0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.

Now you have to show evidence that remote observers see the earth spinning faster.

Time is a product of gravity in my model. The gravity field determines the rate that a clock ticks at and it determines the frequency of light and atoms. (The GPS clocks tick faster because although they are located in a coordinate of a weaker gravity field, they are experiencing a greater gravity field due to the relationship of their associated mass with earth...IF ANYONE CAN TELL ME IF THIS RELATIONSHIP "IS" BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MATHS, I'd be grateful)

The events that we are looking at are the paths of light rays travelling towards us over reference frames of changing lengths of moment. We are not seeing every part of those light rays. We just see a small percentage of the light.

There is only "one" kind of time going on in my model, this is time due to gravity field.

In my model there is no overriding time aspect, no universal time. The only universal time is "the present". All reference frames despite their variable lengths of moment operate in the "present". (this being why it is not possible to view the entirety of the events of a longer length of moment from a shorter length of moment.)In my model all measuring of time motion and distance can be made relative to a gravity field, not relative to another observer.

I really am sorry David but your interpretation of what is happening in my model is beyond me. You cannot base your interpretation of a closed system non expanding model on the same premiss as an open sytstem expanding model. It just can't be done! You keep trying to "add" my concepts to the concepts of the current model rather than replacing the concepts in the current model with the alternative I propose.

It occurs to me that while it is a logical possibility that someone who is not "qualified" may have a relevant idea in any field, logically speaking it is not possible for someone who is not qualified in that field to dismiss an idea out of hand because they do not understand it.

The GPS clocks run a small fraction of a second faster than clocks on earth.What specifically causes this "proper time" clock to tick one tick in one reference frame per 2 ticks in another reference frame?Distance apart?Gravity field?

Firstly David, it would not be possible to send one photon light experiments over the kind of distances that I'm suggesting would cause "severe" fragmentation of "observation" (observation not "reality" you do realise )

Also the Pound Rebka experiment explains that light has a lower frequency leaving a gravity field than it does arriving into one. The interpretation of that experiment is "not" a closed book. Light has no apparent mass.

Secondly, any experiments in this field that include an actual clock, mechanism, or an observer... "do" include an associated mass.

Too often in these white board explanations of these maths it gets to the point that the words "insubstantial" and "inconsequential" crop up in the dismissal of terms.

Why not, instead of just repeating yourself over and over again in saying that: "It is confirmed by experiment that clocks tick faster in elevation" ...why don't you engage in discussion about whether or not the associated mass and its gravitational relationship with the earth "is" being currently accounted for in the maths, or is this relationship considered "inconsequential"? ...I have asked the question more than three times now!

Thirdly, you keep saying that there is no light missing. But you also say that you take on board the premiss of a closed system universe. So...in your interpretation of my model, where is this light that is not missing? We most certainly do not observe our universe to be flooded with light, do we?

Fourthly, you say that light slows as it comes into a gravity well.

Redshift is what we see when light leaves a gravity field and blueshift when it arrives into a gravity field. Redshift is lower frequency, blueshift is higher frequency. Are you saying that a higher frequency in light is a slower speed of light?

Fifthly...you say there would be zero gravity at the centre of the earth. And in the same post you tell me that it is experimentally proven that clocks tick faster in elevation to earth because they are located in a weaker gravity field.

That clocks tick faster up a mountain, because they are in a weaker gravity field. If it is "indeed" zero gravity at the centre of earth, then any radius progressively outward from the centre is going to be a progressively greater gravity field, isn't it?

However, you also say the question of whether a clock would run fast or slow at the centre of the earth is debatable as to whether it is subject to gravitational interactions with the surrounding matter. I'm simply opening up the same debate with regards to gravitational interactions between clocks in elevation and the surrounding matter!

As for you dismissing my piece of logic, I can just as easily dismiss yours. (which I have once mentioned to you that I had read similar premiss for elsewhere, but you do put it all ever so nicely.)

By using a universal block time from within the universe you render the future as preordained. By adding this universal time to the universe from outside the universe you open up a whole can of worms in that you must now explain "outside" of the universe. (quoted from same book I read). Or you can employ the get out clause in saying that not everything is explainable!

However, I would not dismiss your argument out of hand even though I find the implications of either type of universal time and the concept of unexplained-ness distasteful. Who am I to say that the future is not preordained or that there is no outside of the universe, that clearly we cannot explain.

Neither would I dismiss Jerrygg's (edit: I might have muddled up user names there, I can't find Jerrygg's thread on this, might have been RTCphysics, in which case he's gone on to explain quite coherently) dot gravity mesh or whatever. I can't really see it myself, but my eyes are not the be all and end all. I'd have to state that although I get the premiss, that I don't fully understand the application or observational aspects and my dismissing something out of hand on that premiss would be like me dismissing JefferyH's argument on Lambert thread because I don't fully understand mathematical symbols.

In fact I would really have to consider myself exceptionally well qualified in a field before I'd out rightly dismiss anything at-all, and if that field were physics in particular, based on the historical fact that a large proportion of what have proved very relevant physics ideas have been dismissed out of hand initially, I'd be exercising caution in the art of "dismissing" full stop.

David, I really do not understand why it is you are so stuck on the notion that my time would be better spent in some other pursuit.

What would you have me do, self flagellate with an episode of Eastenders while fetching a bun out of the oven? Come on... ... I think it much better to be "thinking" in any terms at-all tbh. No one so far has found the exact right terms to be thinking in to explain the whole of the universe, and at this stage after so little movement for all these years comparative to the years before, one really would have to have a proper stroke of luck for their thinking to be the right thinking. I'll just carry on thinking for thinking's sake, because I enjoy thinking, if that's ok...

You know... if I could translate the universe into a sound engineering desk, whereas the universe is the sound I'm looking for and mass and distance were my products, with gravity, time and motion being effects units, I could "mix" the universe at any given coordinate and create the observations that we observe.I just have to figure out how to express this in mathematical terms.

The 'missing' light is due to the radial spread of photons moving away from a source. If you start at the centre of a circle and draw two lines that start moving away at a very small angle to each other they will quickly separate. As the distance from the source increases so does the radial separation. Hence 'missing' light that fails to flood the universe. This is pretty basic stuff. You need to consider the physics.

My theory does apply to "all" situations. More than the current theory does.

Again you have some "huge" misconceptions.

I do not rely on fragmentation to determine the length of a moment.

Light also has no bearing on the mechanics of a length of a moment in my model, the length of the moment that is the product of the "gravity field" has an effect on the frequency of light, not the other way round.

I am just proposing an alternative reason behind the mechanics of these observations of clocks running slower or faster with regards to our interpretation of the mechanics of a weaker or stronger gravity field in relation to the associated mass of the clock.

Yes...light can be used as a clock and it has no mass, but any experiment you set up with light has associated mass. Any mass in the gravitational vicinity of greater mass will be running a minuscule amount faster time than the greater mass.

Light without mirrors, gadgets and so on, according to Pound Rebka has higher frequency coming into a gravity field than when leaving. In my model this higher frequency is related to a shorter length of moment, because gravity is compressing the length of everything.

The maths for GPS equate a very small escalation in the rate of time, hardly noticeable really.

There is also a gravitational relationship of the associated mass of the GPS clocks with the earth. This associated mass is very small, is it hardly worth mathematically bothering with???

It is not the size of the associated mass but its relationship with the mass of the earth. That is the question, and you haven't answered it.

For the last time, no light goes missing David.

In our solar system we will not see fragmentation of the observation of the sun, well there would but it would be akin to a Lorentz contraction when travelling at 60 mph. . The sun is the main body of mass in our system and its gravity field is the dominating factor with regards to the production of time in our solar system. Earths time is dominated by its gravitational relationship with the sun in relation to its own mass and its time will run fractionally faster than time does for the sun.

With regards to the rest of the universe that we can only see when our sun is on other side planet, this is flooded with light that we cannot see, not because the light is fragmented, not because it is missing, but because we cannot view the entirety of those progressively longer moments in space from our shorter length of moment.

If you set up any light clock experiment you have associated mass and create a gravity field in its own right (no matter how slight this is) which may or may not be in a relationship with other body/bodies of mass, dependant on the distance that you place your experiment away from any other mass.

I am saying that the frequency of light can be stretched or contracted by the length of moment it is travelling through and that these lengths of moments expand in space. It's not hard!

I'm also saying that the change in frequency is very "real", but it's the distance that is "perceived", because it is a "distance in time" that the light is travelling.

If there can be a debate concerning if a clock placed in the centre of the earth will tick faster or slower dependent on if it is gravitationally interacting with its surrounding matter, then the same debate is more than valid concerning a clock placed in elevation above the earth "if" that clock is still within the gravitational pull of the earth. End of story.

You are the one who is harbouring misconceptions about my model and then holding these misconceptions up as proof that my model doesn't work. And , furthermore you are spouting current thinking at me as if I have misconceptions about current thinking, and then you take this proved to be inadequate way of thinking and tell me that I'm wrong because this is right. While I'm saying hey something's wrong with all that thinking, mine might not be right but would you care to discuss it.

But you are right, it is extremely tedious to try to tell someone where they are misconceiving something you've said. I'm not misconceiving current thinking David, I'm looking at alternatives. You are misconceiving the entire premiss of my model. This is clearly obvious. Light has no bearing on the lengths of a moment in my model, it just has to travel through them, that's all.

I don't think I'm going to be posting here anymore in any case. I'm concentrating on my maths from now on.

Set the longest moment in time, ie: time stopped at 0 gravity field.Take the net mass of the universe and its gravity field if it were all in one body and set this maximum gravity field at 0 distance.Then, taking the equation that progressively increases distances (that are based on acceleration I do believe) increase these distances from 0 distance (centre of mass = highest gravity field) till you reach 0 gravity field. (Probably not necessary to go all the way to 0 gravity field )

At each increase of distance mark off the radius and calculate the gravity field at that radius.Using the mass/gravity field of earth as a means for determining the length of an earth moment, now take the gravity field of earth and mark your gravity field/distance in time graph at earths gravity field with earths length of moment.Now you can, at each mark of distance in time on your gravity field/distance in time chart, increase or decrease the length of the earths moment by the same ratio as the distances have progressively increased or decreased in either direction on the chart.You now have a chart of measurement to refer to.

Now place your rockets "stationary" at your choice of 2 radius of black hole.Work out what the gravity field is at these radius and then refer to your chart for what rate time is running at these radius.

These rates of time in the location of those radius will only be relevant to massless light because remember that your rockets have mass. This mass is gravitationally interacting with the mass of the black hole. Your rockets time will be running a bit faster than the black holes time.

...but your rockets will not be stationary. The black hole is pulling them in really fast. Their experience of their own time will be considerably slowed by their motion. But it will still feel to them as if they are moving fast because of the subsequent length contraction of their journey caused by their motion.

No, I do not rely on fragmentation for a faster rate of time to be seen as a slower rate of time than it really is.Remember that it is the gravity field that is causing the rate of time. It is the visual aspect of not being able to view the entirety of the events of a much longer moment from a much shorter moment or visa versa that will appear as though the observation is "missing frames" or fragmented. Please remember that in my model the universe is considerably closer together than current thinking.

You said:""Given that light is the mechanism of a light clock, light is completely tied up in the length of a moment.""Yes... My logic states that the length of a moment has an effect on the frequency and the speed of light. You are putting it as though the speed or frequency of light has an effect on the length of a moment.

Ok, you have now told me that the relationship between the associated mass of the clock in relation to the mass of the earth is not taken into consideration in the maths because it is inconsequential. The time differences recorded are also inconsequential, except when operating over periods of time for precision calculations. Isn't it "odd" that another "inconsequential" sum of a relationship should then be ignored?

You speak of proper time but fail to tell me what is causing it and how to determine what rate it is running at in any given location, other than relative to another observer.

My time dilation/contraction due to gravity field can be determined anywhere in the universe by knowing the gravity field.You fail to appreciate that there is a ratio/scale balance between time, distance and motion in my model. Time goes up, distance goes down, motion goes up, time goes down, time goes down, distance goes up, motion goes up, distance goes down.Yes I do include that time stops in a 0 gravity field. Synonymous with "nothing happening" there. Current thinking has time going really fast where nothing happens and stopping inside one of the most energetic phenomena of our universe, a black hole. Really?

If the "current thinking" didn't have contradictions, holes in it and need its story sorting out, I wouldn't be here talking to you. That's called logic! You are most unfairly making a contradiction of terms, especially as "you" are yet to fully grasp "my" story.

You say that frequency is due to a delaying of light but fail to realise that a slower moment would delay light in the same way a slow train might delay you to work. Or (now really take this on board) ...in the same way an expanding space might delay light.(You) say that space is expanded by fabric.I say it's expanded by time.

If you can load that into "your head" you will understand my logic. However, I again stress that this does not mean that my thinking is the right thinking, but don't tell me it's not logic. It is!

David...Lol... I've got a better one...Just imagine your rockets are now the GPS satellites and use the GR field equations (although I think there possibly exists a far less convoluted method to same result) to determine the rates that your rockets/satellites time's are running at in their locations of different distances from earth... then you won't have to make a wild guess. This will be an accurate reading of your "rockets" time's for both your proper time and my time dilation/contraction due to gravity field!!!Both will give you the SAME result. *** just for different reasons***

The only difference in this situation between your proper time and my time dilation/contraction due to gravity field is that light is not gravitationally affected and its experience of time "is" synonymous with the weaker gravity field it is travelling through.

It's frequency is stretched over slower time and contracted over faster time. (it takes the light "longer" to travel the distance over slower time, this being true within both "the longer distance in time" and the "shorter actual distance")

Because we observe light to take on a lower frequency leaving a gravity field and a higher frequency arriving into a gravity field, my logic states that the rate of time is running slower in a weaker gravity field...

...and that clocks running a minuscule bit faster in elevation to a main body of mass are doing so because of the force of the greater body of mass's gravitational interaction with the elevated mass - the earth is pulling on this elevated mass - causing the gravity field experienced by the clock to be of itself "plus" the body of mass that is the earth.

So therefore, the GR field equations that you have equated to determine your proper time will be "proportionally" correct for my model in an earth bound scenario.

However, to transpose this scenario to a black hole, the GR field equations will be inefficient. (In any case they are inefficient.) . GR states, because it is observed that clocks tick faster in elevation, that a greater/stronger gravity field slows time down.

So...(and this is a wild guess on my part David), maybe it might be possible to take the mass of a black hole in relation to the mass of the earth and work out the percentage of by how much the black holes mass is greater than the earth. Place the GPS satellites for the black hole at the same distance away as in the earth scenario , and scale "up" the maths by the same percentage as the mass of the black hole is greater, therefore arriving at the time's your rockets are experiencing in relation to their respective radius of the black hole.

Ok, you say "your" proper time is caused by the speed of light. (It is more complicated than this, shame PmbPhy didn't get back on that one)

"My" models speed and frequency of light is caused by the length of a moment. It is the "gravity field" that is causing the "length" of the moment. The time it takes to travel a longer moment produces a "distance". A "distance in time", that light is stretched across.

Your speed of light is stretched over a fabric of expanding space caused by a dark energy that we have no clue what it is, what is causing it, and therefore of how the mechanics of it work.

You talk about these hypothetical situations of rockets and light in scenarios of black hole interaction. These discussions are completely pointless and in fact distract from the black holes actual activities. Light cannot make a round trip back from a black hole, best guess is that everything gets ripped apart in a black hole and from the observation of black holes jets and how they happen immediately after large bodies of mass fall in, I'd say this "ripping apart" happens incredibly quickly.

For goodness sake. If you are standing ten metres away from your friend, your rate of time and your friends rate of time will be the "same" rate of time. If you and your friend remain within the gravitational pull of earth, your rates of time will only vary if one of you goes upwards. If your friend goes upwards his rate of time will increase. It will increase with distance up to a certain point and then it will start to decrease. If you send a beam of light upwards, the rate of time it experiences will just decrease. (unless it travels into a greater gravity field again)

Slower and slower is further and further apart, (travelling longer lengths of moment takes a longer time and is a "distance in time". The frequency of light is decreased by a longer length of moment because it is being stretched, however the speed of light remains constant over this "longer distance in time", but is rendered variable over the "shorter actual distance")

Why would slower be closer and closer together? You say because the photons would be bunched up together, (as in a higher frequency of light, but we observe the opposite.)

The time increase experienced by clocks in elevation is minuscule in comparison to the the inverse square law decreasing a gravity field proportional to distance, but this minuscule increase in the rate of time that should be proportionally even more minuscule in deep space is stretching the frequency of light into the redshift we observe? No it's not...

My model does not expand in actual distance. The fabric of expanding space is "distance in time". To travel this distance as a moving rocket, it will take you a journey time that you will relate into velocity per time factor. But the velocity (not naturally occurring as with massless light) will become escalated relative to a slower/shorter length of moment and the time it takes you to cover both distance in time and actual distance will also be escalated, not only because of the longer length of moments travelled through, but because the escalating velocity is also slowing the rockets own perception of its own time down. (I could re-explain the way that the variable speeds of light over the "actual distance" act as a constraint as to how fast one may travel through "distance in time", but let's not complicate matters for now)

I, in return find your "comprehension" of my logic to be "woeful" ...tbh... but as I'm the one explaining said logic, I take full responsibility. You could try lightening up a bit though... It really would make for a much more pleasant discussion!

I'm beginning to understand that actually you are incapable of reading without drawing your own assumptions. The assumption that you display above having NO bearing on what I wrote. I think there is a section in the rules that mentions intentional misrepresentation David. You disappoint me.

The frequency of light does change as it leaves a gravity field, it gets lower. Pound Rebka.

You have downright ridiculed my opening up the question of if a clock in elevation feels the gravitational field of the earth in addition to its own.

It's almost as if you believe that physics is in possession of a fully described theory of gravity. We don't have a fully described theory of gravity. Therefore it is "allowed" to look at alternatives. Looking at alternatives does not incorporate taking those alternatives and saying. "That's wrong because current thinking isn't like that". That is not a discussion about alternatives, that is you arguing for the theory that "you" believe in.

Firstly, you state that proper time will be slowed to half or a quarter of its normal rate. Can you provide experimental proof of this please?

Secondly, whatever mass you place at a radius of black hole, can you provide experimental proof that it does not feel the gravity field of the black hole please?No you can't!!! All you can provide is a set of mathematical equations that state this notion, but only when you "swap" terms in the space time matrix.

You said:"While your model has to create a pretence of the same expansion in a manner for which your model has no mechanism at all."My model is expanded by distance in time. Janet and John books being downloaded for your immediate attention as we speak, (chuckle). It truly amazes me that someone who can write so well, cannot seem to read.

I said:"QuoteMy model does not expand in actual distance. The fabric of expanding space is "distance in time". To travel this distance as a moving rocket, it will take you a journey time that you will relate into velocity per time factor. But the velocity (not naturally occurring as with massless light) will become escalated relative to a slower/shorter length of moment and the time it takes you to cover both distance in time and actual distance will also be escalated, not only because of the longer length of moments travelled through, but because the escalating velocity is also slowing the rockets own perception of its own time down. (I could re-explain the way that the variable speeds of light over the "actual distance" act as a constraint as to how fast one may travel through "distance in time", but let's not complicate matters for now)"You replied:"Every time you go into an explanation of that kind you express the ideas in an incomprehensible way and leave me to decide whether to spend an hour trying to process it, or to reject it on the basis that it's too impenetrable. I simply don't have an hour free for each paragraph of that kind. That is why I like to see specific examples of things with actual numbers attached to them, and then I can see whether something is sensible or a pile of pants. I can't tell which category this bit belongs to."What makes you think that because "you" can't comprehend something that it "is" a pile of pants?

On a phycological basis you are being incredibly disparaging about my notions that you clearly are not in full understanding of and are being fairly rude in your disdain, yet you argue a theory that doesn't time mesh your rockets unless you add a universal time, while refusing to acknowledge the implications of adding a universal time to the universe from both within or from outside of the universe.

I at least "understand" that my whole theory is hinged upon there being an alternative reason for clocks ticking faster in elevation to a greater body of mass.You don't seem to even acknowledge the implications that your logic imposes on the universe.

Firstly, you have not shown me that I've got something wrong.

What you've shown me is that "you" have a pretty good basic idea of how current thing goes, although you seem to fail to appreciate where this current thinking is shot to pieces and push it regardless.

You've shown me, in your responses, that you have not really considered or read much about the alternatives that other physicists have put forward or the remits of different types of systems.

That you haven't really exposed yourself to much reading matter concerning what is and isn't actually proven and what bits of which hypothesis are based on supposition.

You have shown me that you are not capable of disassociating the way you have interpreted the current thinking in order to consider an alternative, or to discuss it in terms that are given in the remit of how the model differs from your interpretation of the universe.

Where you have not understood, instead of saying that you do not understand how something is different and is working, you state it impossible based on argument that is steeped in your misconception of my logic and you be rude and imperious while doing so.

Get real! We're not discussing an idea here David, we are discussing your disdain for it...

I have attached a graph of my what I believe your theory depicts. The intercept with the y-axis is at infinity and the asymptote tends towards infinity as escape velocity increases. Therefore the nearer to an event horizon the light is the faster its coordinate speed.. Ultimately at the horizon the light moves away starting at an infinite velocity. There is something wrong with your theory. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out what that is.

Hey thanks JefferyH... for taking the trouble. This would appear to me "not" to be describing a theory of gravity but a theory of light. The title of "theory of gravity" and the axis describing magnitude of "escape velocity" is misleading. Light does not have to escape gravity in my model, it's massless.

In assuming that you are increasing these speeds of light by the same proportion that the equation that increases distances increases those distances, this graph would be useful in relation to my model if instead of the escape velocity you graphed the variable speeds of light against the distance the light has travelled at those speeds of light. It would be "really" useful if the graph could actually describe a relationship between 2 exact same bodies of mass - whereas the speed of light starts at 30000000 and ends at 300000000, and is reducing in the distance in-between the bodies of mass with the slowest point located at midpoint, and that these varying speeds should be corresponded by the distance travelled by the light at that speed.

By adding up these distances travelled, this would constitute my models "actual distance" between these bodies of mass.It would then be relevant to travel the light for the same amount of "time" it took the variable speeds of light to get from one body of mass to the other, (the length of a moment is expanded by the same proportion/ratio that the speed of light was reduced) while travelling the light for this "amount" of slower time "transposed" for the calculation back into the time that these slower times would take in relation to the length of an earth moment, and travelling the light at the 300000000 speed of light. Then by adding up this distance travelled, this is the "distance in time".By subtracting the "actual distance" from "the distance in time" you will have a numerical figure of distance on by how much "slow time" has expanded space between these bodies of mass.That would be "timey's" time theory of light and distance.

No one else appears interested any more so take this opportunity to bounce ideas off me because I don't mind.

The first thing you need to straighten out is exactly what you mean by light slowing down. With respect to what? It cannot be local observers otherwise you are violating the laws of physics.

Time is not caused by anything. Time measures the rate of change of the state of a system. The question you should be asking is what causes the change in the state of a system? This is the result of the various forces and governed by conservation laws. Your obsession with time is the problem. You could benefit from thinking about the role of dark energy on the spacetime metric. You could actually modify your theory in order to apply it to dark energy because that is what it models.

One last pointer. You need to determine a way to reconcile why should result in an expanding universe.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 02/08/2015 01:50:20One last pointer. You need to determine a way to reconcile why should result in an expanding universe.Please can I gently remind you that as a non mathematician I need a whiteboard explanation of your maths that includes a precursor of their objective and a walk through in words of their process if I am to understand what you are expressing.