0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quote from: timey on 18/06/2016 20:46:24No - it would be a faster rate of time that is finite... An event horizon of a black hole is merely where it starts to be too hot for light to shine. A black holes gravity well will be geometrically flat, it's acceleration of time causing the curvature.What observations does this notion of time running faster for bodies of mass, and slower for open space not fit with?Why do you believe that it is temperature that prevents photons from escaping a black hole? That is incorrect.

No - it would be a faster rate of time that is finite... An event horizon of a black hole is merely where it starts to be too hot for light to shine. A black holes gravity well will be geometrically flat, it's acceleration of time causing the curvature.What observations does this notion of time running faster for bodies of mass, and slower for open space not fit with?

Because all atoms have been stripped to a particle plasma that is opaque. Light cannot shine through opaque.(This is a description already attributed to immediate post Big Bang conditions under current theory)

It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v .....................(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)

In the more general case when h ≈ R the above is no longer true.

PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".

Quote from: timey on 19/06/2016 03:53:17It's late now, but I'll pull up the Pound Rebka link with the gravitational shift equations in tomorrow to look at gh/c=v .....................(challenging Hubble's redshift conjecture and therefore the concept of an expanding universe)but you need to read the next sentence QuoteIn the more general case when h ≈ R the above is no longer true. PS I've been in Norway for the last two weeks, eating fish, watching the midnight sun, and planning an alternative future in case the morons vote "in".

vc=f

If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.

As I see it, from my untrained perspective:The acceleration of gravity is given in meters per second squared.The speed of light is 299 792 458 meters per second.This means that the distance of 299 792 458 meters can be held constant to a second.If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.If we divide 1 meter by the speed of light, we can find that the speed of light covers 1 meter in 3.335+ ...is it a millionth of a second?By adding the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity to the distance of 299 792 458 meters and then dividing by the speed of light, we will arrive at a 1 point something measure of a meter.Divide 1 point something meters by the speed of light. Take this result and subtract 3.335+... from it. The remaining fraction of a second is by how much a second gets 'longer' every 299 792 458 meters in height in the 'open space' gravitational field of the particular mass you are calculating for.Matching these extra millionth (?) of second to extra length in wavelength of light in the weaker gravity field would of course be peachy.

Quote from: timey on 25/06/2016 07:56:44If we divide 299 792 458 meters by 299 792 458 meters, we arrive at 1 meter.No. You get 1, a dimensionless number.If you ignore dimensions you will end up believing your own rhetoric. According to you, a pint of water divided by a pint of water is 1 pint, and a pint of whisky divided by a pint of whisky is 1 pint, so you might as well drink whisky if you are thirsty, or water if you want to get drunk.

Bearing in mind that a second of time is defined by the gravitational field, at ground level, Earth...

Read up on dimensional analysis. Then you will see exactly what Alan means. It is one of the most beneficial things you will ever do for you understanding of physics.

Can you please explain what dimension square root 1 is?

And... don't mean to be funny but If you divide a number by itself all you are saying is that there is the number you are using 'amount' of 1 thing. (edit: and in the instance you comment on, that 1 thing is a meter)

Excuse me - but I defined 299 792 458 as being meters, and then divided it by 299 792 458 meters. The answer is 1 meter.

Then I defined my use of this calculation by dividing 1 meter by the speed of light to calculate what fraction of a second it takes the speed of light to travel 1 meter.

It would appear that my first division of meters by meters is arbitrary, but it is just a means of setting the scene for the meters per second squared of the acceleration of gravity to be added to the meters it takes the speed of light to travel 1 second.

The reason for the calculation of adding the meters per second to the meters covered in 1 second by the speed of light, is to find out how much of a fraction of a second longer it takes the speed of light to cover the distance of the 1 point something meter.

All I am doing is using the time distance speed formula to transpose the acceleration of gravity into an inverted time dilation aspect. This concept ultimately holds distance as a constant and the rate of the 'inverted time dilation' as the variable, which means that the geometry of 'space' is flat, and it is 'inverted time dilation causing curvature,

Now then guys, in that I am 'changing the dimensions of the universe from an expanding universe to a slowly contracting universe, as per my model, if you think these 'NEW' dimensions are going to be instantly recognisable to you, then you's are not really as clever as I am giving you credit for.

If dimensional analysis is such a favourable tool, why not get involved and 'apply' it to the matter in hand without bias to the fact that the concept is new and foreign to you, instead of using the mention of dimensional analysis to discount the subject matter?

The acceleration of gravity is a dimension.

1 meter times speed of light = 299 792 458 meters

On the basis Alan that - I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths. It's that I've 'never' done any at-all, as I did not get schooled beyond primary school education - not only are you being incredibly unfair in that you are demanding that I know dimensional analysis in relation to algebraic mathematics, (and I am trying) especially in relation to the fact that it is because of I 'don't' know these things that I have asked for HELP! If I knew them I wouldn't need any.It is indeed blatantly bloody obvious what I'm trying to do, and 'confusingly' your input is slanted towards the critique of the attempts of a completely qualification-less person, when you could be employing the advantage of your degree to the purpose of assistance. Bit disappointing really!Dimensional analysis of above calculation:L is equal to 299 792 458 metersM is equal to gravitational accelerationT is equal to L+M/cAm I on the right track?L1 = T1L2=T2

On the basis Alan that - I have fully explained to you the circumstances of the fact that it's not that I'm not proficient in maths.