[MattFaw]

Dark matter, dark energy and spacetime are the same thing. We will never view dark matter because it is spin energy in motion of c. Spin energy of c moves the electrons. This is why in GR light and the electron always measure distance of light travel the same in every frame. It is the dilation of energy affecting space distance for light and electron movement.

You have it exactly backwards because you are not following logic. What is dilation? It is expansion. c of space move the electrons and this causes space energy to expand. Dark Mass is the micro particles and dark energy is the spin of dark matter. Two different aspects of the same thing. The spin is what makes it fluid like. We are a part of that measurement so we can never measure c spin. We would need something faster than light speed to do that. Finding dark mass energy is an exercise in futility

Mass expands space to a less dense energy per volume of space. This is what causes attraction of mass. Mass is attracted to a larger volume of space with less dense energy.

Yes mass carries its dilated space with it and has a threshold to the more dense energy of massless space. But the accumulated dilation is evident in galaxies spinning as a disk of dilated energy. Dilation is the cause of light bending around macro mass (electrons, protons and Neutrons). Space energy density increase would contract the photon path not expand it. Relativity is correct. Its just not accepted for what it really describes.

Both voyagers appeared to slow down when they reached the edge of the solar system. Why? Because the density of energy increased at the edge causing the signal time to shorten. We incorrectly judged that to be the slowing of the voyagers. In reality it was just another observation of Relativity.

Relativity rules the universe by energy c and energy density differences by GR flow of the electrons in total mass. What causes electron flow? Something!!!! and not nothing! Fundamental energy is not the electron but what moves the electrons.

Gravity is simply mass being attracted to dilated space. Potential kinetic energy is a mass energy to a more dilated micro energy. Kinetic energy is the transfer of micro space energy between macro mass objects.

All mass creates an aura around it. The universe, a galaxy, a black hole (special aura), solar system, a sun, a planet, a person and the atom. That aura is the dilation of space energy. I believe this to be just an extension of Relativity different fro the main stream interpretation.

Hi GoC.  I agree with you that relativity is probably incomplete, but not broken.

I also agree that my metaphors (e.g. spacetime clinging to mass, spacetime being denser around mass) are imperfect, because they describe 4D phenomena with words that are usually only meaningful in 3D.

I am curious why you think that space dilates near mass (other than the Voyagers example).  It's possible that's a better way of describing spacetime's behavior, but I don't yet understand your metaphor's appeal.  Maybe you can give some other examples which support this interpretation?

best,

matt faw

[guest39538]

Hi GoC.  I agree with you that relativity is probably incomplete, but not broken.

I also agree that my metaphors (e.g. spacetime clinging to mass, spacetime being denser around mass) are imperfect, because they describe 4D phenomena with words that are usually only meaningful in 3D.

I am curious why you think that space dilates near mass (other than the Voyagers example).  It's possible that's a better way of describing spacetime's behavior, but I don't yet understand your metaphor's appeal.  Maybe you can give some other examples which support this interpretation?

best,

matt faw

Matt, do not get wrapped up into space time, space time only exists has a concept, it only exists between two points of mass, it is a virtual navigation system to represent journeys that have not been taken.

XYZ only exists of matter and time only exists of matter, space time is a n-dimensional  5th dimension solution to a problem, no more no less.

[guest39538]

Dark matter, dark energy and spacetime are the same thing.

No they are not,

[GoC]

Maybe you can give some other examples which support this interpretation?

Logic is the best option for understanding. Dilation in Relativity is just that dilation of space time. I say space time because I suspect time is of space and not mass. Why do you and many others suspect space as fluid? Motion of course. What is the motion of space? c of course is the motion of space. The electron is measured to be slower than a photon. How can something slower create a constant speed faster? So logically energy is of space and not mass. What moves the electrons? We measure time with electrons. Electrons from the same atoms tick at the same rate at sea level. Both mechanical and light clocks measure time equally at sea level. They are synchronized in the same frame but no longer synchronized when one changes frame. There is a constant that is adjusted by frames in both GR and SR. With GR it is dilation of space that changes the tick rate by increasing distance both the electron and photon has to travel. Dilation is strongest in the center of mass. Clocks tick slowest in the center of mass. So we have space time as energy of c to move electrons and photons. Dilation of space energy (necessary for flow) is the cause of time being measured differently between frames. Frames are both a SR and GR issue. Attraction is only a GR issue of mass being attracted to the most dilated position. Magnetism is the spin alignment of energy. Two separate issues of the same energy of what we refer to as time.

[Phractality]

Matt, do not get wrapped up into space time, space time only exists has a concept, it only exists between two points of mass, it is a virtual navigation system to represent journeys that have not been taken. XYZ only exists of matter and time only exists of matter, space time is a n-dimensional  5th dimension solution to a problem, no more no less.

X, Y, Z & T are names that we give to dimensions of the space and time that exist in our imaginations. We can carve those names into physical objects, like graph paper, in the real space-time that hosts the atoms we're made of; or we may type the names of coordinate axes into a computer program, where they control how data are stored in a microprocessor's transistors, as well as how the data are presented on a screen or in a VR helmet.

Now, if you had a VR helmet and a haptic feedback suit, you could make a pretty good match between the virtual space-time in the computer and the real space-time in which your body exists. You could even take that to the extreme and be absorbed into the Matrix. But the two space-times would still not be identical.

So we have this virtual space-time programmed into a computer, complete with Einstein's relativity, occupied by low-res digital imitations of whatever galaxies SDSS has mapped in 3D. We can zoom out to view our virtual observable universe as seen by a hypothetical viewer anywhere in the mapped region (bearing in mind that our view of distant galaxies may be a few billion years old, and an observer there would be seeing our galaxy as it was billions of years ago). We look thru our virtual Hubble space-telescope into our virtual universe; then we compare what we see there to what the real HST sees in the real universe . If we see discrepancies, we can tweak our virtual universe.

We can also zoom in on a virtual atomic nucleus in our virtual universe. But the picture in there is a blur because we can't resolve time or space that closely in the real universe. We are free to invent models which can be resolved arbitrarily small in both space and time. But we can only predict real world outcomes statistically. If the model predicts probable outcomes which are not a good statistical match to what the LHC detects, the model needs to be tweaked.

[Space Flow (OP)]

Dilation is strongest in the center of mass. Clocks tick slowest in the center of mass.

GoC, Without reference to the rest of your dilation theory which in some ways sounds right and in others I am not quite following yet, I want to point out something about this comment.
When something is at the precise centre of a compact mass, it is not feeling an attraction towards anything. Because the amount of mass on all sides is exactly the same. In your description ST is dilated yes. In mine similarly, there would exist at this point the lowest ST pressure possible. But clocks are not believed to run slower there. In fact it is believed that clocks would have their max run rate in that situation, just the same as if they are situated as far away from mass as possible in the middle of the biggest void in the Universe. Well that is the popular consensus and I must admit it seems to make sense.

[MattFaw]

Maybe you can give some other examples which support this interpretation?

Logic is the best option for understanding. Dilation in Relativity is just that dilation of space time. I say space time because I suspect time is of space and not mass. Why do you and many others suspect space as fluid? Motion of course. What is the motion of space? c of course is the motion of space. The electron is measured to be slower than a photon. How can something slower create a constant speed faster? So logically energy is of space and not mass. What moves the electrons? We measure time with electrons. Electrons from the same atoms tick at the same rate at sea level. Both mechanical and light clocks measure time equally at sea level. They are synchronized in the same frame but no longer synchronized when one changes frame. There is a constant that is adjusted by frames in both GR and SR. With GR it is dilation of space that changes the tick rate by increasing distance both the electron and photon has to travel. Dilation is strongest in the center of mass. Clocks tick slowest in the center of mass. So we have space time as energy of c to move electrons and photons. Dilation of space energy (necessary for flow) is the cause of time being measured differently between frames. Frames are both a SR and GR issue. Attraction is only a GR issue of mass being attracted to the most dilated position. Magnetism is the spin alignment of energy. Two separate issues of the same energy of what we refer to as time.

Hi GoC, thanks for your response.

I have to go back and look at Special Relativity again.  I know that clocks tick slower on fast objects than slow ones.  And space contracts at high speed, so measuring rods seem shorter (as viewed from a slower frame). 

I don't see why clocks would tick faster at the center of a mass, because there is where the speed is the least.  Gravity should be at its weakest in the center, because it cancels itself out from all directions.   (oh, now I see that Space Flow has given the same critique).

I would not say that "energy is of space and not mass".  I would say rather that energy (as in Einstein's E) is equivalent to mass, and space is the path upon which both energy (e.g. photons) or mass (e.g. electrons) can travel.  Spacetime, as I understand it, is basically potential.  It's just potential that can also be shaped and influenced by the mass within it.

I understand that c and spacetime are intimately linked, but I don't think that the movement of spacetime itself is related to c.  If, as Kip Thorne says, the earth is dragging spacetime along with it, and as Brian Greene says, the supermassive black hole is dragging even more spacetime with it, and also movement within clusters is facilitated by even larger flows of spacetime, then it seems like speed is a factor of the density of spacetime, how it fits into inertial frames that surround it, and how the adjacent spacetime is moving.  I think fluid dynamics, combined with GR, will ultimately be a good way of describing the movement of spacetime.

As for your mentions of electrons, I can't comment, because AFAIK, spacetime on massive scales doesn't easily translate to the behavior of it on small scales.  That's the basis of my video, that spacetime behaves differently, on different scales.  I would be hard-pressed to extrapolate from my view of spacetime as fluid, and come up with a prediction for particle physics.

best,

matt faw

[takso]

Spacetime is actually an endless evolving frequency cum becoming process in the cosmos.  We could liken the frequency to space and the becoming process to time because time is actually a dimension (indicator) for the becoming process and space is merely an expression for energy in play as per frequency (i.e. the number of occurrences or observations within a given time period or statistical category).

Frankly speaking, everything does exist at the same time under present-dynamism only.  The projectile movement of time as often experienced by our mind consciousness is purely due to relativity as well as the varying vibrational frequencies in play.  As a result, we tend to perceive things a little bit linearly, thus creating the delusion of past, present and future movement of time.  The conventional time that we involve ourselves with every day is a subjective and a relative time.  This means the time orientation is dependent on the observer (i.e. the subject’s mind) to provide the valuation on the other side of the object or matter.  As a consequence, the time conclusion varies among different observers or minds.   

Present-dynamism  =  frequency x becoming (space x time)

In the twinkling of an eye, all events or phenomena as observed by our mind consciousness would fluctuate and renew simultaneously and continuously.  Just like the gravity effects on earth for all different masses are the same (acceleration value, g = 9.80 m/s2) even though the rock strikes the ground before the feather per se.  However, the common pace of spacetime or present-dynamism is unconjecturable and it is mainly due its nature of beginning-less and end-less.  For example, despite the vast differences in the cultural development, the time zone and the locality, a Bushman in Africa and a modern businessman in America are both living concurrently in the 21st century under a common pace of spacetime or present-dynamism.  Literally, we could not discriminate or differentiate them by saying that the Bushman is from the past time and the modern businessman is a person living in the future time.  The distinguishing factor among them and their respective surroundings is merely their variable vibrational frequencies. 

In fact, the circumstances of duality or multiplicity as observed by our mind consciousness would be an obvious indication of all fluctuating vibrational frequencies arising in the cosmos.  This is because everything in the material Universe is made up of energy.  Atoms and molecules are made up of energy.  Our bodies, our clothes, our cars, our houses are all made up of energy but what makes them different is their vibration.  Energy is always vibrating at a different frequency under the influence of conditional phenomena.  Everything has its own vibrational frequency – our thoughts, our feelings, the rock, the table, the car, the animal, the plant, the tree, etc.  Even colours are merely expressions of certain vibrational frequencies. 

How does gravity work?
Visit : slideshare.net/buddhitakso/energy-web

[GoC]

MattFaw and Space Flow

I understand why you both would think acceleration has something to do with clock speed. This is incorrect acceleration just increases speed. It is the speed of mass that slows you clock right up to the speed of light where if it were possible to obtain that speed the electron flow would not move from its position in its shell. There is an equivalence between SR and GR. On the Earth surface we accelerate toward the center of Earth. The center of Earth is like an inertial ship at a constant speed So if there were a room in the center of lets say, the moon so we do not get trapped with molten rock issues, that is where the speed is the greatest, the clocks are the slowest and there is no longer any acceleration. The gravitational center represents the greatest inertial speed in equivalence with SR.

Deceleration and acceleration is indistinguishable in space but clocks tick faster towards deceleration and slower towards acceleration. As you can now determine acceleration is not the cause of clocks slowing there tick rate.

Lets take an old well for an example. Using a standard wave length like a sodium lamp. Light produced in the bottom of the well will be red shifted when detected at the top of the well because it was produced in a more dilated position of space. The experiment that proves this should remain constant to the center of mass.

This I why I suggest mass is attracted to the most dilated position of space and mass dilates space. Dilation is a reduction of energy density that mass occupies. Mass expands its electron distance traveled by the same amount light has to travel extra. This is why mechanical and light clocks tick off the same time in the same frame. 

[Space Flow (OP)]

MattFaw and Space Flow

I understand why you both would think acceleration has something to do with clock speed. This is incorrect acceleration just increases speed. It is the speed of mass that slows you clock right up to the speed of light where if it were possible to obtain that speed the electron flow would not move from its position in its shell. There is an equivalence between SR and GR. On the Earth surface we accelerate toward the center of Earth. The center of Earth is like an inertial ship at a constant speed So if there were a room in the center of lets say, the moon so we do not get trapped with molten rock issues, that is where the speed is the greatest, the clocks are the slowest and there is no longer any acceleration. The gravitational center represents the greatest inertial speed in equivalence with SR.

Deceleration and acceleration is indistinguishable in space but clocks tick faster towards deceleration and slower towards acceleration. As you can now determine acceleration is not the cause of clocks slowing there tick rate.

GoC. somehow you have misunderstood me. I have never claimed that acceleration has something to do with clock speed. Clock speed or the rate of time is always relative speed dependent. Acceleration on the other hand is a change rate in Geodesic.
Now there are different ways to effect the change rate of Geodesic and only one of them ends up with an increase of speed to a distant observer. You can do it by standing on the surface of a planet and allowing the spacetime to accelerate past you. This will not change your speed or your clock rate even though you are in accelerated frame.
Or you can stick a huge rocket under your feet and accelerate past your geodesic at a certain rate and that will change your speed and clock rate. To a distant observer of course.
The only other thing I find I have to point out is that standing on the Earth's surface we are not accelerating towards the centre of the Earth but in exactly the opposite direction. But to a distant observer we are not changing our speed so we are not changing our clock rate.
When you say clocks tick faster towards deceleration and slower towards acceleration. By who's frame of reference? Every change rate of Geodesic that results in a change of relative speed can be seen as an acceleration or a deceleration, depending on your frame of reference.
I'm afraid that without specifying a frame of reference none of that makes any sort of sense.
Time, space and speed are relative. Only the observed speed of light remains constant.

[MattFaw]

GoC, Space Flow makes an important point.  Our usual frame of reference (in the gravitational well of the earth) is one of acceleration.  That is what we experience as normal.  Gravity = acceleration, and so that is what we know as reality.  And that's a big part of why it's so hard to intuit no-gravity motion, and why it's so useful to check out the NASA videos showing experiments on the ISS.  It is only when we start to understand no-acceleration, which is roughly speaking, the nature of most objects in space, that we can start to have a sense of what motion means in space.

best,

matt faw

[guest39538]

Matt, do not get wrapped up into space time, space time only exists has a concept, it only exists between two points of mass, it is a virtual navigation system to represent journeys that have not been taken. XYZ only exists of matter and time only exists of matter, space time is a n-dimensional  5th dimension solution to a problem, no more no less.

X, Y, Z & T are names that we give to dimensions of the space and time that exist in our imaginations. We can carve those names into physical objects, like graph paper, in the real space-time that hosts the atoms we're made of; or we may type the names of coordinate axes into a computer program, where they control how data are stored in a microprocessor's transistors, as well as how the data are presented on a screen or in a VR helmet.

Yes you understand space-time ......unlike others

[GoC]

MattFaw and Space Flow

No matter what anybody thinks they understand about relativity it is based on c as the maximum energy available for motion. Inertial speed or geodesic position is just the SR and GR equivalence. The greater your inertial speed the less energy is left in c. Your flow of electron orbitals are reduced by inertial speed and clocks slow as a fraction of available c energy left as SR. GR the distance electrons orbit increases with mass increase due to increased dilation to slow your clock rate relative to the energy of c. you must understand relativity in the context of c being constant and finite. This means all that is available. E= mass x c to move electrons and c available from space energy for motion itself. There is no motion or time without c.

When you are asked relative to what it is always relative to c. Two different positions of mass is just the geometry of mass. We can never view mass were it actually physically exists using the finite speed of light because when the image reaches our eyes the physical position of an object has changed.

There is a depth of understanding of relativity that needs to be understood to make claims about observations related to relativity. Until we are all on the same page various ideas will emerge to confuse the issue of relativity sending us down a branch on the tree of knowledge.

[MattFaw]

MattFaw and Space Flow

No matter what anybody thinks they understand about relativity it is based on c as the maximum energy available for motion. Inertial speed or geodesic position is just the SR and GR equivalence. The greater your inertial speed the less energy is left in c. Your flow of electron orbitals are reduced by inertial speed and clocks slow as a fraction of available c energy left as SR. GR the distance electrons orbit increases with mass increase due to increased dilation to slow your clock rate relative to the energy of c. you must understand relativity in the context of c being constant and finite. This means all that is available. E= mass x c to move electrons and c available from space energy for motion itself. There is no motion or time without c.

When you are asked relative to what it is always relative to c. Two different positions of mass is just the geometry of mass. We can never view mass were it actually physically exists using the finite speed of light because when the image reaches our eyes the physical position of an object has changed.

There is a depth of understanding of relativity that needs to be understood to make claims about observations related to relativity. Until we are all on the same page various ideas will emerge to confuse the issue of relativity sending us down a branch on the tree of knowledge.

Hi GoC,

I agree that c is an integral part of spacetime, that it is fundamental.  All time and motion is relative to c, I agree.

I have never heard the suggestion that a relativistic mass increase is due to the electron orbits increasing, and I don't have any commentary on that.

I don't understand what your disagreement is.  Is there something Space Flow has written or that I said in my video, that you take exception with?

best,

matt faw

[Space Flow (OP)]

GoC, Similarly to Matt, I too agree that everything is limited by c.
The way I view it and I believe this is just another way of stating what you are saying is described best by this diagram.
[diagram=769_0]

Like Matt I have never thought about Electron orbits changing, but I imagine that in a relativistic way, if an outside observer was to look at a reference frame that to him was time dilated and space contracted, then that is what he would see. That is what relativity equations tell us after all.
On the various ways you have presented spacetime dilation close to massive objects certainly connects to me well enough with my theory of space-flow, as Matter, by sucking in Spacetime would create the equivalent of a lower pressure system in it's vicinity. That is of course what accounts for any matter moving without acceleration as all matter would move towards the lower pressure area just to balance Global spacetime intake.
Different approaches coming to similar conclusions to me says that we are converging on a truth.

[MattFaw]

Like Matt I have never thought about Electron orbits changing, but I imagine that in a relativistic way, if an outside observer was to look at a reference frame that to him was time dilated and space contracted, then that is what he would see. That is what relativity equations tell us after all.
On the various ways you have presented spacetime dilation close to massive objects certainly connects to me well enough with my theory of space-flow, as Matter, by sucking in Spacetime would create the equivalent of a lower pressure system in it's vicinity. That is of course what accounts for any matter moving without acceleration as all matter would move towards the lower pressure area just to balance Global spacetime intake.
Different approaches coming to similar conclusions to me says that we are converging on a truth.

I like the way you approach issues like "low pressure area".  I agree, and wonder if there may be weather-like phenomena, due to the fluid dynamics of spacetime.  Are there phenomena that are roughly equivalent to 'hydrophobic' or 'hydrophilic'?  Etc. 

Like Douglas Adam once said: "eddies in the spacetime continuum"!

[Space Flow (OP)]

I like the way you approach issues like "low pressure area".  I agree, and wonder if there may be weather-like phenomena, due to the fluid dynamics of spacetime.  Are there phenomena that are roughly equivalent to 'hydrophobic' or 'hydrophilic'?  Etc. 

Like Douglas Adam once said: "eddies in the spacetime continuum"!

Matt, I am still pinching myself. In the years that I have been making a nuisance of myself by badgering family, friends, workmates, and acquaintances, with this concept, to finally find someone who not only get's it but then immediately  applies it as a thought experiment to come up with almost exactly what has gone through my own head.
Absolutely mind blown.
It has been my assertion for a long time now that to properly model flows, currents, eddies, etc in spacetime, we already have super computers, running the right software. Those are the systems we currently use to model the atmosphere for weather forecasting.

As to your speculation on Hydrophobic qualities, about this time last year I spent a bit of time thinking about that. I came to the obvious conclusion that applied to spacetime that would ascribe "Anti-gravitational" qualities to anything that could display hydrophobic like behavior to ST. I therefore dismissed the idea that such a substance could exist.
However at that time it sent my thought onto an idea about anti-gravity. This idea should be very close to your initial thinking on spacetime as well as my extended flow theory. It relies on GR Frame Dragging coupled with our idea that spacetime can have movement relative to spacetime.
Spacetime as far as we know so far can only be manipulated in any way by matter. The way that matter moves dictates the way that spacetime moves and vice versa. So I thought what if we set up relativistic Gyroscopically moving superconducting plasma. We set this plasma spinning with the spin access horizontal to a massive compact objects spacetime flow, and we set up a number of these devices so the plasma going upwards is facing the inside of a ring formed by these devices. That should create a spacetime flow through the agency of Frame Dragging in the centre of such a ring flowing upwards from your compact Massive object. If you then stacked a couple of these rings on top of each other you could in theory fall off this massive body just by stepping into the ring, with absolutely no acceleration. Of course such a device can't be used on a body that has an atmosphere as you would just pump it out into space.
I don't know if I painted that picture coherently enough for you to visualise it. If not I suppose I will have to draw it.
Such a thing could of course work both ways and give a smaller mass traction on spacetime itself, just like wheels give cars traction on the ground. The only requirement is electricity.
Don't take this too seriously of course but there have been some experiments with gyroscopic devices that have allegedly shown differences in weight dependant on orientation. I don't think any of those claims have been officially confirmed, but allowing spacetime movement coupled with manipulation through frame-dragging could certainly make it possible.
All that from considering impossible seeming hydrophobic-like behavior of spacetime.

As to Hydrophilic-like behavior; Perhaps I should be asking you about that. How would you describe the interaction layers of differently (Speed wise) rotating layers within a Galaxy? There would surely have to be interface regions where strange mixing patterns would occur. Which leads me on to your Douglas Adam reference to eddies. These can and do exist all around us. We don't have to go very far to closely analyze them, and in fact we are making extensive use of such eddies at the moment. That is what La Grange points are. The differences in shape between them can best be explained hydrodynamicaly, when considering them as interfaces between the moving frame-dragged vortices that represents the planetary flows interfacing with the frame-dragged Solar flow.
If we also take the obvious different flow rates of spacetime in a galactic disk as a model and apply it at solar system level, "yes" the effect may be extremely small but it may be enough to explain part of the Pioneer anomaly, and the extra speed gained by several craft on gravity assists past the Earth. They have accounted for everything they can think of under current understanding of physics and still end up with a small extra speed component that remains unaccounted for. Could it be a difference in spacetime flow compared to ambient spacetime? Eddies caused by the Earths passing? Apparently it only shows up on certain approach angles.
Could this turn into a modelled prediction of SpaceFlow that can't be made by curvature theory?
Just speculation.

[Space Flow (OP)]

GoC, that last diagram was terrible. Here's a better attempt.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[MattFaw]

Space Flow, likewise great to talk to someone who's thinking along the same lines.  Although I think you've put a lot more thought and attention into this; it's been just a side issue for me (because of my doc).

Good point about the Lagrangian points as an eddie.

I also like your - is it an elevator?  The stacked rings.

I've been playing with the idea of a space ship that is able to curve space immediately ahead of it, causing the ship to "fall forward".  Just wild speculation at this point, and I don't have a mechanism for its operation, but it's fun to let my mind play with the ideas.

best,

matt faw

[Space Flow (OP)]

I've been playing with the idea of a space ship that is able to curve space immediately ahead of it, causing the ship to "fall forward".  Just wild speculation at this point, and I don't have a mechanism for its operation, but it's fun to let my mind play with the ideas.

Are you at all aware of the Alcubierre Metric?
If not look it up. It may be listed as the Alcubierre Warp Drive. It is exactly what you have been thinking about and I believe some testing has even been done already.