# A theory of inverted time dilation

• 114 Replies
• 10905 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #50 on: 15/06/2015 16:55:33 »
Let me spell it out for you without waiting for the numbers. Frequency is a record of the ticks of a clock.

If you count these ticks as they leave one location and count them again when they arrive at another location, you can measure the difference in the relative rates at which clocks are running at those two locations, though that only applies if you can also travel between the two locations repeatedly and determine that they are the same distance apart throughout.

If these two locations are at different altitudes within a gravity well, the clock lower in the well is ticking at a slower rate, and any signal with a frequency of any kind being sent to it from the higher location will be perceived as having a higher frequency than it actually has.

Your imagined improper time runs faster at the lower location, but that has no impact on the frequency of any signal generated there and sent to the higher location as it is proper time that determines the frequency of that signal, and when the signal arrives at the higher location, the higher proper time there results in that signal being measured as having a lower frequency than was perceived at the lower location where it was generated.

Your improper time is running slower at the higher location, and you claim that this means less of the light (let's assume the signal is a laser beam) is seen from the higher location because there is less improper time there to see the signal with, but every single tick of the lower clock written into the light is received at the higher location, more spread out than they were when they left the lower location, and all the energy of the light which was put into generating it at the lower location is detected as arriving at the higher location - none of it goes missing and none of it goes unseen, so I can't see how your improper time has any role to play in this at all.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #51 on: 16/06/2015 18:29:19 »

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.

Ok, in any case I offer an apology.  Each time I try and explain it helps me to understand further how I might apply mathematics to my model.  Sorry for becoming frustrated.

I think it may help if I briefly tell you how I came by the idea of my model...because I have in fact thought about my idea more deeply than you might imagine.
In reading Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics" in 2010,  Lee's conclusion that physics has the wrong approach to time became apparent to me long before he drew to that conclusion in the book and furthermore I thought I knew why.
Physics does not seem to regard time as being a product and a function of the universe but merely a kind of corridor that the rest of the universe passes through.
I saw time as being a force.  A force that is twinned with gravity like the electromagnetic.  A force that is fundamental in that without it, as nothing can happen in its absence, existence would not exist and that time is a part and parcel of the very structure of our universe.

Setting up a cause and effect chain, whereas the following phenomenon cannot happen without the previous...that goes like this - mass = gravity = time = motion = distance.  Then, using Lee's considerations concerning different types of systems and their restrictions, overlaid with observed data and it's interpretation with respect to what is proven and what is supposition, while also undertaking my own self imposed rule as to not include any unobserved phenomenon, or rely on any factor placed outside of our universe, I juggled concepts and what came out of this juggling was my model.

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)
Motion is a product of time and distance is a product of motion.  Motion slows time down.  Motion contracts distance.  Gravity field speeds time up.  Gravity field expands distance.

Because my models expansion in "actual distance" is taken care of in the initial Big Bang, my model is "not" an expanding model and the distances that the gravity field is expanding the universe by are not an actual distance but a distance in time. *** If we travel this distance it will still feel like a distance because of the "time" it will take to travel it. ***
It will also look like a distance.  It will look like a distance because when we view a slower moment from a faster moment we will not be able to see the entirety of the events of the slower moment.  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.
Furthermore, because this light is travelling through progressively slower time that is creating a geodesic curve, we do not see the light source as in its true position (Newtonian gravity((?)) but in its position in distance in time. (On the curve)...

There is only "one" kind of time going on in my model, this is time due to gravity field.  Gravity is the causality of time. This time is then affected by motion and this "time dilation due to motion" needs to be calculated in relation to the "time due to gravity field" that the mass is passing in motion through...which is variable according to strength of gravity field  (the gravity field being according to distance from mass and the relationship experienced by this mass in motion due to any other mass in the vicinity.)
From this calculation you can arrive at your "actual time" of journey.
(Due to the ratios of gravity field time, and time in distance, and time dilation due to motion, and that motion causing subsequent length/distance contraction... rockets flown through any strength of gravity field at any velocity should time mesh on account of the variable upper speed limits per reference frame - whereas the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment)

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 realise that this explanation does nothing to provide you with any values.  I believe that the equation that produces the progressively increasing distances is relevant to the ratio by which the decreasing gravity field produces progressively longer moments...(in my model that is)
I'm sorry David, at the present this is the best I can do.

I am going to try getting into a bit of gravity potential talk with PmbPhy now.  I think it relevant that I get more inside the current view of kinetic energy and its connection to motion and gravity potential.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #52 on: 16/06/2015 23:11:39 »
If time is running faster the nearer to a gravitational source then the earth would appear to be rotating at a much slower rate than it actually is for ground based observers. This means that as a spacecraft leaves the earth its observations of the planet would show a speeding up of the angular velocity. To the remote observer the day would appear to be shorter than it is. Now you have to show evidence that remote observers see the earth spinning faster.
« Last Edit: 16/06/2015 23:14:37 by jeffreyH »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #53 on: 16/06/2015 23:40:08 »
Hi PmbPhy

Relativistic mass as I understand is kinetic energy due to motion.  Relativistic energy or relativistic momentum perhaps also being relevant terminology. (Correct me, I'm learning)

Although I've got a good "visual" on the resulting physics of all this interplay I'm crap at terminology and am missing which bit of which terminology does which job.
Can you help me out?
With regards to gravity potential -
This is the negative of the force that would bring the mass in from infinity.  Is this calculated as per the inverse square law proportional to distance from mass as with gravity field, or is it other considerations?
With regards to potential energy - is this purely motion related or does the gravity potential add in some way to the magnitude?
How does time getting faster in space relate to this potential energy?
How does reduction in frequency of light relate to gravity potential/potential energy?
Kinetic energy and relativistic mass in relation to motion and light - ?
Gravity potential seems also to be connected to kinetic energy.

With regards to causality.  I'll rephrase my questions:

Do the clocks, far away clock, clock 1 and clock 2 have a cause for the rate of time their keeping?

In relation to the Pound Rebka experiment, my understanding is because light has relativistic mass that it has a lower frequency leaving a gravity field than when it arrives into one...  You have said that this is also the case for light being pointed back at earth from space...(?) (this also being from a gravity field, I'll point out)
The gravity field affects the frequency of light due to its relativistic mass, (in my simple understanding ) or... if this light is not attributed this relativistic mass then my model states this effect to be due to gravitational time in an absence of mass in distance "relaxing" length of frequency and therefore length of moments into longer resolutions.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #54 on: 16/06/2015 23:54:07 »
Now you have to show evidence that remote observers see the earth spinning faster.

Well no, not at-all JeffreyH.

If the observer was within the gravitational pull of the earth then it's time will be running just a minuscule bit faster than the clocks on earth.  It will observe no change in the rotation of the earth.
If the observer was far away from the gravitational reach of the earth, or any other body of mass, it would be viewing the earth's shorter length of moment from its longer length of moment.  The rotation of the earth would not appear faster, it would in fact be a fragmented view if indeed we had a really, really strong telescope in the space craft with which to view this effect through.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #55 on: 17/06/2015 01:06:13 »
P.S.  The only circumstances that I can envisage increasing the rotations of the earth are for instance if the sun was in a slingshot ecliptic with another "dark star"...as the two stars began on their "inner" ecliptic rotation, the overall gravity field would increase, the sun would be travelling faster and the planets would have to rotate faster to keep up, in which case our days would get shorter and our length of moments on earth would get shorter, ie: frequencies would get higher.

P.S.S ... And that would be "elliptic" not "ecliptic" ... (Lol, terminology really does make a difference)
« Last Edit: 17/06/2015 11:39:04 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #56 on: 17/06/2015 12:16:00 »
The simplest means of proving/disproving this piece of logic I have proposed ie: my model, would be to find two locations at the lowest possible and exact same elevation relative to the earths radius, one of which we know to be of a denser consistency than the other... and place atomic clocks that have been synchronised to each other upon both locations to record any differences.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #57 on: 17/06/2015 22:01:44 »
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)

There is a thing called proper time in SR/GR (and apparent time in LET) which relates to the ticking rates of perfect clocks. Proper time determines the frequency of light that is produced at the location of each clock, doubtless because some mechanism that generates light oscillates under the control of proper time and writes the sine waves into the light with a frequency which shows the oscillation rate and which gives the light a particular colour - these are two representations of the same proper time. You assert repeatedly that your "coordinate time" (which I have renamed improper time as it is not a coordinate time and is essentially an invertion of proper time) will determine the frequency of things like light, but that is not true - the frequency is always directly tied to proper time without any inversion. You then assert that the frequency we see isn't the real frequency, but that we're only seeing a fragmented version of events, but that cannot be true - we see every up and down of every sine wave and every tick of every clock, and we can go to count them at source if we want to, whereupon we find exactly the same number of ticks as we see when looking from another location where proper time runs at a different rate. There is no fragmentation - all the ticks are seen, and all the action is smooth.

Your theory breaks right there, so you need to find another version of the theory which doesn't contradict what we see and measure. Repeatedly claiming our view is fragmented and that something ticks faster deep in a gravity well than it looks from further out just won't hack it - we can go there and check that it isn't ticking faster than it appears to be, and when we do this we indeed find that it isn't ticking faster than it appears to be. Let's put a planet near a black hole and spin it, then we can count the number of times it spins from higher up. You assert that it spins more times than we see, but we can send someone down to it to count the rotations and then get him to come back up to tell us how many rotations he experienced from there while we watched from above, and the numbers of rotations will match up. If you want to build a valid theory, it has to stop contradicting that.

You also have a bizarre idea that the further away a clock gets from another source of gravity, the stronger the gravitational field it's in will be due to a "relationship of their associated mass with earth". The gravitational field will weaken as they move further apart, and the clock may have no mass of its own if it is the purest kind of clock, light, so it has no mass to be part of a relationship of associated mass. However, you don't need to add this complication because it contradicts another part of your own theory - you already claim that from a higher location the view of the lower location will be fragmented such that the lower clock will actually be ticking faster than the higher clock but merely looking slower, so you don't need to go through contortions trying to account for it in a different way that contradicts that. The view of the higher clock from the lower one would also have to have a different view of things from the reality, so while it's doing its extra ticks (which even a local observer can't see, but let's ignore that for the moment) that aren't seen from the higher clock, the view it has of the higher clock have to be the opposite of fragmented - it has to see more ticks from the higher clock than the higher clock actually makes!

Can you still not see the problem with this?

Quote
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.

You also have to stop using reference frames as a mechansim - they are just frames used for analysis and only one should be used at a time.

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

Then your model denies that there is a proper time and it cannot account for the way clocks actually tick other than by asserting that they don't tick in the way they appear to and that cycles go missing due to fragmentary views, but that contradicts reality.

Quote
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.

It is one heck of a mess, and I wish you could see that, because I'm sure you have other talents that you could be putting your time into. This theory is not viable. Focus on the frequency issue and the number of ticks generated at different locations. Look at how they can be counted by someone at the scene and compare that by how they are counted by someone watching from afar where proper time runs at a different rate. Think through the implications of fragmentation (and its opposite twin which you haven't even considered) where some ticks have to go missing (or be seen more than once - awkward if each tick has a number encoded into it so that any interruption to the sequence stands out clearly). You don't need more maths - you just need to think this bit through. Here's a simple thought experiment - you send someone down towards a black hole and he (you're not going to waste a woman on this in case she's sucked in) signals a series of numbers back up to you at a rate of one per second by his watch. Every two seconds, you receive a number from him, and each number is one up from the one before. You send numbers down to him as well, sending one every second by your watch and making each number one bigger than the one before. He receives two numbers from you every second and none of them are missing or repeated. Both of you are seeing the full picture with no ticks (numbers) going missing and none being repeated. There is no fragmentation (and no opposite of it either with repeated action). Your theory dies right there.
« Last Edit: 17/06/2015 22:06:25 by David Cooper »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #58 on: 17/06/2015 22:36:18 »
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.

I myself am in full understanding of the premiss of my model, having had a long history of having no problem whatsoever in taking on board all sorts of complicated concepts across the board, but again - as I did in the header post - I stress that I appreciate this does not make my model a "viable" model.

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.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #59 on: 18/06/2015 00:07:13 »
Ok then David, let us get into 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?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #60 on: 18/06/2015 01:02:28 »
Timey, quite a while back I too considered the possibility that not all photons are experienced and that we simply miss some. So that light speed always appears to be constant because the photon we detect is not the one we expect. So I was at the point you are now. It is easy to venture into this avenue of speculation. However, this also means a lack of complete understanding. Sometimes you have to go doggedly down a blind alley to come to an epiphany. So I will say no more about your theory. I may meet you on the other side of your journey.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #61 on: 18/06/2015 01:46:14 »
JeffreyH... Surely it cannot be possible that you were exploring the idea of shorter lengths of moments not being able to view longer lengths of moment or visa versa?
Were you considering not being able to see the light of a closed system non expanding universe that is flooded with light?
These are the premiss that I am exploring with regards to not observing light that "is" there under the remit of a closed system universe.
I doubt very much these were your premiss, so what was?  I'm curious!

I've been chewing my way through your Lamberts thread.  Trying to establish link between electromagnetic and gravity, a most admirable and peer recognised pursuit.  I'm not nearly finished yet   it be 12 pages!!! ...but I'll get there, but I most probably won't comment, I'm not qualified to...

P.S.  The variable speeds of light in my model are due to the speed of light only being constant to the ratio of a length of a moment.  These variable speeds of light are not what is causing the appearance of less light, it is the ratios of progressively longer lengths of moment over distance that are not able to be seen in their entirety from a shorter length of moment that cause the light not to be seen in my model.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2015 01:55:44 by timey »

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #62 on: 18/06/2015 21:53:19 »
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.

I'm basing my interpretation not on some other model, but on the evidence of the actual universe and experiments that can be done in it. The real universe doesn't display any fragmentation, but allows you to send light from a low position in a gravity well to a high position, and the reverse, and you can see that no cycles go missing - the frequency that you recieve in one location from the other gives you the full picture of how the clock is behaving at the other location and it is not hiding any ticks from them or sending any duplicates. It makes no difference whether you're dealing with an open or closed system - in this particular thought experiment there is absolutely no expansion involved.

Quote
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.

I am dismissing it because it manifestly cannot handle a case which it claims it can handle. It makes claims about the passing of time at different locations in a gravity well which do not match up with the results of experiments. It claims light goes missing, but no light goes missing. No cycles go missing, and no energy goes missing, so if the theory is correct, it is not describing our universe.

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?

Light travels slower in a gravity well (on a two-way trip at least [it must travel faster inwards across the event horizon of a black hole than it does outwards, because otherwise nothing could pass the event horizon at all in either direction]), and the depth in the gravity well determines how much slower it travels. I don't know the full details of this, and I don't know how much of it is merely theoretical as opposed to measured by experiment. At the centre of the Earth, for example, there will be zero gravity, but a clock there could either run at full speed as if it is in deep space or it would be slowed maximally by all the gravitational interactions with all the material surrounding it even though they cancel out from the point of view of the actual gravitational force experienced there. I don't know if any experiments have settled that question.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #63 on: 19/06/2015 01:54:42 »
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...
« Last Edit: 19/06/2015 12:46:33 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #64 on: 19/06/2015 14:45:15 »
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.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #65 on: 19/06/2015 19:29:34 »
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 )

Your theory should apply to all situations, such as sending light from one altitude in a gravity well to another - you rely on fragmentation for the lower clock to appear to be running slower while you claim time there is running faster than it is at the higher clock. You now speak of fragmentation of observation and contrast that with fragmentation of reality, but in the real universe we have neither.

Quote
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.

It doesn't matter what mass is there or not there - the light carries a frequency that reveals to you the ticking rate of a clock where that light was generated.

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

Light can be used as a clock and it has no mass. If you extend the length of a light clock and reflect the light between two mirrors, you can increase the length of the clock without changing the mass of the mirrors and any other equipment required to keep them in position and correct alignment (e.g. two space probes sending radio signals back and forth between each other). Because the mass of the material at either end of the clock is tiny, it has no detectable effect on slowing the light, but any imagined extra effect that your theory places on it is disproved as soon as you move the two ends further apart and have the light spend more of its time further away from the material at the ends of the light clock.

Quote
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.

They are used because some effects are so small that they can't be detected. If your theory was predicting an effect so small that it can't be detected, that would give you room to maneuvre, but the effects you are predicting are huge.

Quote
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!

I have given you the answer a dozen times but you aren't prepared to accept it. How can you have an association of masses between a perfect light clock which is just light itself and something elsewhere with mass? Even if you make a clock out of lead though, it will still have such a tiny mass that it will not slow itself in any measurable way through its own gravitational effect on the local speed of light unless you make it the size of a large asteroid.

Quote
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?

I've shown you that no light goes missing in the case of light being sent between two locations at different heights in a gravity well. No light goes missing between two galaxies either (other than through absorbtion when light hits dust and the like). What happens if the space between the galaxies is expanding is that it delays the light and stretches it out, so the light takes longer and longer to get to the other galaxy and it lowers in frequency in a manner like the Doppler effect. If you want to build a theory on the idea that there is no expansion, there's no point in claiming any of the light is missing, because an alien civilisation could send out beeps with time stamps on them which would all arrive in sequence without any of them going missing, so what your theory needs to do instead is explain how the light is delayed, and how it is increasingly delayed over time as the other galaxy appears to get further and further away while actually staying still. Your theory doesn't do that, but merely asserts that light is going missing in a manner that is incompatible with the reality of the universe we live in.

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

On a round trip it is slower at lower altitude, but it may go faster and faster on the way in - it is impossible to measure what it does in a single direction.

Quote
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?

The speed of light and the frequency are not related. If light enters glass and is slowed down by it, you will still have the same number of waves passing any given point in a set time period. The only way you can change the frequency is by stretching or compressing the light by expanding or contracting the space it is travelling through. The effect of gravity on light frequency is not a change of actual frequency, but of perceived frequency, and that variation in perceived frequency is caused by differences in the time period used to count the waves going past - if your clock is running slower, you will count more waves going by and will think the frequency is higher than it really is. I don't know how you can think you have any kind of scientific theory when you don't have a grasp of these basics. Please load them into your head and use them to help you analyse and disprove your own theory.

Quote
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.

In elevation above the Earth, gravity reduces and so does the distance to the matter which is generating that gravity, so the two effects are changing in the same direction and cannot easily be separated out. If you go down into the Earth though, the gravity that you feel may go up for a while as the density increases, but it will eventually go down again and fall to zero at the centre, but at the centre there may be the highest gravitational interaction going on, even though it all cancels out in terms of gravitational force, and that highest gravitational interaction at the centre may result in the highest reduction in the speed of light and thereby the proper time at that location.

Quote
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?

While you are still inside the Earth, the force of gravity that you can feel at any location will be higher as you move away from the centre (except where density differences cause that to reverse because you have moved out of a dense region into a much less dense one, this being similar to moving out of the Earth and into its less dense atmosphere - I add this for sake of precision, though I realise that it will open up a minefield of new potential misunderstandings for you). The gravity felt is going up then as you move away from the centre, but the amount of gravitational interaction is decreasing. How can the gravity felt go up while the amount of gravitational interaction goes down? Well, it's because less of it is cancelling out. At the centre, all of it cancels out because there is an equal pull from all directions, but it is at the centre where the gravitational interactions are most intense. If you can get your head round that, you will be making progress.

Quote
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!

No you're not - you are applying things in situations above the Earth where the gravity felt falls with increasing altitude roughly in line with the fall in gravitational interactions because there are no longer any significant components of gravitational pull cancelling each other out. All you have are tiny amounts of mass (even a mountain is a tiny amount of mass) which have an infinitesimal effect on the local speed of light.

Quote
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.)

It's easy to dismiss anything. The real trick is to do so on logical grounds though and not just claim to have done so if you haven't. You have clearly put a lot of time into building up a theory which has been built upon a missing foundation. Parts of your theory flatly contradict reality. Parts of your theory also contradict each other.

Quote
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!

If you are going to generate the future from the past in a coordinated way, there is a limited range of options as to how to go about it. Some of them fail due to event-meshing failure issues and are thereby invalidated. If the universe cannot be explained entirely by looking at all the things which can be seen from inside the universe, then there must be something outside of it which would complete the picture if it could be seen. It is not necessary to see everything to explain the universe though - it is possible to explain things through theories which speculate about external mechanisms, and a range of possible theories might result, all explaining the universe in different, viable ways (even if only one of them is correct). There is a big difference between not being able to explain something and not being able to see it to verify it.

Quote
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.

What is distasteful about an absolute time when it is logically required to avoid event-meshing failure?

Quote
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.

The problem is that you are denying me the right to dismiss a theory that contradicts reality on the basis that you don't dismiss theories which don't contradict reality - there is a major difference between the two, because the former kind of theory has been invalidated.

Quote
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.

Correct ideas can be dismissed by people without being invalidated, and then they can be shown later on to be correct. However, if a theory has been invalidated because it contradicts reality, the theory is dead. It may be possible to come up with a similar theory which doesn't contradict reality, but that's a new theory. Your current one claims that light goes missing in a way which contradicts reality.

Quote
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.

Life is short, and it isn't pleasant watching someone put so much effort into something that is horribly wrong, but which has also tied your thinking up in knots. You have shackled yourself to beliefs which are plain wrong - they contradict the results of experiments. It's as if we're standing by a clock and watching the second hand go round once, and at the end of that minute you claim that the hand actually went round twice, or one and a half times, even though we both saw it go round precisely once. You will be thinking at this point that that's an outrageous claim, but if you are watching from a higher altitude in a gravity well such that our clocks are ticking at different rates, and if you and I are both looking the clock that I'm standing next to, I'm seeing the second hand go round once, you're seeing it go round once as well, and you're then telling me that it must have gone round more than once for me because improper time is faster where I am than where you are.

It's frankly bonkers!

Quote
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...

Thinking is fine, and thinking out of the box is great, but what you're doing is pushing a disproven theory as a viable one long after the flaws have been shown to you. You're simply denying the points where your theory is shown to be wrong and you're wallowing in the muddle - drowning in it even. What are you gaining while you are trapped in this state of denial? You don't want to disprove your theory, but want reality to conform to it instead, but the universe doesn't play ball - it sticks with the way it already works and it's your job to stop your theory conflicting with it.

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.

That's great, but you need to chuck fragmentation in the bin. What you need to do is account not for light going missing, but for light being delayed, and for it being delayed more and more over time.
« Last Edit: 19/06/2015 19:41:56 by David Cooper »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #66 on: 20/06/2015 01:30:04 »
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.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #67 on: 20/06/2015 03:30:34 »
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.

Obviously the light is spreading out. I refer you back to the earlier thought experiment with a square sensor with a square hole in it and as much light going through the hole as hits the surrounding sensor while the light that goes through the hole then hits a larger sensor further on. Both sensors record the same amount of light hitting them, so the light that went through the hole all made it to the second sensor.

Now put this in a gravity well with the source lowest. You get the same result, but with the frequency being recorded as lower at the second sensor than at the first, though when you adjust proper time you find again that not only has no light gone missing, but no energy has gone missing either. The theory being discussed in this thread breaks on that point.

If we consider the galaxy to galaxy example with expansion or apparent expansion of the space between them, again the theory under discussion does not have light going missing by spreading out further - it has less ability to spread out if it doesn't have any expansion, but in any case the proposed mechanism of the theory involves manipulating time such that there isn't enough time to see all the light if you're looking from a place out of a gravity well, but if you go low into a gravity well you will then be able to more of the light because you have more time to see it in.

If you want to add further muddle to this instead of trying to fix it, I'll get out of this altogether and leave you to it.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #68 on: 20/06/2015 14:35:02 »
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.

Hi JefferryH, yes, you are describing the inverse square law proportional to distance.

A closed system universe being flooded with light because the light is trapped in the universe is "not" my concept.  I read it in a book written by a physicist.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #69 on: 20/06/2015 14:37:46 »
David

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.  The two have no bearing upon the mechanics of each other.  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 not saying that a clock that is proven to run faster runs slower or a clock that is proven to run slower runs faster.  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.

All the best to you.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #70 on: 20/06/2015 23:45:57 »
My theory does apply to "all" situations. More than the current theory does.

Then prove it fits a simple case, such as the one near a black hole where two rockets hover at different altitudes over it and their clocks tick at different rates relative to each other. Go through that and explain how your theory accounts for the higher clock ticking twice as many times as the lower clock during the time when the rockets are there.

Quote
Again you have some "huge" misconceptions.

It seems that whenever I try to fit your theory to actual examples of specific situations, I'm getting it all wrong. Well, why don't you do the work for me and provide a detailed worked example of a simple case.

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

I never said you do, but you rely on fragmentation for a faster running time to be seen as slower running than it really is.

Quote
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.

Given that light is the mechanism of a light clock, light is completely tied up in the length of a moment.

Quote
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.

And I'm just showing you that it doesn't work, and why it doesn't work, but you don't appear to want to know. Take the case I outlined at the top of this post. The proper time at the lower location is running at half the rate of the proper time at the higher location. When I talk about "proper time" I am using a name from SR, but it doesn't matter what you or I think of SR, there is a real thing which is being described by "proper time" and that is the rate at which clocks actually tick, so we're dealing with reality and not theory. The two rockets could be hovering in place for a year, and you could take a third rocket up and down between them to look at how proper time is running at those two locations and to see how much has gone by since your last visit to each rocket, thereby demonstrating that the lower one really is ticking at half the rate of the higher one. Now, you have a kind of time which you call "coordinate time", and that's horribly confusing because you've taken a term from a mainstream theory and misused it, which is why I've renamed it improper time. I do that not to insult it or you, but to indicate that it is some kind of inversion of proper time, and to allow me to use the term "coordinate time" to refer to what is normally called coordinate time. In SR/GR, coordinate time is the time of a specific frame of reference used for analysis of all events. In the scenario I'm describing, the coordinate time may be ticking twice as fast as the clock in the higher of the two rockets hovering over the black hole, and it can be measured by a clock hovering much higher over the black hole.

So, what is improper time doing at these locations? Is it matching proper time at each of them, or is it running fastest at the lowest and slowest of the highest as your theory appears to say? If you aren't prepared to give a straight answer to anything else, please try to give on to this.

You say that time races in a black hole and is slower in deep space, which ties in with improper time being an inversion of proper time (up to a point - it isn't clear why improper time wouldn't stop almost altogether in deep space). However, you also have a mechanism which contradicts that by allowing a clock to tick faster at higher altitude by some sort of weird association between its own mass and the mass of the planet it's further away from such that the gravitational effect on it is somehow stronger. This is bizarre, because the mass of the clock can vary enormously without any measurable effect on the rate of its ticking, thereby blowing away any imagined effect caused by the interaction of its mass with the mass of the planet. In the purest case of a clock, you have nothing more than light and no mass at all to be in an association with the mass of the planet below, and that again blows your mechanism out of the water. If you extend the principle that the further a clock is rasied above the planet the faster it will tick because of the strengthening of the association with its mass with the ever-more distant mass of the planet, then by the time you've put the clock in deep space, the association of masses will be ever higher the deeper into deep space it gets, so the clock will tick fastest in the deepest part of deep space, and yet you say it will slow down there.

So, please sort out your story and get rid of all the contradictions from it, then show me a clear description of the events in the scenario I've set out for you and explain how improper time operates there and how it runs relative to the three proper times of the three clocks (one of which is being used for a coordinate time). If you are incapable of doing this, they you clearly can't get your head around your own theory.

Quote
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.

And any lengthening of a light clock while not increasing the mass will demonstrate that there is no measurable impact of the mass on the timings produced. Two bits of glitter are all it takes to build a path for a round trip of light, and the light path could be a millimetre long or a mile long. The gravitational effect on the light half way between the two bits of glitter on a course a mile long is effectively zero, and it's effectively zero on the 1mm path too, so we're talking about an effect which has no impact on any timings made even if you measure for a billion years.

Quote
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.

So, apply that to the scenario with the rockets hovering over the black hole. You send light up from the lowest rocket to the next one and it's perceived as having half the frequency when it reaches that rocket as the people on the lower rocket perceived it to be when it was generated. When light is sent in the opposite direction, the opposite happens with the light being perceived as having twice the frequency when it arrives at the lower rocket than it was perceived as having by the people in the higher rocket when it was generated. The frequency is directly related to the rate at which time is running where the light was generated, so it is clear that proper time is running twice as fast at the higher rocket as it is at the lower rocket.

You talk about a shorter length of a moment and gravity compressing the length, but what kind of length? Time length? Is this just a description of proper time running more slowly deeper in a gravity well? If so, then that's fine, but why not just call it proper time and say it's running at a slower rate? But then, proper time stops in a black hole and runs fastest in deep space, which is the opposite of what you want. That's why I want you do go through the scenario at the top and spell out how your theory fits to it and how your moments are shorter or longer at the different locations.

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

That's because we aren't in a particularly deep gravity well, so we have to work with small differences, but they fit well with the mainstream theories.

Quote
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???

Yes - it's way too small to measure any effect from it.

Quote
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.

I have answered it repeatedly, but you aren't interested in the answer - the effect is infinitesimally small and not measurable. There is also no magic association with it and the mass of the Earth - the mass of the Earth is the only mass you need to consider and its impact is smaller the further away the clock is from it.

Quote
For the last time, no light goes missing David.

That depends on what you mean by missing. If it is there (passing us) but we cannot see it, that's what I'm reffering to as it going missing - not that it's still somewhere else and therefore we can't see it. My point is that it isn't going missing in any way that stops us seeing it - we see it all.

Quote
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.

That is why I keep pushing a scenario at you involving a black hole so that we have a deeper gravity well to discuss and much greater timing differences. In principle it's the same as using the sun or the Earth, but with nice big differences in timings such as double and half. That gives you something to tie your ideas about fragmentation to, but you won't do it. I try to do it for you, and you don't want to know. Stop running away from the implications of your theory and do the work to try to test it to destruction rather than going on fooling yourself that it works.

Quote
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.

What are you trying to do there? During an eclipse of the sun we can see space beyond the other side of the sun. We can see most of it after nightfall and before dawn too without waiting for an eclipse and there is no difference in the sky there than there is in the opposite direction from the sun.

However, if I assume that you're actually trying to say the whole sky is flooded with light that we can't see (which is what I use the word "missing" to describe), then you are not describing reality. We see the light coming from our own star without any of it going missing, so why should the light from other stars go missing? This is another case where you need to spell out what the lengths of moments are in different locations and how those enable all the light to be seen from one location while hardly any of it can be seen from another location at the same altitude in or out of a gravity well. As soon as you take this basic step, you should see that your mechanism doesn't work at all.

Quote
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.

This idea of associated masses is a fantasy. There is a huge mass and a tiny mass, and all the measurable effect is caused by the huge mass while the tiny mass can be varied by many magnitudes (and recuced to zero) without having any impact on the timings. Why do you want to keep pushing this dead idea? Varying the clock mass can have no measurable effect (meaning that a clock weighing 1 gram would probably keep exact time with a clock weighing a ton for a billion years), so how can you imagine it can serve as a mechanism for anything useful in a theory that's trying to account for huge effects?

Quote
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!

And it's not hard to see that this doesn't fit the facts. If you had taken on board what I've told you about frequency, you would understand that you can only change it by delaying the light and delaying it more and more over time (despite the lack of change to the space it's passing through if there's no expansion), while all the light that arrives is fully available for us to see, but you refuse to load that into your head and continue to repeat the same error instead.

Quote
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.

Your theory actually needs to deal with a delay in light reaching us, and an increasing delay as the other galaxies appear to get further away, which means that delayed light is piling up in space and we aren't seeing it not because of anything time's doing where we are, but because the light hasn't reached us yet.

Quote
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.

Not that rubbish again! There's a question in my mind as to whether a clock would run slow or at full speed at the centre of the Earth, but the answer is probably already known by others - I just haven't seen the relevant experiments that settle the matter. I was hoping someone reading this might know and supply the answer, but no one sane will still be reading all this. I get the impression though that it has been determined that a clock at the centre of the Earth would run slow, and it's clear that GR says it will. I'd just like to see experimental verification of this before I label it as a fact, but that doesn't mean it isn't already an established fact. However, that question has very little relevance to a situation where you're dealing with a clock at different heights above the Earth's surface where both gravitational pull and gravitational interactions decrease with greater altitude. If you want a higher clock to run slower than a lower one at some point, that isn't going to happen - space probes have tested it over and over again, and right out to the edge and near to the centre of the solar system.

Quote
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.

Discussing it is fine, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out where your theory conflicts with the established facts (not theory). If you aren't prepared to take it on board when your theory contradicts the results of experiments (or even contradicts itself), then the discussion is rendered futile from the outset because it's just an exercise in wishful thinking with you failing to make an honest attempt to test your theory to destruction.

Quote
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.

What is tedious is trying to show people something they are determined not to see. The horse has been taken to the water. It's now up to the horse to decide how thirsty it is.

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

I think you need to work on the logic before you worry about the maths.
« Last Edit: 20/06/2015 23:58:41 by David Cooper »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #71 on: 21/06/2015 02:09:58 »
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!
« Last Edit: 21/06/2015 20:36:06 by timey »

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #72 on: 22/06/2015 00:19:47 »
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 )

I have no idea what any of that means. That's why I'm asking for a very specific analysis of the black hole and hovering rockets scenario to help clarify things.

Quote
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.

I don't have a chart, because I can't make out what you're on about from that description.

Quote
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.

I have set up a situation where two rockets (A and B) are hovering over a black hole with the clocks on the higher one running twice as fast as the clocks on the lower one. I've put a third one (C) much further out, perhaps in deep space so that it doesn't need to use any energy to hover at all but will just sit there, and its clocks are running twice as fast again. What I want you to do is give me some kind of indication as to what imporper time is doing at these locations, and I don't need exact numbers from you. Rocket C's clock is recording time at a rate which we can call 1. Rocket B's clock is recording time at a rate which we can call 0.5, and rocket C's clock is 0.25. The black hole's proper time is doing 0. These numbers are the number of ticks we will get at those locations relative to our coordinate time (which we take from rocket C's clock). What I want you to do is give me approximate values for improper time at those locations compared to the coordinate time. If this requires you to know the weight of the rockets, you can consider each one to weigh ten tons, and the black hole can weigh 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. You can change those weights to any values you prefer - I just wanted to give you a feel for the kind of numbers involved. Here's an example of the kind of information that I would like you to supply, shown as a table:-

C      B        A     black hole
Proper time       1     0.5     0.25        0
Improper time     0.5   0.25    0.5       1000

Those are wild guesses on my part, but I want to see your wild guesses. I want to see where they increase and decrease in size. It's the direction of change I'm most interested in and not the actual values themselves, although it would be really helpful to get some idea of the scale of the differences in the rates of improper time at these different locations too.

Quote
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.

That means that you are using this imagined interaction to speed up the clocks the further away they are from the black hole, to the point that all your values should match up with proper time, the clock in deep space being imagined to have the strongest gravitational interaction with the distant black hole. Now, if we could get that established we would be making progress. Let me just assume for the moment that we have established that then. If we vary the mass of the rockets, do the rates of improper time then vary at the rockets. Proper time at the rockets will be changed by the mass differences, but to such a small degree that you wouldn't be able to measure it in perhaps a billion years with their mass being multiplied by ten. If we reduce their mass to zero, again there would be no measurable difference to proper time. Light itself it a clock with no mass, so there are lots of locations similar to those of the rockets where these clocks are ticking without the presence of any mass, and they share the same proper time as the clocks in the rockets at the same distances from the black hole.

Now, here's a crucial point which I want you to consider very carefully. There is a lot of dust in space, and that dust has mass, so if you imagine that the speed of light is different in light clocks in the rockets where there is mass and the speed of light away from the rockets where there is no mass, then that will cause optical effects wherever there is dust, every tiny particle acting as a lens and scrambling the paths of light that goes past them. This would destroy our view of the stars by scattering light all over the place and giving us nothing to see in the night sky apart from a blurry moon and sun. If you try to avoid this by having a large difference in the rate clocks tick at based on differences in the tiny local mass such that a bit of dust has no recognisable effect even on light travelling many lightyears, then you will have a huge effect on improper time depending on mass differences made to the rockets, in which case they cannot stay in sync with proper time. We have done experiments that show that proper time is not affected by local mass differences (the rocket mass) in any way that can be measured, so improper time will wander away from proper time and contradict it, in which case improper
time will lose its connection to the local speed of light and to any kind of normal clock. The only kind of clock which would keep imporper time would be one built to do so deliberately by applying your rules to generate values which don't relate to anything other than your rules.

Quote
...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.

They are hovering and are therefore stationary throughout, as is the black hole.

Quote
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.

There is no fragmentation, so it doesn't matter what it supposedly does. Not a single wave or tick or event of any kind goes unseen, and all the energy is accounted for.

Quote
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.

Light is a clock. Its frequency is its ticks.

Quote
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?

There's nothing odd about it. You can include it in your calculations if you want and you will get the same answers because the difference will be so tiny that it isn't worth bothering going to the trouble of allowing for it. You are fully free to add it into all your calculations if you wish - it is fully correct to do so but will make no jot of difference.

Quote
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.

Proper time is directly caused by the local speed of light (and speed of travel if travel is involved, and length contraction in the direction of travel). There may be length contraction involved when there is a lot of mass present (or a curving of spacetime to fit more space into the same apparent amount of space).

Quote
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?

Something extremely fast happens in deep space - light travels through it at maximum speed. In a black hole, proper time slows down because light slows down (on a round trip, and it can't even make a round trip once it is inside the event horizon). That slow speed of light on a round trip doesn't mean it is low in both directions - it may be extremely high inwards, and matter may get close to matching its speed too on the way down as it approaches the centre of the black hole, and the speed of light all the way in may be just as high as the speed of light in deep space. That proper time stops in a black hole only refers to a stationary clock that is not falling inwards.

Quote
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.

I haven't grasped your entire theory yet, but the parts which you have managed to get across so far have revealed things that are wrong and do not work. If you think those things do work, you need to look at the reasons I give for saying they don't work and show me that my reasons are wrong.

Quote
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 stand ten metres away from a friend and make a clicking sound once a second, your friend will hear a click once a second. If you want it to appear as if you are moving away from your friend while you both stay still (with no expansion of the space between you) and you are going to go on making one click per second, you need to do something to the space between you to cause the clicks to be delayed, and each click must be delayed more than the one before it. This means you need an extraordinary property of that space that the speed of sound (or light - we could do the same thing with flashes of a torch) will reduce continually, for as long as the apparent expansion is to continue, which may be forever. As you stand there clicking (or flashing) the clicks (or flashes) in the air ahead of you begin to pile together closer and closer, moving slower and slower, closer and closer, slower and slower, forever. Without a mechanism to control that, your theory does not explain anything about the apparent expansion of the universe at all.

Quote
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!

It's an attempt at logic - I'll give it that, but it's woeful.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2015 00:23:52 by David Cooper »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #73 on: 22/06/2015 17:39:39 »
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...in between a mixture of potential kinetic energy and relativistic momentum your proper time is further mathematically influenced (on my study list) and then, because of our observations of redshift, this then is where "your" dark energy steps in!  Your fabric of expanding space, that is expanding the universes actual distance.

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/longer 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!
« Last Edit: 22/06/2015 23:32:23 by timey »

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #74 on: 23/06/2015 01:05:42 »
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***

That's good to hear - it means you've ditched your exaggerated role of the mass of the clock, so improper time will match proper time and run at maximum speed in deep space and slowest when the clock is stationary at any point to the inside of the event horizon of a black hole. That is progress.

Quote
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.

So it's not affected by gravity, but it's affected by gravity. Right, I get it.

Quote
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")

You can stretch it and contract it all you like, but the frequency isn't going to change unless you add or remove a constantly-changing delay. The only thing that will change is the perceived frequency due to the different speed of light and the effect that has on local proper time.

Quote
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...

But the frequency doesn't change (it's impossible for it to do so), and proper time runs faster in the weaker gravity field. If improper time matches up with proper time, the the same must apply to your theory.

Quote
...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.

How can you possibly run that through your head without it flagging up an error? If the Earth is further away, the gravitational pull is reduced. The mass of the clock remains the same, so the combined gravitational effect is lower. What sort of bonkers maths are you doing here to come to the opposite conclusion? Do you somehow imagine that because the mass of the clock is now bigger in relation to the gravitational effect of the Earth that this leads to a greater gravitational effect on the clock? If so, you should be able to have the same impact by increasing the mass of the clock, but if you change the mass of the clock from one gram to one ton, you won't be able to measure any difference in its tick rate, whereas if you move the clock further away from the Earth to reduce the gravitational pull to the same extent, you'll have no trouble detecting a difference in tick rate.

Quote
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.

Not once you add in your complication of this weird association between the mass of the clock and the Earth, because that breaks it.

Quote
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.

Inefficient? If you have easier ways of working out the same numbers, you've found something of value.

Quote
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.

I wouldn't worry about the mass of the Earth - the black hole is capable of slowing proper time to half or a quarter of its normal rate for the rockets, so it doesn't matter whether it's a hovering rocket or a hovering Earth that we're using near the black hole as the mass of the Earth in such a situation is so trivial that it can be ignored.

Quote
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)

It's tied to the speed of light on a round trip, and going with the movement of whatever it is that's serving as a clock.

Quote
"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.

It's all very well saying that, but without diagrams and numbers I find it impossible to decode that.

Quote
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.

While your model has to create a pretence of the same expansion in a manner for which your model has no mechanism at all.

Quote
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.

I'm using the black hole in exactly the same way as a planet, so your objection is irrelevant. All the rockets are far above the event horizon.

Quote
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)

For goodness sake! You are representing a galaxy. Your friend is representing another galaxy millions of lightyears away from you. You say there is no expansion, so they are not moving apart in your model. You flash at your friend once a second and your friend recieves one flash every two seconds. None of the flashes pass your friend without being seen. What must happen is that the flashes pile up in the space between you with their travel being slowed more and more over time, and I mean by that that each flash passing any given point between you and your friend will pass through that point slower than the flash before it did. That is what your model would need to do, but it provides no mechanism for doing this.

Quote
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")

As I said, you have no mechanism to control this progressive slowing, so you will have to add a direct equivalent of dark energy to your model to provide the missing functionality.

Quote
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.)

You can't observe how bunched up the waves of a photon are - all you can do is count how many of them pass a point in a given length of time to work out the frequency.

Quote
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...

What makes you think gravity is controlling the expansion of space? If you blow something up with a small bomb, the fragments will fly apart at speed. If you blow something apart with a big bomb, the fragments will fly apart with greater speed. The gravitational pull of all the fragments on each other will slow the flying apart of the fragments a little, but it is not driving the expansion in the distances between the fragments - momentum of the fragments is the driver.

There is a difference with the universe though in that the fabric of space is being expanded by the separating of the fragments rather than the fragments merely moving through it, so it isn't an exact parallel, but the point is that gravity has a tiny influence on the expansion, most of which is driven by the movement of the fragments away from each other. If you think of it in terms of our three space dimensions being wrapped up into the 2D surface of a balloon, the balloon is expanding explosively and is causing the galaxies to fly apart. That momentum of the galaxies outwards (not in any direction that exists within the universe) or some mathematical equivalent (for the balloon is only an analogy) is driving the expansion, while gravity is very weakly applying the brakes and dark energy is pumping more air into the balloon to accelerate the expansion.

Quote
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)

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.

Quote
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!

When I show you that you've got something wrong and you continue to push it even though it doesn't work, that's pretty wearing. You doubtless feel the same way when you keep failing to recognise that the thing you're pushing has been shot to pieces, so all you can do is put it forward again and again. However, everything you need to understand why your model doesn't work is already here in this thread and some day you might catch up.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #75 on: 23/06/2015 12:29:37 »
David

You said:

"That's good to hear - it means you've ditched your exaggerated role of the mass of the clock, so improper time will match proper time and run at maximum speed in deep space and slowest when the clock is stationary at any point to the inside of the event horizon of a black hole. That is progress."

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.

You said:

"So it's not affected by gravity, but it's affected by gravity. Right, I get it."

Chain of command, cause and effect... Gravity causes time... Gravity does not "cause" light.  Light does not "cause" time.  But gravity does cause time and time "affects" light.  No you clearly don't get anything.

You said:

"You can stretch it and contract it all you like, but the frequency isn't going to change unless you add or remove a constantly-changing delay. The only thing that will change is the perceived frequency due to the different speed of light and the effect that has on local proper time."

What causes your speed of light?

You said:

"But the frequency doesn't change (it's impossible for it to do so), and proper time runs faster in the weaker gravity field. If improper time matches up with proper time, the the same must apply to your theory."

The frequency of light does change as it leaves a gravity field, it gets lower. Pound Rebka.
My time dilation/contraction due to gravity field only matches up with current thinkings proper time (with regards to mass in elevation) in the earth bound scenario, which you would know if you could actually "read" information given.
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.

You said:

"I wouldn't worry about the mass of the Earth - the black hole is capable of slowing proper time to half or a quarter of its normal rate for the rockets, so it doesn't matter whether it's a hovering rocket or a hovering Earth that we're using near the black hole as the mass of the Earth in such a situation is so trivial that it can be ignored."

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:

"Quote
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)"

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.

You said:

"When I show you that you've got something wrong and you continue to push it even though it doesn't work, that's pretty wearing. You doubtless feel the same way when you keep failing to recognise that the thing you're pushing has been shot to pieces, so all you can do is put it forward again and again. However, everything you need to understand why your model doesn't work is already here in this thread and some day you might catch up."

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...
« Last Edit: 23/06/2015 15:20:17 by timey »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #76 on: 23/06/2015 17:59:28 »
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.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• 1505
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #77 on: 23/06/2015 19:34:46 »
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.

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

Here's a prime example - you simply can't get your head around how frequency works and what it is. There is no expansion involved in this case and no difference in relative speed between emitter and detector, so the frequency is fixed. Until you fix that hole in your understanding, your theory is one of magic and not of physics.

Quote
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.

You have opened up a question and I have answered it for you. You may not like the answer, but there is again no fix for that unless you are prepared to make your theory conform to the universe instead of the other way round.

Quote
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.

It isn't current thinking that I'm calling on to show that your theory is wrong, but experiments which contradict the claims of your theory. That is how science is done. I am comparing your theory with the universe and am not bringing in other theories at all.

Quote
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?

We don't have access to a black hole or anything else sufficienly dense and heavy to generate such severe time dilation, but we can do experiments near lighter bodies where the effects are not so dramatic. I used rockets hovering over a black hole in order to create nice numbers to work with, but I could have done it with rockets hovering over the Earth instead with much messier numbers with loads of digits after a decimal point. If you want to translate everything I said from one scenario (untested) to another one (tested), go ahead and waste your time doing so - the things I was trying to get to through the thought experiment will still apply to the translated version. What you are doing here is diverting the discussion all over the place to try to avoid being pinned down at any point where your theory is shown to be wrong, muddying the waters as much as you can, and you're doing this because you are so emotionally attached to your theory that you cannot bear to let go of it. This may not be intentional, but a subsonscious process which is blocking your way to a better understanding.

Quote
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.

Of course it feels the gravity field of the black hole. Why on Earth would you think I think otherwise. My point is that there is no magical association between a little bit of matter and a big bit of matter which makes the little bit of matter experience a greater gravity field the further away you move it from the big bit of matter, and there is no magical mechanism for making significant change to proper time at a tiny piece of matter by varying its mass within a range where te tiny piece of mass remains small when the actual thing doing 99.99999% of the job of controlling proper time at that location is a monster piece of mass nearby. Again, this is something that you refuse to accept time and time again, but it has been tested repeatedly by actual experiments.

Quote
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.

Do you seriously think that's an answer? Your model is expanded by distance in time, is it? Why don't you do some little calculations with that and see what happens. I gave you a thought experiment where you and a friend would represent galaxies, and I still don't know if you understand how to do simulate this kind of thought experiment in your head. One of you flashes a signal to the other, continually. Each flash has to be delayed more than the one before it if the galaxies are to be seen as moving apart while they're actually staying still. This means the improper time is going to have to change somewhere between the two galaxies, or perhaps along the whole path between them, but what is causing this change in improper time? Why is it changing in one direction rather than the other? Why is it changing at an accelerating rate rather than at a constant or decreasing rate? What is controling these changes in the rates of improper time, and the changes in the rate of the changes? You don't have mechanisms for any of these things, but you simply assert that the distance in time is growing. What is driving that growth when the only mechanism you have makes no distinction between driving that growth, doing the exact opposite, and not changing the distance in time at all? But you can't see the problem - you are incapable of noticing that you have not provided any mechanism for this. Think about it - you have a mechanism which sets improper time at different locations based on associations of masses which do all sorts of weird things and ultimately come up with values which you assert are the same as proper time, and that will lead to fixed improper time rates at all locations, but to create the illusion of expansion you need changing improper rates of time rather than fixed ones. Your model only creates fixed ones, so how can you think it accounts for apparent expansion?

Quote
I said:

"Quote
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)"

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?

When did I say it was a pile of pants? Do you not understand the meaning of a sentence which says "sensible or a pile of pants"? One of the things you keep doing is providing descriptions which are take too much effort to interpret because of the way you use expressions like "will relate into velocity per time factor". When I suggest that you provide clear examples with numbers to illustrate what you're talking about, you won't do so. Not once have you done so. I have to drag numbers out of you by asking over and over again, and so far the only time I've got them it was with the improper time values which turned out to be identical to the proper time values even the way you calculate your improper time should lead to them varying wildly according to the mass of the clock while proper time hardly varies at all with mass of the clock. That's what really annoys me in this whole conversation, because you are playing avoidance games in order to try to prevent your theory being tested, and whenever I manage to nail a piece of it down you throw all your toys out of the pram. I can't be doing with that any more, so this is going to be my final post in this thread.

Quote
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 have put many hours into trying to help you, but is has become clear that you aren't prepared to consider the possibility that there is anything wrong with your theory - all you want is to have someone tell you it's right. Well, okay then - it's right. If you wear everyone else down the same way, maybe they'll all tell you it's right too, but they'll quietly go on using other theories which can actually produce the right numbers to match the real universe.

Quote
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.

The difference between my approach and yours is that I look at what the universe actually does and then try to account for it, but you want the universe to conform to your theory and simply deny that it doesn't do so in any area where they conflict.

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

If a horse isn't thirsty...

Quote
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.

What current thinking? I'm talking about experiments, and experiments are theory-independent. Current thinking doesn't matter a jot. Experiments show us how proper time behaves. Experiments show us what frequency is and how it is tied to proper time in its generation and the way it is perceived. It's all about experiments.

Quote
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.

If they are pushing the same ideas as you, then their ideas are broken in the same way as yours, but all I have to work with here are the ideas that you are presenting.

Quote
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.

Feynman said something along the lines of, it doesn't matter how beautiful a theory is, if it conflicts with the results of experiments, it's wrong. I'm simply testing your theory against the results of experiments.

Quote
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.

I am not going to ignore the experiments which don't fit your theory.

Quote
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.

If I find something that's impossible, I prefer to get straight to the point and say so.

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

Where disdain has crept in, it's the result of you failing to take anything on board. You simply won't accept anything I say at all, which makes discussion impossible.

Goodbye, and good luck with your ongoing explorations into physics and any other work you may be doing. I've probably wasted 20 hours on this in the hope of saving you from wasting 2000. You need to change your whole approach and start trying to destroy your theory in order to test it instead of defending it by avoiding all the issues. I have shown you clear errors that you have made, but you cannot see them. I can't make you see what you are determined not to see.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #78 on: 24/06/2015 01:23:59 »
Thank you David and goodbye and good luck to you too.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #79 on: 24/06/2015 01:26:13 »
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.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2015 03:15:35 by timey »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #80 on: 25/06/2015 02:05:45 »
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.

Your theory revolves around light and yes light does have to escape gravity. The shift in wavelength shows this as does the effect of an event horizon on light. If your theory doesn't predict this then it cannot be correct.

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.

I just can't make sense of this. You need to be clearer in you language. At first glance it looks like you have things backwards. Especially when saying "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".

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.

The rest is just too confusing. Get back to me when you either clarify your description or come up with some mathematics. I see David gave up on you. No one else appears interested any more so take this opportunity to bounce ideas off me because I don't mind.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #81 on: 25/06/2015 14:09:14 »
No one else appears interested any more so take this opportunity to bounce ideas off me because I don't mind.

Thank you JeffreyH.

Current thinking has a gravity field gravitationally effecting light via the exiting of atoms into a change of frequency.

My model states that the gravity field has a gravitational effect of "pull" on mass, and that a gravity field is the "causation" of time.  The different strengths of a gravity field, that are caused by the magnitude of mass present in relation to distance, cause different rates of time, ie: longer or shorter lengths of moment.
Gravity has no effect on light as light is massless.  It is "time" that has an effect on light, and it is the changing from one length of moment to another length of moment that is exiting atoms into a change of frequency in the light.

The Pound Rebka experiment states that light has a lower frequency when leaving a gravity field than it does arriving into a gravity field.

Therefore my model states that the rate of time for the "locations" in space on the progressively outwardly expanding radius from a gravity field, (body of mass), will be running progressively slower time.

(as opposed to the rate of time for anything that ""has mass"" placed on those radius which "do" run a minuscule faster rate of time.  We'll cover this relationship of mass near mass according to my model after we've got the light bit understood)

You are "almost" correct in saying that I am turning everything back to front.  That's along the right sort of lines but it's not "just" as simple as saying its current thinking backwards.  The mechanics are different.

If you can accept what I've said above on "an experimental basis" then we can proceed.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2015 17:30:23 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #82 on: 25/06/2015 22:22:18 »
Lol!  I'm far too impatient to wait and am now proceeding based on the assumption that you, or perhaps someone, "can" accept the remit of my model as set out in post above...

Ok, we are travelling light from one earth like mass A to another earth like mass B.  We think they are x distance apart.
So we start the light speed vector at earths light speed, 299 792 458m/s from mass A.  The vector is travelling in a straight line directly from mass A to mass B.  After 1 second and 299 792 458 metres, we reduce the speed of light by the same proportion as the equation that increases distances, decreases those distances. (Please note that despite the fact that the next second will be longer in length, we are still travelling the following slower speeds of light against the length of an earth second, as a balancing factor, because the equation that increases distances uses earths speed of light in the equation, (please correct me if I'm wrong) this balance repeats in the next stage "length of moment" "distance in time" measurement)

This now reduced speed of light travels x amount of metres, we repeat the process and log the reduced distance travelled for every second until we reach mid point.  At mid point between these bodies of equal mass will exist the slowest speed of light.
Add up all the metres traveled per second up till mid point and double this amount to account for the symmetrical "from mid point to mass B" journey that increases the speed of light until it is at 299 792 458m/s again on arrival at mass B.

This will sum up to be a shorter distance than we thought x distance was between these bodies of mass.  In my model, this is the "actual distance" between these masses.  We can draw this as a straight line between the two masses.

Now we must work out how much earth time this journey took.  Every second that has passed for the light has increased in its length.  The length of a second being increased by the same proportion as the equation that increases distances, increases those distances.
We must work out the magnitude of the slower seconds that the light has passed through and relate that back to how much time this would add up to in earth length seconds.

We then travel the light from mass A to mass B for the sum of this amount of time at earths speed of light, (balancing factor again) 299 792 458m/s and calculate how much distance has been covered in this time.  This figure of distance should match up with the x distance we originally thought the masses were apart.  We can now draw this distance in a line perpendicular between mass A and mass B.  This distance is a "distance in time".

The "distance in time" is what we observe.  The "distance in time" is what a rocket would "have" to travel through.

Subtract the "actual distance" from the "distance in time" and that figure of distance is by how much "slow time" has expanded space in my model. (note I say space and not distance).

If you have followed up to this point then we can move on to applying Pythagoras (?) (and looking at light subject to inverse square law) with regards to these distances in relation to each other, the curvature of space and the effect of having a build up of slower time "midpoint" with regards to the light mass B observes and "where" in this "space" mass B will observe the light as arriving from.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #83 on: 26/06/2015 19:40:54 »
Of course it is somewhat of a conundrum as to how to define the "length" of an earth second.  My best guess is to use the existing nanosecond division of an earth second in the hope that 1 nano second isn't going to be "too slow" for the representation of a whole second concerning the reference frame in which all the mass of the universe is in one lump, but we can always go on to subdivide the nano second if necessary.  By attributing a nanosecond an associated length, like say 1000th of a mm or anything you like really, we are then in a position to increase or decrease earths length of moment via the distance equation.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #84 on: 27/06/2015 05:01:54 »
Why don't you just say that all the contributions from gravitational sources external to the earth are summing up to continually remove energy from light. Thus the redshift. That is what you are hinting at. That there is no expansion in the universe. Why complicate it? You could even argue this from the Hubble data. Making light slow down in the voids is nonsense. Nature isn't that complex. The laws of nature are ultimately simple. This brings to mind the epicycles of planetary motion.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #85 on: 27/06/2015 09:47:06 »
Well yes, of course I "could" just say this and leave it at that.  The Hubble data "can" be interpreted as such, as you suggest.  But... in my quest for a theory that explains the universe in totality, this explanation still leaves us flying rockets that don't time mesh unless we add an outside element of time, black holes that "lose" information, an uncertainty principle that cannot be penetrated, dark matter, a Big Bang that we cannot explain the origins of and a Big Crunch or ultimate freeze that we just guess at.

By including such an expansive scale of variant to the occurrence of the rate of time, synonymous with the force of gravity that is the "causation" of time in my model, I believe that this will give the mathematics the "reach" to get behind these mysteries.  My model needs there to be a vastly escalated speed of light to plug into e=mc2 for the reference frame whereas all the mass of the universe is in a black hole that explodes/jets particles across the expanse of distance that my model "needs" to "avoid" the necessity for an inflationary period, or to provide the energy for this inflationary period (whichever way you wish to view it)

The implications of redshift suggest that not only is the universe expanding, but that it is accelerating in this expansion.  Therefore the notion that an unquantified "fabric" of space is expanding at a rate that is faster than the speed of light, (what happened to universal speed limit?) by means of this unquantified force of dark energy, is currently held forth.

Slow time in space gives an alternative reason for this redshift observation across the so called "voids".  It gives "causation" in terms that do not include the addition of any "force" that is not observed.  It just requires that one considers that "time" is a "force", a force twinned with gravity and that slow time creates an "illusion" of distance in space.

If slow time can be thought of as nonsense, yet you believe that nature is simple, then how do you rate the complexity of an expanding fabric of space?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #86 on: 27/06/2015 10:02:01 »
Your conclusion must be that light travels faster the nearer to a gravitational source. Therefore clocks in orbit run slower than those on the surface of the earth. That is patently untrue. At the event horizon of a black hole time would approach an infinite speed. You do realize this don't you? Time dilation has been proven to exist as suggested by experiment and not as you would have it. You have shown no mathematics to back up any of your claims. Without it your theory is all hot air with a little smoke and mirrors thrown into the mix. Unless you provide numbers you will be ignored. If those numbers don't predict the outcomes seen via experimentation your theory will be written off. So when are you going to provide those numbers? A ball park figure?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #87 on: 27/06/2015 10:29:02 »
With all due respect JeffreyH, I have, at every point and juncture, made it clear that I do not know how to do these maths.  I can "visualise" the means for doing them and what the results would be as an observation but I do not "understand" how to manipulate the mathematical symbols.  If I did know how I would have calculated my logic before "sharing" it as mentioned in post 1.
(Lee Smolin's last book said I shouldn't let that put me off)

This thread is an "explanation" of my visualisation in the hope that someone who "can" manipulate mathematics "may" be interested as mentioned in post 1.  I am learning more by the day but it will most likely be "quite some time" before I "can" produce these figures that you mention.

Yes I do realise that "time" would be running "very" fast in black hole.  I need it to run fast.  However, my alternative to increasing or decreasing the rate of time by means of the equation that increases distances, is to look at the rate of time being subject to the inverse square law as gravity is.  This would reduce the rate of time for a black hole but I suspect it might expand slow time in space too much.
(Edit... my mass near mass logic also poses the possibility of reducing the rate of time for black hole to more "feasible" proportions.)

Also..,please note that my model states that clocks tick faster in elevation...No deviation from experimental data there.

Yes, you are right, this piece of logic needs maths to go with it to actually even be classed as a theory.  I can't do them as of yet!
Do you fancy helping?
« Last Edit: 27/06/2015 10:50:06 by timey »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #88 on: 27/06/2015 14:03:21 »
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.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #89 on: 27/06/2015 14:13:15 »
So you have L equaling 1 light second which is a distance the same as a light year. Then t equals time. So we then have $$c = \frac{L}{t}$$. You say the distance increases as we move away from a gravitational filed which is counter to accepted wisdom. However lets carry on. $$\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$ but that is no good we need $$\gamma = \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$ and then we have $$c = \frac{\gamma L}{t}$$. I have already shown you a graph of this.
« Last Edit: 27/06/2015 14:16:10 by jeffreyH »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #90 on: 27/06/2015 16:43:45 »
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.

Ok, the speed the light is moving at is in respect to the distance travelled and is relative to the strength of a gravity field.  No need for any observer.

With regards to maths in next post.  As far as I know a light year is the distance it takes light to travel a years worth of seconds at 299 792 458m/s.

You said:
"So you have L equaling 1 light second which is a distance the same as a light year. "

What I have is 1 time second, which at earths speed of light incorporates the light travelling 299 792 458 metres.  A slower speed of light will travel the light a lesser distance if travelling that lesser speed of light against an earth length second.
The speed of light will remain constant against these longer lengths of second, if you transpose these longer lengths of second back into how much this time would add up to in earth length seconds, but this will produce a longer overall distance travelled by the light than the light covered by the speed of light being progressively reduced.

I'm not sure where the light year has come into the equation. (Scratches head) but if you have decided that mass A and mass B are 1 light year apart, in this scenario for 50% of the lights journey, every second that passes the lights speed will reduce and for 50% of the journey it will increase again. Then this distance is offset in a distance travelled at earths speed of light against the time it would take in slower seconds, translated into that length of time in earth seconds.  (Everything is much "closer" together than it appears... in my model)
This would involve a series of calculations that cannot be covered in one algebra equation.
Professor Susskind mentions a computer program called "Mathematica" which "would" prove useful in that it is programmed to equate the increasing distance equation as well as the GR Field equations.
Do you have this program or similar?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #91 on: 27/06/2015 23:39:46 »
In my model, because the earth is in orbit with the sun and the sun is the greater mass, the rates of time for the sun and the earth will not be exactly the same, but they will be very similar, so we can say (for now) that the speed of light is the same for the sun as for the earth.

The sun is observed on the horizon as appearing at a position higher than it actually is because the light is "bent". There is a degree of "arc" to this bend.  My model states that an "arc" of bend is due to light traveling through space expanded by slow time.  The sun should have an "actual distance" and a "distance in time".

The sun is 8 earth mins away.  Based on the fact that in the calculations I've outlined regarding measuring distance, after "midpoint" we are dealing with a mirror image, we would only have to calculate 4 mins.  It would then take 240 calculations of reduction in speed of light to work out the "actual distance" to the sun and 240 calculations of increase in length of second to work out the "distance in time".

If we can draw the "actual distance" as a straight line from the sun to the earth and then draw the "distance in time" measurement bent perpendicular from the sun to the earth...if the degree of arc matches up at-all would be the question...

I am aware that this displacement of position is "current thinking attributed" *entirely* to the effect of the earths atmosphere, but we see a similar position displacement in stars that are further away due to "current thinking gravitational bending" of light during solar eclipse.
« Last Edit: 28/06/2015 10:35:46 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #92 on: 16/07/2015 11:33:59 »
I've since been looking at a lot of photographs and videos of sightings of double suns in the sky and the degree of arcs involved.

http://m.space.com/11038-china-suns-video-unexplained.html

I also found this:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47663.0

...and wondered if Pmb ever got his photo's from the woman in the taxi.

My logic (theory) states that slow time in space will cause a light source to be viewed from a position on a higher degree of arc than its actual source is located at... causing us to believe that the light source is further away from us than it really is.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #93 on: 01/08/2015 00:43:58 »
Just finished reading Roger Penrose "What came before the Big Bang, Cycles of Time"...

Mr Penrose...Sir!  If the world was such that I were to be given three wishes, one of them would be to speak with 'you' on physics!

Penrose gives description of his idea referred to as CCC.  This theory through close examination of the second law of thermodynamics depicts the universe as a cyclic phenomenon as does my "piece of logic".

Penrose states that the implications of GR are that the far progressed future of our universe ends up in a mess of black holes and, because everything is expanding away from everything else, these black holes will eventually evaporate due to Hawking's radiation.  That particles will decay by certain 'means' (too complicated to describe here) into zero rest mass to then smoothly cross over from the end of the current universe into the next 'aeon', being the beginning of a new universe. (Please excuse my oversimplification)

Much of Penrose's argument translates to my piece of logic... However it is just after where the implications of GR state that the far progressed future will become a mess of black holes that Penrose and I part company.

My logic states that the universe is not expanding in 'distance' and that this mess of black holes will merge into one black hole that is the singularity that becomes the Big Bang of the next aeon via its jets.  Whereas Penrose and I 'more or less' rejoin company...but, I suspect, without the need for any 'unobserved' rest mass considerations.

But... and this is the Big But, the only logical conclusion considering observation for the universe being non-expanding lies in time going slow in space as presented in the above posts.  There is evidence whereas 'massless' light is concerned within the redshift phenomenon to support this notion, however the evidence that clocks tick faster in elevation is a fact without contention...

'But'... can we consider the 'reason' that clocks tick faster in elevation to be 'set in stone'?
« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 01:09:37 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #94 on: 01/08/2015 21:51:17 »
Dark energy considerations aside, gravity is responsible for the motions of mass and we currently are in understanding that gravity has an effect on time...

I have not yet heard of a theory in physics that gives the phenomenon of time a role to play in the actual workings of the mechanics of the universe, or that gives indication to what in the universe causes time to occur.

In my quest for causality I do not think it an unreasonable notion that gravity is the causation of time, or to make the statement that in the absence of time motion cannot occur.

A distance is measured by how much time it takes motion to get from start to finish.  If we are measuring a distance that is comprised of areas in which time goes slower or faster than that which we experience on earth, then the distance travelled will not be as long or as short as we would perceive the length of this distance to be by earth standards.

The velocity that far flung galaxies expand away at is proportional more or less to the distance they are thought to be from earth.

As mentioned in post above... if the universe is not expanding in distance then the only logical conclusion to explain observation is if time runs progressively slower in a weaker gravity field.

If time runs slower in space then we will perceive the distance in space to be greater than it actually is when travelling across it.  If the speed of light is a variable that is only constant in its ratio to the length of a moment...then special relativity/time slowing due to motion will also slow a travellers progress across space if the traveller up-keeps his/her velocity as per mph because this velocity will progressively rise in its percentage of the progressively slower speeds of light as per longer moment.

Of course I realise that it is extremely unlikely that I am right in my thinking here... but if I am then it would actually be possible for us humans to cross space much faster.

If my logic is correct then time 'is' the mysterious dark energy that physics is looking for.  Our universe would not be expanding in distance, it would be expanded in slow time.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #95 on: 02/08/2015 01:41:16 »
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.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #96 on: 02/08/2015 01:50:20 »
One last pointer. You need to determine a way to reconcile why $$\frac{G(-m)}{r^2}+\frac{Gm}{r^2} = 0$$ should result in an expanding universe.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #97 on: 02/08/2015 03:21:23 »
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.

Firstly, how can you make such a sweeping statement as to categorically state that "time is not caused by anything" ...?  You are taking the view that time is merely a measurement such as a metre.  A metre does not define distance.  Distance is a fundamental property of our universe.  We can measure velocity in miles per hour or in kilometers or in whatever, but either which way you measure it, velocity is a fundamental property of our universe.  Distance has a causation.  Velocity has a causation.  Why is time any different?

Secondly, I do not understand why I could benefit from studying the role of dark energy in relation to the metric.  As far as I understand the role of dark energy is assigned to the constant and accelerating expansion of the universe...in distance.  I am suggesting that the observed acceleration of redshift is time related, that distance, apart from gravitational shifts due to cosmological changes, is a constant and that the universe's expansion and its curvature is a result of progressively slower time in space.

Thirdly, I am not obsessed by time.  Lee Smolin wanted a theory on time. I read his book, took all the factors, juggled them as if it were a 'who done it' and came up with this piece of logic.  That is all... No obsession.  Just logic.  Probably not the 'right' logic, but logic non the less.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2015 10:44:53 by timey »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• 1355
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #98 on: 02/08/2015 03:26:17 »
One last pointer. You need to determine a way to reconcile why $$\frac{G(-m)}{r^2}+\frac{Gm}{r^2} = 0$$ 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.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4054
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: A theory of inverted time dilation
« Reply #99 on: 02/08/2015 17:00:59 »
One last pointer. You need to determine a way to reconcile why $$\frac{G(-m)}{r^2}+\frac{Gm}{r^2} = 0$$ 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.

Exactly.