kind of time doing the opposite of what measurable time does, and there is no useful role for this proposed, undetectable kind of "time" (other than to account for the inability to see light that goes missing even though no light goes missing).

Quote
Quote
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.

Why would you want to place a clock outside of that governance?

If you want to be able to work out how an absolute time is behaving, you can only identify it by freeing yourself of the governance of the lightspeed-restricting fabric in which you are operating. So long as you are operating within that fabric, you are unable to tell if a any clock is slowed by movement through that fabric.

Quote
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.

How can you work out your velocity? You can't tell if you're moving or not.

Quote
These are the only aspects of an "actual" or "absolute" time that you need...

You can't access all of them unless you can place a clock outside of the fabric and find a way to read it.

Quote
Quote
Anyone 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.

I call it philosophy because it is beyond the reach of science - we don't know what it is and when people assert that it is "nothing" they are bringing bad philosophy into science. A unified theory though does not need to account for every aspect of reality. (A theory of everything does though.)

Quote
Quote
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.

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.

There are mainstream theories which have been invalidated and which should be dropped too, but the big problem with yours is that you have proposed an undetectable kind of time which has no useful role because it supposedly explains the disappearance of light which isn't going missing in the first place.

Quote
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.

You've given lots of incomplete explanations which keep failing to spell out what your theory is and what it does. You don't seem to be able to provide figures for anything.

Quote
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.

If it was expressed as a thorough piece of logic, that would be great, but it's a broad wash of ideas which keeps avoiding the specifics. It is still not possible to program a model of the simplest little bit of it because you won't provide the vital information to enable that. All I'm asking to see at the moment is a demonstration of a useful role for your horribly misnamed "coordinate time" to see exactly what it does to the missing light that isn't missing.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2015 19:43:18 by David Cooper »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #39 on: 13/06/2015 14:02:23 »
Ok, firstly I apologise because the multi quoting function is not available from my phone.  My laptop's keyboard has a broken "i" key which renders typing somewhat difficult.  I compose my replies in my notes function because if I zoom in on the reply window it does not allow me to see the text I'm typing.  I would dearly love to multi quote, but you will have to bear with me.

""What stops it being flooded with light then if the light isn't absorbed? Where is it going?""

Nowhere...we just don't see all of the "time" that the light is happening in.

""But we see all the light regardless, so we're not missing any of the picture.""

If you consider that the universe is an open system expanding universe then yes you are right.  If the universe is a closed system non expanding universe then no, there is a "lot" of missing light.

""Have you ever heard any warnings on the news predicting earthquakes on the basis of planetary alignments? They can't even do it for the moon which puts astronomically greater forces through the Earth's crust as the planet rotates.""

Lol, lol, lol.  The news?  Bah!  And yes they can regarding the moon, it's called "high tide" and "spring tide"...

""...which means that it is generated at different frequencies. There is no viable alternative explanation for this""

Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.  Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?

""Energy is being added in and that causes the heat. Leave it for a while and the heat energy is radiated away, so you have more stuff there but no extra movement.""

And the black hole adds no energy to the action of its fundamental compression abilities because it's time has stopped and all energy and information concerning it and the mass it consumes are now "lost"?

""My question was about what causes the apparent expansion in your model - you need a direct equivalent of dark energy to drive it.""

Goodness me!  It is "time"... gravitationally induced time dilation/contraction that causes the appearance of an expanded universe in my model.  Gravity and velocity affect both time and distance on a sliding scale and in balance with each other.  Therefore the "absolute" or "actual" time of the "original Minkowski space time matrix" can be deduced by calculating both types of time dilation and their affect on each other to establish the "absolute/actual" time of the traveler or the mass involved.  The parameters of the 3 distance factors, ie: the 3 dimensions of space in the "original Minkowski space time matrix" are predetermined and not withstanding any shift in gravitational relationship within the sytstem, can be considered as "constant".  The fact of the variable speeds of light, whereas the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment, acts as a constraint on the system.  Your rockets time factors will always mesh no matter what gravity field you travel them in, at whichever velocity.
"Time" is the cause of the further expansion in my model.

""This needs two different answers to deal with it from the perspective of different theories. In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is only an apparent slowing of time caused by gravity, so a clock that is slowed or stopped by it is only measuring an apparent time while real time races on at full speed.""

What is the causality of this "real time" ?

""You ask about time due to motion slowing, so that's another case - if a space ship could travel at the speed of light, it could travel many lightyears while recording zero passage of time, and yet it could be systematically eroded away by collisions with dust. Again there are two explanations for this for LET vs. SR, and again SR has a get-out clause in that it's impossible for a space ship to reach the speed of light (while LET again has no trouble handling the impossible case).""

How does LET handle this impossible case?

""I was comparing the sound waves to light. The speed of a wave through a fabric is limited by the fabric's ability to transmit it. If the fabric is moving, the wave will still have its speed controlled relative to the fabric, so in an expanding fabric it can be faster relative to light going in the same direction in a different part of the fabric.""

My point being: what evidence do we have of this fabric?  It's all very well saying such and such would happen if there were such a fabric...in any case, just how sound waves can be analogised to light waves in that situation is beyond me.

""The fabric of the universe isn't necessarily being stretched like elastic, but could be acquiring new "material" to enable its extension. Where that might come from is unknown and it is certainly a puzzle, but we do see an expansion, so we have to accept that there is some kind of extension going on. (Some people think they can avoid the problem by not having a fabric, but that's a mistake and it doesn't actually fix anything.) Whatever is going on though, you have to be able to account for the same evidence with your theory.""

My theory states time dilation due to gravity field as responsible for the appearance of an expansion of distance, which is actually not an expansion of distance but an expansion of time. (There is no associated puzzle attached to this explanation)

""We're trying to see something using tools which interfere with what we're trying to see - that's all."

No, the maths that you are using to determine what you are seeing do not have enough "reach" to understand what it is that you are seeing.

""If we do use a clock, it shows the opposite of what your theory suggests. Your theory merely asserts that there is a special kind of time doing the opposite of what measurable time does, and there is no useful role for this proposed, undetectable kind of "time" (other than to account for the inability to see light that goes missing even though no light goes missing).""

If you do use a clock, you have an associated mass, the relationship of which relative to the main body of mass, the earth,  not being taken into account in the current equations. (Please someone correct me if I'm wrong)
Yes, ... No light goes missing!  We just can't see it.  We don't have the "time".
The role for gravitationally induced time dilation/contraction is that it gives an observer independent time frame to work from.

""If you want to be able to work out how an absolute time is behaving, you can only identify it by freeing yourself of the governance of the lightspeed-restricting fabric in which you are operating. So long as you are operating within that fabric, you are unable to tell if a any clock is slowed by movement through that fabric.""

Not if you have a determined gravitationally induced length of moment to work your calculations our from through your movement through reference frames of variable lengths of moment.  "Time" being this "fabric" of space.

""How can you work out your velocity? You can't tell if you're moving or not.""

Of course you can tell if your moving or not.  Why would you think otherwise, that's stupid.  You can work out what speed you are going by taking your x miles per earth hour and adding on the same percentage of itself per reference frames across space as the percentage by which the length of a moment in those reference frames increases""

""You can't access all of them unless you can place a clock outside of the fabric and find a way to read it.""

The fabric of space that you refer to, in my model...this fabric is time and how can you place time outside of time?
Why would you consider the physics behind the Big Bang to be inaccessible to science?  In my model the black hole phenomenon is responsible for both the Big Crunch (although not in the reversal format) and the Big Bang.  If my inverted time dilation due to gravity field maths pan out, these maths should explain the whole scenario.  It is only the "way" that you are thinking about the universe that affords you this attitude of "acceptable" unexplained-ness.

""There are mainstream theories which have been invalidated and which should be dropped too, but the big problem with yours is that you have proposed an undetectable kind of time which has no useful role because it supposedly explains the disappearance of light which isn't going missing in the first place.""

Again, goodness me!  I have told you how to detect time dilation due to gravity field.  From the local gravity field .  I've told you what it's use is.  To measure time and distance in time.  I've told you that these differences in time ratios across distance will filter out the light that is flooding this closed system universe.    The light is not missing, it's there but we don't see it.  Our length of moment is too short to view all of the length of a longer moment, therefore we will not "see" everything that is going on.
I think you are becoming confused and muddling my model up with the current model.  No light is going missing in the current model because everything is very far apart and still expanding in actual distance.  Please note: in a closed system non expanding universe, light does not have anywhere else to go, savvy?

""You've given lots of incomplete explanations which keep failing to spell out what your theory is and what it does. You don't seem to be able to provide figures for anything.""

It is true that I have not provided figures, however my piece of logic is incredibly simple and I have given good explanation of its parameters.  These parameters being absent of any concept that is not already found within our observed data.  Fact is you just can't visualise the concept of a moment of shorter length not being able to fully observe a moment of longer length or that a longer length of moment will produce a longer distance in time that is not an actual distance.

""If it was expressed as a thorough piece of logic, that would be great, but it's a broad wash of ideas which keeps avoiding the specifics. It is still not possible to program a model of the simplest little bit of it because you won't provide the vital information to enable that. All I'm asking to see at the moment is a demonstration of a useful role for your horribly misnamed "coordinate time" to see exactly what it does to the missing light that isn't missing.""

Time dilation/contraction due to gravity field it is then. ... found at every coordinate "in" my model of the universe.  It's use is described above.
Again, it does not do anything to the light.  A closed system universe being flooded with light is not my concept, it's been used as an argument against the universe being a closed system.  In my closed system model this light is not apparent even though it's there because we cannot view the entirety of a longer length of moment from within a shorter length of moment.(Stop confusing my model with other models David, this might help no end, it would certainly save you from having to type that bit "the missing light that isn't missing" again.)
Can you give me some indication as to what you need to program "one little bit of it"?
From what I understand there are computer programs in operation designed for messing around with the parameters of mass, gravity field, time dilation and other factors found in our universe.  One can simply  change the settings and press "go" and it simulates what would happen.
I have "given" an existing equation, the equation that produces these progressively increasing distances as the change in the settings of these parameters with time stopped being set at 0 gravity field.  I understand that you need more precise figures, ie: percentages of the speed of light.  As the speed of light is variable in my model, and I have already explained this, I suspect that I'd need to create new tensor maths for my model in order to provide you with the exact figures you'd need.

""If it was expressed as a thorough piece of logic, that would be great, but it's a broad wash of ideas which keeps avoiding the specifics.""

My model of the universe is the "only" model that I have ever heard of that does "not" introduce anything that we do "not" observe into the equation or rely on any factor outside of our universe, while getting the universe behind the Big Bang and giving cause for the universes collapse.  What specifics other than the maths am I avoiding please?
« Last Edit: 13/06/2015 16:08:35 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4072
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #40 on: 13/06/2015 16:08:11 »
Timey said, "Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.  Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?"

It is like compressing a spring. The coils get closer together. The coordinate space in which the wave is moving has been compressed by gravitation. Hence length contraction in the direction of both motion and the field itself. This is why you need to study the mathematics. There is no shortcut to understanding.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• 2794
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #41 on: 13/06/2015 16:31:31 »
Quote from: timey
Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.
That is incorrect. In the first place there is no reason for the gravitational field to be of any particular strength. The frequency can be different by a given amount merely by choosing the right place in the field to place it. In the second place, whether the frequency is higher or lower, always measured locally, depends on where it is relative to the observer. If its above him at higher gravitational potential then it will run faster. But if its below him it will run slower. And its the gravitational potential which determines the frequency, not the strength of the field. This is complicated stuff. The full treatment is in my website here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_red_shift.htm

Quote from: timey
Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?
That is also wrong. This has nothing to do with relativistic mass. It only has to do with the frequency associated with the particle. Where did you get the idea that it had something to do with relativistic mass?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #42 on: 13/06/2015 20:45:07 »
Timey said, "Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.  Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?"

It is like compressing a spring. The coils get closer together. The coordinate space in which the wave is moving has been compressed by gravitation. Hence length contraction in the direction of both motion and the field itself. This is why you need to study the mathematics. There is no shortcut to understanding.

Hi JefferyH
My view of this compression due to gravity field appreciates that the coils of the frequency get closer together, however it does not equate this phenomenon with a longer moment, but I'm not going to "bang on" about it any further until I've considered this website posted below.

yes I agree, having a complete understanding of the current maths will become a great help to me in my quest. However it is actually possible to visualise percentages, ratio's and sliding scales in ones mind, but again, I do agree that any visualisation does really need to be expressed mathematically for it to be considered as a theory.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #43 on: 13/06/2015 21:10:57 »
Quote from: timey
Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.
That is incorrect. In the first place there is no reason for the gravitational field to be of any particular strength. The frequency can be different by a given amount merely by choosing the right place in the field to place it. In the second place, whether the frequency is higher or lower, always measured locally, depends on where it is relative to the observer. If its above him at higher gravitational potential then it will run faster. But if its below him it will run slower. And its the gravitational potential which determines the frequency, not the strength of the field. This is complicated stuff. The full treatment is in my website here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_red_shift.htm

Quote from: timey
Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?
That is also wrong. This has nothing to do with relativistic mass. It only has to do with the frequency associated with the particle. Where did you get the idea that it had something to do with relativistic mass?

Ok, I'm reading the website, second time through, and I have some considerations that I need clarifying before I can answer properly.  There are a lot of maths that I understand (loosely speaking) to be travelling light pulses between coordinate times and that the resulting change in frequency of this light is deemed due to gravity potential.

What is the causality of the time as recorded by observers in S1 and S2?
What is the causality of the gravitational potential?
What is the causality of the time recorded by the far away clock?
On what basis does the C2 clock run twice as fast as the C1 clock?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #44 on: 13/06/2015 23:45:54 »
Quote
What stops it being flooded with light then if the light isn't absorbed? Where is it going?

Nowhere...we just don't see all of the "time" that the light is happening in.

But we do see all the light, so you aren't explaining anything real. The expansion of the universe means it takes longer to reach us and when it arrives its frequency is lower, but all the light is still there. If the differences in improper time (which is a more appropriate name for your "coordinate time") were stopping us seeing the light without the expansion being real, we would see something radically different from what we actually see because your mechanism would stop us from seeing some of the light when it reaches us rather than delaying its arrival.

Quote
Quote
But we see all the light regardless, so we're not missing any of the picture.

If you consider that the universe is an open system expanding universe then yes you are right.  If the universe is a closed system non expanding universe then no, there is a "lot" of missing light.

Except it isn't missing, but would have to be delayed instead and have its frequency reduced. You clearly haven't thought through the implications of that frequency reduction, because frequency can only be seen to reduce if you have an expansion of the space the light's travelling through or if you have something delaying the transmission of that light in a way that continually increases that delay. You have not explained any mechanism in your model for that, so how does space know whether to delay the light more, less or maintain the current delay? How does it know if it is to pretend that space is expanding , contracting or staying the same?

Quote
Lol, lol, lol.  The news?  Bah!  And yes they can regarding the moon, it's called "high tide" and "spring tide"...

There is no connection with earthquakes sufficient to warn people to get outside before they hit.

Quote
Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.  Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?

The only frequency that's higher in a stronger gravity field is your imaginary improper time which does the opposite of the proper time recorded by actual clocks.

Quote
And the black hole adds no energy to the action of its fundamental compression abilities because it's time has stopped and all energy and information concerning it and the mass it consumes are now "lost"?

All fo the energy in a black hole that things carry into it ends up as part of the mass of the black hole. The physics of what actually happens inside a black hole is unknown though - we have descriptions of what might happen there if different theories are true, but finding a problem with time in one theory does not invalidate other theories which handle time in more rational ways.

Quote
Quote
My question was about what causes the apparent expansion in your model - you need a direct equivalent of dark energy to drive it.

Goodness me!  It is "time"... gravitationally induced time dilation/contraction that causes the appearance of an expanded universe in my model.

But you have not explained how your model handles the pretence of expansion. All you've done is assert that some of the light which is seen is not seen even though it is seen. Your model has nothing in it to control the ongoing pretence of expansion to maintain that apparent expansion, so what stops it stopping? If we have two galaxies pretending to move apart while not actually doing so, what are they doing with their gravitational pull and improper time to make the space in between them decide to go on changing to pretend that there's an ongoing expansion taking place?

Quote
Gravity and velocity affect both time and distance on a sliding scale and in balance with each other.  Therefore the "absolute" or "actual" time of the "original Minkowski space time matrix" can be deduced by calculating both types of time dilation and their affect on each other to establish the "absolute/actual" time of the traveler or the mass involved.  The parameters of the 3 distance factors, ie: the 3 dimensions of space in the "original Minkowski space time matrix" are predetermined and not withstanding any shift in gravitational relationship within the sytstem, can be considered as "constant".  The fact of the variable speeds of light, whereas the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment, acts as a constraint on the system.  Your rockets time factors will always mesh no matter what gravity field you travel them in, at whichever velocity.

What the heck does all that actually mean?

Quote
"Time" is the cause of the further expansion in my model.

"Time" could equally be the cause of further contraction without changing any of the numbers (because your "time" is controlled by gravitational strength, and that's the same whether it's expanding or contracting), so how in the world is this "time" driving an expansion rather than a contraction?

Quote
Quote
This needs two different answers to deal with it from the perspective of different theories. In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is only an apparent slowing of time caused by gravity, so a clock that is slowed or stopped by it is only measuring an apparent time while real time races on at full speed.

What is the causality of this "real time" ?

It controls the unfolding of events, with other clocks running slow in proportions to that real time dependent on their movement through the fabric of space or by the slowing of light caused by gravity.

Quote
You ask about time due to motion slowing, so that's another case - if a space ship could travel at the speed of light, it could travel many lightyears while recording zero passage of time, and yet it could be systematically eroded away by collisions with dust. Again there are two explanations for this for LET vs. SR, and again SR has a get-out clause in that it's impossible for a space ship to reach the speed of light (while LET again has no trouble handling the impossible case).

How does LET handle this impossible case?

A clock stopped completely by movement or gravity is only recording apparent time, so time is actually passing at full speed for a stopped clock which is unable to register it.

Quote
My point being: what evidence do we have of this fabric?  It's all very well saying such and such would happen if there were such a fabric...

Without a fabric, you have nothing to impose a geometrical arrangement of locations on the content of the universe.

Quote
in any case, just how sound waves can be analogised to light waves in that situation is beyond me.

Any kind of wave which has its speed controlled by the medium it travels through can be used as a direct analogy.

Quote
My theory states time dilation due to gravity field as responsible for the appearance of an expansion of distance, which is actually not an expansion of distance but an expansion of time. (There is no associated puzzle attached to this explanation)

As I keep telling you, your mechanism does not even account for the difference between expansion and contraction, never mind handle any increase in the rate of expansion caused by dark energy.

Quote
Quote
We're trying to see something using tools which interfere with what we're trying to see - that's all.

No, the maths that you are using to determine what you are seeing do not have enough "reach" to understand what it is that you are seeing.

The maths has the reach to account for what the tools do not allow us to access.

Quote
If you do use a clock, you have an associated mass, the relationship of which relative to the main body of mass, the earth,  not being taken into account in the current equations.

Light moving through space is the purest clock and it has no mass. If it is running through deep space and is not slowed by gravity, it runs close to full speed. If it is running in a gravity well, it runs more slowly.

Quote
(Please someone correct me if I'm wrong)

Why would anyone try to do that when it's such an unrewarding task?

Quote
Yes, ... No light goes missing!  We just can't see it.  We don't have the "time".

We see all of it. None of it is missing and none of it goes unseen. Your theory is trying to describe a universe that doesn't match up with the one we are in.

Quote
Quote
If you want to be able to work out how an absolute time is behaving, you can only identify it by freeing yourself of the governance of the lightspeed-restricting fabric in which you are operating. So long as you are operating within that fabric, you are unable to tell if a any clock is slowed by movement through that fabric.

Not if you have a determined gravitationally induced length of moment to work your calculations our from through your movement through reference frames of variable lengths of moment.  "Time" being this "fabric" of space.

If you have some weird way of working out how to measure absolute time and know that it is absolute time that you are measuring, write out the maths for it and apply for your Nobel Prize now.

Quote
Quote
How can you work out your velocity? You can't tell if you're moving or not.

Of course you can tell if your moving or not.  Why would you think otherwise, that's stupid.  You can work out what speed you are going by taking your x miles per earth hour and adding on the same percentage of itself per reference frames across space as the percentage by which the length of a moment in those reference frames increases

If you're right, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can find a way to turn that paragraph into actual maths (and spell out what magic tricks you're trying to play with reference frames).

Quote
The fabric of space that you refer to, in my model...this fabric is time and how can you place time outside of time?

Which kind of time is this? Improper time? That isn't going to work - it's just an inverted version of proper time and has no useful role in anything other than for solving imaginary problems that bear no relation to the universe we see.

Quote
Why would you consider the physics behind the Big Bang to be inaccessible to science?  In my model the black hole phenomenon is responsible for both the Big Crunch (although not in the reversal format) and the Big Bang.  If my inverted time dilation due to gravity field maths pan out, these maths should explain the whole scenario.  It is only the "way" that you are thinking about the universe that affords you this attitude of "acceptable" unexplained-ness.

If I wired all the inputs and outputs of your brain to a simulated universe such that you were only able to operate within that virtual space, you would have no access to the outside to determine how the virtual universe works. We are in the same kind of position and may never be able to see outside of the universe to get proof of how it actually works. We will come up with theories which might account for how it works, but that may be as far as we can go.

As for your model, if it doesn't distinguish between the big bang and a black hole, it's just plain wrong. Black holes sit within a space fabric. The big bang involved a singularity (or near-singularity) which included the entire space fabric.

Quote
Quote
There are mainstream theories which have been invalidated and which should be dropped too, but the big problem with yours is that you have proposed an undetectable kind of time which has no useful role because it supposedly explains the disappearance of light which isn't going missing in the first place.

Again, goodness me!  I have told you how to detect time dilation due to gravity field.  From the local gravity field .  I've told you what it's use is.  To measure time and distance in time.  I've told you that these differences in time ratios across distance will filter out the light that is flooding this closed system universe.    The light is not missing, it's there but we don't see it.  Our length of moment is too short to view all of the length of a longer moment, therefore we will not "see" everything that is going on.

And yet we do see it all - we don't miss anything due to any filtering or clocks running slow (or your imaginary improper time running slow).

Quote
I think you are becoming confused and muddling my model up with the current model.  No light is going missing in the current model because everything is very far apart and still expanding in actual distance.  Please note: in a closed system non expanding universe, light does not have anywhere else to go, savvy?

Which is precisely your problem - if there is no expansion and yet we are still seeing all the light arrive (which we are), then your understanding of it is woefully wrong. If there is no expansion, light isn't being filtered out, but is being held back by something which is delaying it, and delaying it more and more over time, but your mechanism doesn't account for that and merely asserts that we don't see the light because we don't have enough time to see it, even though we do. All the light still gets to us, eventually - we just have to wait longer and longer for it to arrive as the expansion (or pretence of expansion) continues to increase the delays.

Quote
It is true that I have not provided figures, however my piece of logic is incredibly simple

The correct word is "lacking".

Quote
Fact is you just can't visualise the concept of a moment of shorter length not being able to fully observe a moment of longer length or that a longer length of moment will produce a longer distance in time that is not an actual distance.

That's because if your clock is running slow, you still see everything playing out, but it all appears to happen faster and it becomes more energetic in terms of perceived frequencies. None of the action goes missing.

Quote
Time dilation/contraction due to gravity field it is then. ... found at every coordinate "in" my model of the universe.  It's use is described above.

You need to describe it in full detail with numbers and worked examples to get it across. You don't appear to be able to do that yet, and once you get to the point where you can, you'll find that it doesn't work. So, you need to get on with doing that and then get back to us. I can't afford to go on putting so much time into commenting on something that isn't even at the half-baked stage - I have other work that I should be getting on with.

Quote
Again, it does not do anything to the light.  A closed system universe being flooded with light is not my concept, it's been used as an argument against the universe being a closed system.  In my closed system model this light is not apparent even though it's there because we cannot view the entirety of a longer length of moment from within a shorter length of moment.(Stop confusing my model with other models David, this might help no end, it would certainly save you from having to type that bit "the missing light that isn't missing" again.)

I'm not confusing it with other models - I'm comparing it with the observed universe and pointing out that the two things don't match up.

Quote
Can you give me some indication as to what you need to program "one little bit of it"?

I want to be able to write a program like the one I described earlier in which a rocket hovers near a black hole and lowers a clock on a cable, then raises it again. I want to be able to apply your theory to this to show the proper time on the clock, and on a clock that stays in the rocket, and a clock further out which we're using as a standard coordinate time, and I want to be able to calculate your improper time for the different clocks as well. Once that's been done, I then want to explore what your improper time does for the speed of light through the system to work out what optical distortions it would impose on the action, and I'd like to see how some of the light is not seen even though it is all seen. It's all very simple stuff I'm asking for. Just show some worked examles of simple scanarios like the above with some numbers. I need to know what equasions to apply and how to apply them. All basic stuff which anyone should be able to provide in the course of describing their theory.

Quote
From what I understand there are computer programs in operation designed for messing around with the parameters of mass, gravity field, time dilation and other factors found in our universe.  One can simply  change the settings and press "go" and it simulates what would happen.

If you're doing something radically different with an improper time being added into it, you need to write a custom program to handle it.

Quote
I have "given" an existing equation, the equation that produces these progressively increasing distances as the change in the settings of these parameters with time stopped being set at 0 gravity field.  I understand that you need more precise figures, ie: percentages of the speed of light.  As the speed of light is variable in my model, and I have already explained this, I suspect that I'd need to create new tensor maths for my model in order to provide you with the exact figures you'd need.

I didn't notice you provide what I'm asking for. I'm offering to be a computer and I'm asking you to program me to simulate a little part of your model. It doesn't get any easier than that.

Quote
My model of the universe is the "only" model that I have ever heard of that does "not" introduce anything that we do "not" observe into the equation or rely on any factor outside of our universe, while getting the universe behind the Big Bang and giving cause for the universes collapse.

It introduces a description of a universe which doesn't match up with the one we live in.

Quote
What specifics other than the maths am I avoiding please?

The specifics that would enable a program to be written. Piles of words making woolly claims are not good enough - you need to spell things out with precision and nail your definitions.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #45 on: 14/06/2015 02:03:41 »
Hi David

I'm sorry to say that having got half way down your reply, (the missing light again!) I find that I can't be bothered to finish it.  You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive.  My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.
Because of some subject matter of yours that I have read, you have my remaining undying respect.  Let's just leave it at that aye!

All best, Vikki
« Last Edit: 14/06/2015 14:55:53 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• 2794
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #46 on: 14/06/2015 06:24:54 »
Quote from: timey
What is the causality of the time as recorded by observers in S1 and S2?
What is the causality of the gravitational potential?
What is the causality of the time recorded by the far away clock?
On what basis does the C2 clock run twice as fast as the C1 clock?
These questions are based on common misconceptions of physics. In particular the misconception in this case is the assumption that physics can explain why things happen and as such explain the cause. However it's not the task of physics to explain what causes things to happen. It simply can't be done any other way. All we can do is observe and describe nature. We can't explain why it does what it does in general. It's only task is to describe it. That said, there are times when we can find a cause but that doesn't apply to the axioms of physics. By following the derivation you should be able to understand the cause through the description of what's happening.

For example; nobody knows why gravity can exert of force on an object. All that we know is that it does happen. In Newtonian theory the force is given by

F = GMm/r2

If a force can be expressed as the negative of the gradient of a function U(r, t) then that function is called the gravitational potential energy. The gravitational energy per unit mass is called the gravitational potential, V(r, t).

U(r, t) = mV(r, t)

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• 2794
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #47 on: 14/06/2015 06:28:11 »
Quote from: timey
<snipped HUGE quote>
Hi David

I'm sorry to say that having got half way down your reply, (the missing light again!) I find that I can't be bothered to finish it.  You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive.  My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.
Because of some subject matter of yours that I have read, you have my remaining undying respect.  Let's just leave it at that aye!

All best, Vikki
Vikki - I'd like to make a request. In order to make the thread more accessible to reading would you please not quote an entire post? It takes up a ton of space and there's no reason for it.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1360
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #48 on: 14/06/2015 14:53:40 »
Vikki - I'd like to make a request. In order to make the thread more accessible to reading would you please not quote an entire post? It takes up a ton of space and there's no reason for it.

Yes, certainly.  I've since fixed the offending post.

In the mean time I'll say thanks, because although simple equations such as F=MA are understood, any explanations that illuminate the movement of mathematical concepts through functions into a word format are significantly welcome in my book...
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #49 on: 14/06/2015 18:56:16 »
Hi Vikki,

I was trying to be constructive by helping you to see parts of your theory that don't stand up - if you take those things on board you will then be able to focus on what remains and see more clearly what needs to be done with it. There is one very specific area you should be looking at, and that's why I've asked you several times for some of the maths involving a simple situation near a black hole. If you can't work out how to apply the relevant formulae yourself, there are people here who will be able to help. If we can get to the point where ticking rates of clocks at different depths in a gravity well can be calculated, and also the ticks of the improper time at those locations, we can then start looking at what happens to light and its frequency as it travels from one of those locations to another. At that point, we will be able to investigate your idea of improper time preventing some of the light being seen, and then you might finally understand that you can't play fast and loose with frequency - that's where I wanted to take things because I think it blows apart your theory in a very straightforward way, but instead of providing the numbers or spelling out what would need to be done to calculate them, your posts exploded into wide-ranging attacks on all sorts of other issues which displayed a matching range of holes in your knowledge of physics, and when you did try to focus on the relevant points, you did so with impenetrable, woolly descriptions which no one has a hope of following due to a lack of any definition of many of the terms used (or misused). If I come across as sounding annoyed, it's because you're not prepared to home in on the crunch points which will destroy your theory.

You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive.  My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.

Your model has to be able to handle an apparent expansion even if it isn't actually expanding - I was merely asking for the missing mechanisms to handle that, and you should be keen to supply them. If I didn't want to understand your theory, I wouldn't be pressing you to fill in the holes.