[timey (OP)]

ERM Nope!  I had this idea when reading a book 7 years ago.  'The trouble with physics' Lee Smolin.  Then I read a lot of books, (30 or so) and in reading these books, books written by physists, not only for the general public, but with physisist's in mind, I have not, since then, found any reason WHY my idea could not be a possibility.  And still haven't!

All any 'qualified' person can tell me is that 'Nope sorry, it just can't work that way'...  But NO-ONE can say why it wouldn't, just puts me down.

I then drew a 'to scale' geometrical diagram.  I have measured my diagram physically.  The speed of light takes the same 'time' to travel a parralax distance, as it does to travel it under the remit of 'slow time' in space by the remit of my notion and formula.  I have only been coming up with numbers since I measured my diagram.

The numbers have emerged from my diagram, that I came up with after a whole seven years 'after' I had the idea ... So, no Alan, I did not pull numbers out of my arse thankyou! 

Am I having Fun?  Its very interesting to think about things from different perpectives.  I enjoy that.  But no, it is really, really horrible to be completely discounted by people.  I can understand why some of the brilliant people of the past in physics had such a hard time in their lives, (Not that I think myself brilliant, but I'm not stupid either)

My diagram is producing constants, (close in numbers to the ones I thought) and I will continue to try and grasp mathematics until the day I die in order that I may get to the bottom of it.

Clearly, I will be doing this without the help I was seeking here.  Just been wasting my time I guess.  Not a mistake I'll be making again.

[Space Flow]

Well there you go.
I have said it many times. Mathematics where it does not derive from real physical observations, is just bedtime stories designed to give you nice dreams.
Don't follow random number sequences because you sense a mathematical pattern. Instead find the physical geometry you are trying to describe, and the right numbers will come out of it.
Unless your numbers describe relations between physical processes, they are just numbers.
Good luck with it. You are obviously determined to show something.

[timey (OP)]

Well there you go.
I have said it many times. Mathematics where it does not derive from real physical observations, is just bedtime stories designed to give you nice dreams.
Don't follow random number sequences because you sense a mathematical pattern. Instead find the physical geometry you are trying to describe, and the right numbers will come out of it.
Unless your numbers describe relations between physical processes, they are just numbers.
Good luck with it. You are obviously determined to show something.

Erm, physical geometry.  Geometrical diagram.  Am I missing something here?

[timey (OP)]

But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...

When you measure a cesium atom in elevation, are you measuring what time is doing in the space the atom is located, or are you just measuring what time is doing for the atom located in that space?

[puppypower]

If the laws of physics are the same in all references, the bond length for hydrogen gas is an absolute that will be the same in all references.

but it is known to stretch!

New Journal of Physics 5 (2003) 124.1–124.8 (http://www.njp.org/)

"....The calculated frequency for the free H2 molecule is 4190 cm−1......"

I agree the hydrogen H2 molecule bond is not static, but will vibrate. However, once we define this vibrational distance range, this is invariant and will be the same in all references. If we see distance contraction, due to special relativity, and the vibrational distance range of H2 has shifted to say 1/2 normal size, due to distance contraction, but the H2 does not change phase, we are not looking at H2, but are seeing the impact of relativity on its energy signal.

To prove this to yourself since the laws of physics are the same in all reference, try to make H2 with double or half the bond length in the lab, while not changing phase from a molecular gas. It can't be done, except with a trick that will not be common to the universe.

Space-time and energy are complementary, in the sense, that both contain only the units of distance and time. But the H2 molecule contains mass, distance and time. You can't see a this 3-D affect, with only the 2-D filter of space-time. However, you can see 2-D affects, related to the 3-D, such as the energy profile.

Where the confusion is, can be explain below. Below is a 3-D image of a ball. It looks 3-D, due to the shadowing and highlights. However,  if you touch the computer screen, one can use another sense to feel that it is not really 3-D. It is a spatial image or illusion that can fool the eyes and brain.  What we infer from the energy signal in 2-D, due to relativity, can create an image of 3-D.  I call this a spatial illusion; 2.5-D. It is not 3-D (laws that are same in all references).

[Colin2B]

But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...

This forum is hosted by TNS Cambridge University, but the forum is open to anyone and my understanding is that the University doesn't have a team of experts standing by to give definitive answers.
The quality of answer will depend on the knowledge of the person who answers. Alan, Evan , Chiral I have faith in, the box??

[Ethos_]

But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...

This forum is hosted by TNS Cambridge University, but the forum is open to anyone and my understanding is that the University doesn't have a team of experts standing by to give definitive answers.
The quality of answer will depend on the knowledge of the person who answers. Alan, Evan , Chiral I have faith in, the box??

Ha,ha,ha,ha,,,,,,,,,,,good one Colin, best laugh I've had for a long while...............

[Colin2B]

Sorry Ethos, I accidentally left you off the list - result of time pressure I assure you

[timey (OP)]

But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...

This forum is hosted by TNS Cambridge University, but the forum is open to anyone and my understanding is that the University doesn't have a team of experts standing by to give definitive answers.
The quality of answer will depend on the knowledge of the person who answers. Alan, Evan , Chiral I have faith in, the box??

Yes.. I was hardly thinking there was a panel or anything.  I'm sure 3 of the people you mention might make attempt at reasonable answer.  But Chris is the one who is in contact with theoretical physists on the radio, and presumably comes into contact with physicists who do not comment upon this site...

Its an interesting question and forms the basis of the 'physics' of my idea.

[Ethos_]

Sorry Ethos, I accidentally left you off the list - result of time pressure I assure you

Actually Colin, I can't hold a candle to either Alan, Evan, or Chiral. These three continue to impress me with their knowledge and the ability to express it in a manner that the reasonable individual can understand. As for that other fellow, the evidence is overwhelming.

[Ethos_]

Sorry Ethos, I accidentally left you off the list - result of time pressure I assure you

I think you may have misinterpreted the reason for my laughter, what I was so amused about was your mentioning of Alan, Evan, and Chiral in the same sentence with "Thebox".

If that be the case, and others have misinterpreted my laughter, I would extend my apologies to Alan and Evan and also to Chiral. My hasty reply is my error and I accept the responsibility for that mistake.

[alancalverd]

If I recall correctly, timey's famous diagram  is a graph of a parabola. This is indeed the path an object would take if launched from a much larger object at less than escape speed, and it is of passing interest to note that the horizontal axis can be time or distance if the gravitational field is effectively parallel.

That would possibly explain the source of the "r" numbers, and indeed their arithmetic relationships, but it is entirely Newtonian and nothing to do with general relativity.   

[jeffreyH]

If I recall correctly, timey's famous diagram  is a graph of a parabola. This is indeed the path an object would take if launched from a much larger object at less than escape speed, and it is of passing interest to note that the horizontal axis can be time or distance if the gravitational field is effectively parallel.

That would possibly explain the source of the "r" numbers, and indeed their arithmetic relationships, but it is entirely Newtonian and nothing to do with general relativity.

And that is the crux of many wannabe's problems with relativity.

[timey (OP)]

If I recall correctly, timey's famous diagram  is a graph of a parabola. This is indeed the path an object would take if launched from a much larger object at less than escape speed, and it is of passing interest to note that the horizontal axis can be time or distance if the gravitational field is effectively parallel.

That would possibly explain the source of the "r" numbers, and indeed their arithmetic relationships, but it is entirely Newtonian and nothing to do with general relativity.

Now we are getting somewhere!  Exactly... Inverted Time Theory has got bog all to do with relativity.

Yes...it is Newtonian!  Except that unlike Newtonian mechanics it does explain the perihelion of mercury,

The reason why it explains the perihelion of mercury, is because the measurements of GR, and the measurements of ITT, take light, travelling at the speed of light, the exact same amount of 'time' to cover both the GR distance, and the revised shorter distance of ITT.

This quite simply is stating that the distance of GR is stretched, not as a distance, but as a time measurement of dilated time.  Reversing this concept, it states that a length contraction is instead a time contraction.

That light, in both of these instances, is travelling at the same speed, but in slower, or faster rates of time.  That because GR, on the basis of the fact of a caesium atom runs faster in elevation from a gravity field, states that time is running faster in space...  ITT states that time is only running faster for the atom, not the space it is located in.  This concept is reflected in the fact that lights frequency reduces in a reduced gravity field.

Simple stuff really!

Of course we do have to mention GR in the workings of ITT, but only as a working theory that works, and therefore any new concept definitely needs to be checked against it.

P.S.  A word of advice Jeff... I always check when I am making a statement about someone else, whether or not the same statement applies to myself!

[Space Flow]

Erm, physical geometry.  Geometrical diagram.  Am I missing something here?

Sorry timey.
By physical geometry I am referring to observations of reality and how an idea explains that. Rather an idea explaining some geometrical drawing on a piece of paper that is not shown to connect to reality, but just generates or not nice patterns.
Every part that you talk about has to show how it connects to the Universe not to mathematics.
If you believe that any of what you have put forward does that than the problem is mine as I have not been able to make the connections. Your numbers have to me seemed to contradict each other and I can not see how they refer to a real system.
I do not mean this comment to be discouraging. As I said I accept that the shortcomings may be mine in that I have not been able to see what you see.
Good luck with it and keep learning.

[timey (OP)]

You say a representation of reality as if we already have one.  What we have is the universe we look at, and that is reality.  Then we have our explanation of how this reality works.  GR and Quantum are our best representations of our reality that we observe, but they fall a long way short of fully representing reality.

Not sure what there is to misunderstand about what I'm saying really.  It's pretty simple.  In looking at the gravity wave experiment, they expect the length of the poles to contract in a length contraction caused by a slight increase in gravity.  I'm saying that the poles are not contracting, it is the journey 'time' of the light that is measuring those poles that is contracting.

In that the world believes that an increase in gravity field slows time down, physics has taken on board the notion that an actual length of matter will contract, and reversing the concept, that a distance of space will dilate.  Looking at a significantly more changeable 'inverted' time dilation phenomenon, in addition to GR time dilation remaining as is, we can match a distance's dilation to a time dilation, and a length contraction to a time contraction.

I've only being 'doing' maths since just before Christmas.  These are the first maths I've 'ever' done.  If I had gone to school and could do maths, I wouldn't be seeking any help.
So...  I'd say it is highly logical that my maths will be a bit funky.  Thanks for re-confirming it though!
However, to say so, geometry is geometry is geometry.

Thanks for the good luck wishes, and in return, I urge you not to become discouraged yourself...  I hope you keep learning too!

[alancalverd]

  This concept is reflected in the fact that lights frequency reduces in a reduced gravity field.

Which, as I pointed out sometime ago, is exactly the opposite of what happens.

[timey (OP)]

  This concept is reflected in the fact that lights frequency reduces in a reduced gravity field.

Which, as I pointed out sometime ago, is exactly the opposite of what happens.

I must be totally misinterpreting this link then.  Lights frequency does not reduce in a weaker gravity field?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

[alancalverd]

I see your point. I've always considered redshift as resulting from the stronger field at the source (or en route) rather than the weaker field at the receptor. I think this is a more useful approach as it allows us to make inferences about the mass and density of the source.

[timey (OP)]

Yes... I believe that is an entirely natural way to think about it considering cosmological considerations of mass, Hubble's law, and the focus of this being synonymous of expansion...  But as a piece of logic, it does not work.

This is why:  Light will redshift until the point of the least gravitational field between a receptor and the light source, and from this point on it will blueshift towards the greater gravitational field.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

We can see that relativity has been tested, via redshift in the Pound Rebka experiment.  This was conducted from ground to the bell tower (?) and reversed, at Harvard.  The focus of this experiment was 'time' oriented.

Alan, for me, the most significant information in the 'gravitational redshift' link, of my last post, is this:

"This is a direct result of gravitational time dilation - as one moves away from a source of gravitational field, the rate at which time passes is increased relative to the case when one is near the source. As frequency is inverse of time (specifically, time required for completing one wave oscillation), frequency of the electromagnetic radiation is reduced in an area of a lower gravitational field (i.e., a higher gravitational potential). There is a corresponding reduction in energy when electromagnetic radiation is red-shifted, as given by Planck's relation, due to the electromagnetic radiation propagating in opposition to the gravitational gradient."

Removing light (massless) from the remit of gravitational potential.  Now, under the premiss of ITT, consider that time is 'reducing' in rate, as per the frequency of the light.  The fact of the ensemble of the current mathematics can be used to ascertain that the fact of lights frequency being inverse to the current remit of a quicker rate of time being significant.  And the length by which a wavelength becomes longer is also significant.

Now, if I were a mathematician, or indeed if someone can give me a lesson in scientific calculator usage, (square root 2 being blatantly obvious), I think I could (given some time) turn the current maths inside out to represent what I am trying to describe here with Inverted Time Theory.

Does that make sense?