0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.
Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?
Timey said, "Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass. Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?"It is like compressing a spring. The coils get closer together. The coordinate space in which the wave is moving has been compressed by gravitation. Hence length contraction in the direction of both motion and the field itself. This is why you need to study the mathematics. There is no shortcut to understanding.
Quote from: timeyYes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass.That is incorrect. In the first place there is no reason for the gravitational field to be of any particular strength. The frequency can be different by a given amount merely by choosing the right place in the field to place it. In the second place, whether the frequency is higher or lower, always measured locally, depends on where it is relative to the observer. If its above him at higher gravitational potential then it will run faster. But if its below him it will run slower. And its the gravitational potential which determines the frequency, not the strength of the field. This is complicated stuff. The full treatment is in my website here:http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_red_shift.htmQuote from: timeyWithout the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?That is also wrong. This has nothing to do with relativistic mass. It only has to do with the frequency associated with the particle. Where did you get the idea that it had something to do with relativistic mass?
QuoteWhat stops it being flooded with light then if the light isn't absorbed? Where is it going?Nowhere...we just don't see all of the "time" that the light is happening in.
What stops it being flooded with light then if the light isn't absorbed? Where is it going?
QuoteBut we see all the light regardless, so we're not missing any of the picture.If you consider that the universe is an open system expanding universe then yes you are right. If the universe is a closed system non expanding universe then no, there is a "lot" of missing light.
But we see all the light regardless, so we're not missing any of the picture.
Lol, lol, lol. The news? Bah! And yes they can regarding the moon, it's called "high tide" and "spring tide"...
Yes, and the frequency is higher in a stronger gravity field, currently attributed to light having relativistic mass. Without the concept of relativistic mass being associated to the massless photon, why would light have a higher frequency in a stronger gravity field?
And the black hole adds no energy to the action of its fundamental compression abilities because it's time has stopped and all energy and information concerning it and the mass it consumes are now "lost"?
QuoteMy question was about what causes the apparent expansion in your model - you need a direct equivalent of dark energy to drive it.Goodness me! It is "time"... gravitationally induced time dilation/contraction that causes the appearance of an expanded universe in my model.
My question was about what causes the apparent expansion in your model - you need a direct equivalent of dark energy to drive it.
Gravity and velocity affect both time and distance on a sliding scale and in balance with each other. Therefore the "absolute" or "actual" time of the "original Minkowski space time matrix" can be deduced by calculating both types of time dilation and their affect on each other to establish the "absolute/actual" time of the traveler or the mass involved. The parameters of the 3 distance factors, ie: the 3 dimensions of space in the "original Minkowski space time matrix" are predetermined and not withstanding any shift in gravitational relationship within the sytstem, can be considered as "constant". The fact of the variable speeds of light, whereas the speed of light is only constant to the ratio of a length of a moment, acts as a constraint on the system. Your rockets time factors will always mesh no matter what gravity field you travel them in, at whichever velocity.
"Time" is the cause of the further expansion in my model.
QuoteThis needs two different answers to deal with it from the perspective of different theories. In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is only an apparent slowing of time caused by gravity, so a clock that is slowed or stopped by it is only measuring an apparent time while real time races on at full speed.What is the causality of this "real time" ?
This needs two different answers to deal with it from the perspective of different theories. In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is only an apparent slowing of time caused by gravity, so a clock that is slowed or stopped by it is only measuring an apparent time while real time races on at full speed.
You ask about time due to motion slowing, so that's another case - if a space ship could travel at the speed of light, it could travel many lightyears while recording zero passage of time, and yet it could be systematically eroded away by collisions with dust. Again there are two explanations for this for LET vs. SR, and again SR has a get-out clause in that it's impossible for a space ship to reach the speed of light (while LET again has no trouble handling the impossible case).How does LET handle this impossible case?
My point being: what evidence do we have of this fabric? It's all very well saying such and such would happen if there were such a fabric...
in any case, just how sound waves can be analogised to light waves in that situation is beyond me.
My theory states time dilation due to gravity field as responsible for the appearance of an expansion of distance, which is actually not an expansion of distance but an expansion of time. (There is no associated puzzle attached to this explanation)
QuoteWe're trying to see something using tools which interfere with what we're trying to see - that's all.No, the maths that you are using to determine what you are seeing do not have enough "reach" to understand what it is that you are seeing.
We're trying to see something using tools which interfere with what we're trying to see - that's all.
If you do use a clock, you have an associated mass, the relationship of which relative to the main body of mass, the earth, not being taken into account in the current equations.
(Please someone correct me if I'm wrong)
Yes, ... No light goes missing! We just can't see it. We don't have the "time".
QuoteIf you want to be able to work out how an absolute time is behaving, you can only identify it by freeing yourself of the governance of the lightspeed-restricting fabric in which you are operating. So long as you are operating within that fabric, you are unable to tell if a any clock is slowed by movement through that fabric.Not if you have a determined gravitationally induced length of moment to work your calculations our from through your movement through reference frames of variable lengths of moment. "Time" being this "fabric" of space.
If you want to be able to work out how an absolute time is behaving, you can only identify it by freeing yourself of the governance of the lightspeed-restricting fabric in which you are operating. So long as you are operating within that fabric, you are unable to tell if a any clock is slowed by movement through that fabric.
QuoteHow can you work out your velocity? You can't tell if you're moving or not.Of course you can tell if your moving or not. Why would you think otherwise, that's stupid. You can work out what speed you are going by taking your x miles per earth hour and adding on the same percentage of itself per reference frames across space as the percentage by which the length of a moment in those reference frames increases
How can you work out your velocity? You can't tell if you're moving or not.
The fabric of space that you refer to, in my model...this fabric is time and how can you place time outside of time?
Why would you consider the physics behind the Big Bang to be inaccessible to science? In my model the black hole phenomenon is responsible for both the Big Crunch (although not in the reversal format) and the Big Bang. If my inverted time dilation due to gravity field maths pan out, these maths should explain the whole scenario. It is only the "way" that you are thinking about the universe that affords you this attitude of "acceptable" unexplained-ness.
QuoteThere are mainstream theories which have been invalidated and which should be dropped too, but the big problem with yours is that you have proposed an undetectable kind of time which has no useful role because it supposedly explains the disappearance of light which isn't going missing in the first place.Again, goodness me! I have told you how to detect time dilation due to gravity field. From the local gravity field . I've told you what it's use is. To measure time and distance in time. I've told you that these differences in time ratios across distance will filter out the light that is flooding this closed system universe. The light is not missing, it's there but we don't see it. Our length of moment is too short to view all of the length of a longer moment, therefore we will not "see" everything that is going on.
There are mainstream theories which have been invalidated and which should be dropped too, but the big problem with yours is that you have proposed an undetectable kind of time which has no useful role because it supposedly explains the disappearance of light which isn't going missing in the first place.
I think you are becoming confused and muddling my model up with the current model. No light is going missing in the current model because everything is very far apart and still expanding in actual distance. Please note: in a closed system non expanding universe, light does not have anywhere else to go, savvy?
It is true that I have not provided figures, however my piece of logic is incredibly simple
Fact is you just can't visualise the concept of a moment of shorter length not being able to fully observe a moment of longer length or that a longer length of moment will produce a longer distance in time that is not an actual distance.
Time dilation/contraction due to gravity field it is then. ... found at every coordinate "in" my model of the universe. It's use is described above.
Again, it does not do anything to the light. A closed system universe being flooded with light is not my concept, it's been used as an argument against the universe being a closed system. In my closed system model this light is not apparent even though it's there because we cannot view the entirety of a longer length of moment from within a shorter length of moment.(Stop confusing my model with other models David, this might help no end, it would certainly save you from having to type that bit "the missing light that isn't missing" again.)
Can you give me some indication as to what you need to program "one little bit of it"?
From what I understand there are computer programs in operation designed for messing around with the parameters of mass, gravity field, time dilation and other factors found in our universe. One can simply change the settings and press "go" and it simulates what would happen.
I have "given" an existing equation, the equation that produces these progressively increasing distances as the change in the settings of these parameters with time stopped being set at 0 gravity field. I understand that you need more precise figures, ie: percentages of the speed of light. As the speed of light is variable in my model, and I have already explained this, I suspect that I'd need to create new tensor maths for my model in order to provide you with the exact figures you'd need.
My model of the universe is the "only" model that I have ever heard of that does "not" introduce anything that we do "not" observe into the equation or rely on any factor outside of our universe, while getting the universe behind the Big Bang and giving cause for the universes collapse.
What specifics other than the maths am I avoiding please?
What is the causality of the time as recorded by observers in S1 and S2?What is the causality of the gravitational potential?What is the causality of the time recorded by the far away clock?On what basis does the C2 clock run twice as fast as the C1 clock?
<snipped HUGE quote> Hi DavidI'm sorry to say that having got half way down your reply, (the missing light again!) I find that I can't be bothered to finish it. You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive. My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.Because of some subject matter of yours that I have read, you have my remaining undying respect. Let's just leave it at that aye!All best, Vikki
Vikki - I'd like to make a request. In order to make the thread more accessible to reading would you please not quote an entire post? It takes up a ton of space and there's no reason for it.
You clearly do not have tha ability to disassociate my model from an expanding one, or be bothered to even try, and the disparaging remarks you make come across as bitchy rather than constructive. My time "will" be much better off spent concentrating on the maths I'm learning rather than trying to explain something to someone who actually doesn't really "want" to understand it.
Your model has to be able to handle an apparent expansion even if it isn't actually expanding - I was merely asking for the missing mechanisms to handle that, and you should be keen to supply them. If I didn't want to understand your theory, I wouldn't be pressing you to fill in the holes.
Now you have to show evidence that remote observers see the earth spinning faster.
Time is a product of gravity in my model. The gravity field determines the rate that a clock ticks at and it determines the frequency of light and atoms. (The GPS clocks tick faster because although they are located in a coordinate of a weaker gravity field, they are experiencing a greater gravity field due to the relationship of their associated mass with earth...IF ANYONE CAN TELL ME IF THIS RELATIONSHIP "IS" BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MATHS, I'd be grateful)
The events that we are looking at are the paths of light rays travelling towards us over reference frames of changing lengths of moment. We are not seeing every part of those light rays. We just see a small percentage of the light.
There is only "one" kind of time going on in my model, this is time due to gravity field.
In my model there is no overriding time aspect, no universal time. The only universal time is "the present". All reference frames despite their variable lengths of moment operate in the "present". (this being why it is not possible to view the entirety of the events of a longer length of moment from a shorter length of moment.)In my model all measuring of time motion and distance can be made relative to a gravity field, not relative to another observer.