[timey]

Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!......................
I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.

As I have said many times, the mathematics is trivial and well within the capability of anyone who knows what multiply and divide mean - as I am sure you do - and has a "square root" button opn a calculator - as I am pretty sure you have.

The underlying problem is that you keep trying to describe the physics in terms of equations or even sentences that have no dimensional balance and therefore no physical reality. Since dimensional analysis is even easier than arithmetic (it doesn't involve adding or subtracting!) I really commend it to you.

What unobserved entities are required by GR?

I happen to think that driving a horse and carriage on a busy road is a piece of piss, but if I handed you the reins, saying its just a matter of a few commands, come by, come away, steady, and woah - and left you to it, I daresay you would feel that you were somewhat inadequately prepared for the task at hand.  You would understand the manoeuvres required to negotiate the traffic, and also understand the nature of the commands, but you would be lacking in the finesse of when and how to use commands to best effect.  Only practising under less demanding circumstances will afford you the ability to drive a horse and carriage on a busy road.

I don't have the time, facility, or the desire to practice mathematical manoeuvres under less busy circumstances than my model.  Therefore I am requiring that someone who is actually a mathematician calculate my model.

GR is not a mathematically viable theory without dark matter and dark energy.  GR is dimensionally unbalanced without these unobserved additions.

[Ethos_]

Ethos - I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it.  You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:

In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...

The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.

I deleted that post hoping not to offend or frustrate you any further timey. It's quite apparent that you've heard enough about Dimensional Analysis so maybe we should start over and settle a few things before we get into the Math. Because frankly, the math doesn't work and that's the very reason we can't help you advance your theory starting from that position.

Bare with me timey, I'm interested in your theory but, so far, I have failed to establish a sound mathematical foundation upon which to support these ideas. For this reason, I'm going to ask you to help us with a few problems that your theory currently presents.

Firstly: Tell us briefly how we can get around the current accelerated  universal expansion we presently observe. Because your theory suggests that instead of expanding, the universe is contracting. And if you can, give us all your supporting evidence that suggests such a contraction. Without this critical evidence, I'm afraid your theory has little chance of success.

[alancalverd]

I have at least studied equestrianism to the point of knowing which bit of a horse is the front*, and I've never shied away from learning more. Indeed if I had any intention of driving a carriage, I'd happily listen to you and at least learn what the commands mean. Simply repeating "I can't do it" won't get the bugger off the runway, let alone back down again, so I would take the trouble to learn about fetlocks and aileron drag, or whatever it is that makes them go round corners, before offering the world a whole new perspective on the Grand National based on the Reverse Horse Principle, and saying "it's just a matter of counting their legs, or maybe nosebags, which I can't do".

The most general object of physics is to develop and refine mathematical models of the universe. It is very difficult to do this if the person presenting the model refuses to discuss it in terms of mathematics or physics. But it is fun to try.


*it's the bit that bites. Or maybe farts. I have read the book, and the difference is just a matter of sign convention, surely.

[timey]

Ethos - I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it.  You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:

In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...

The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.

I deleted that post hoping not to offend or frustrate you any further timey. It's quite apparent that you've heard enough about Dimensional Analysis so maybe we should start over and settle a few things before we get into the Math. Because frankly, the math doesn't work and that's the very reason we can't help you advance your theory starting from that position.

Bare with me timey, I'm interested in your theory but, so far, I have failed to establish a sound mathematical foundation upon which to support these ideas. For this reason, I'm going to ask you to help us with a few problems that your theory currently presents.

Firstly: Tell us briefly how we can get around the current accelerated  universal expansion we presently observe. Because your theory suggests that instead of expanding, the universe is contracting. And if you can, give us all your supporting evidence that suggests such a contraction. Without this critical evidence, I'm afraid your theory has little chance of success.

What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.

When Einstein came up with GR, he included a cosmological constant to stop his preconceived idea of a static universe from collapsing under the force of gravity.  He then retracted the constant as his biggest blunder.  Hubble had calculated velocities for the magnitudes of Doppler shift effect for the red shift observations, and these velocities were attributed to the rate that a light source is accelerating away from us at...
The notion of the big bang and an expanding universe was extrapolated.

But...this does not 'have' to be the explanation of the phenomenon of red shift and the associated velocities of the associated Doppler shift effect.  I am certainly not the only person questioning the premise of the expanding universe concept.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Taking the velocities and distances associated with light sources expanding away from us, and subjecting these to the speed, distance, time, formula, time values can be attributed to redshift velocities.  We can then say that this is by how much time is running slower in space than it does here on earth, and when we recalculate the distance the light source is situated away from us, the distance will be shorter and the light source, although its trajectory may well still be moving away from our position due to its gravitational relationships of centrifugal forces within its galaxy and the trajectory of the galaxy in relation to that galaxies neighbours in space, the light source is now not expanding away from us at those ridiculous speeds.

This is mathematically proportional to GR because the slower time of space transposed into standard seconds means that it takes the same amount of time as we measure it, for light to travel this shorter distance.

[timey]

I have at least studied equestrianism to the point of knowing which bit of a horse is the front*, and I've never shied away from learning more. Indeed if I had any intention of driving a carriage, I'd happily listen to you and at least learn what the commands mean. Simply repeating "I can't do it" won't get the bugger off the runway, let alone back down again, so I would take the trouble to learn about fetlocks and aileron drag, or whatever it is that makes them go round corners, before offering the world a whole new perspective on the Grand National based on the Reverse Horse Principle, and saying "it's just a matter of counting their legs, or maybe nosebags, which I can't do".

The most general object of physics is to develop and refine mathematical models of the universe. It is very difficult to do this if the person presenting the model refuses to discuss it in terms of mathematics or physics. But it is fun to try.


*it's the bit that bites. Or maybe farts. I have read the book, and the difference is just a matter of sign convention, surely.

I've studied theoretical physics for over 8 years.

I've been working directly with horses for 18 years, however, it is my experience that I never stop learning about horses, and despite the fact that you have not been studying horse related matters for 8 years, I certainly would not discount the possibility that you may make observation that I might learn from, nor would I ridicule you for trying, or think it unacceptable you presenting your observations in terminology that is not usual to the subject.

I am indeed learning more about maths everyday, but I am intelligent enough to know that this is not going to be sufficient.  I need the input of a qualified and confident mathematician.  And this need 'is' my sole reason for posting on this forum.

[Ethos_]

What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.

Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted.

Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself.

There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results.  But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Light moving away from the source of a gravitational field loses kinetic energy. This energy could then be said to have been transferred to the gravitational field where its force carriers are blue shifted as a consequence. This would in fact produce exactly the phenomena of tired light over the distances involved.

[timey]

What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.

Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted.

Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself.

There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results.  But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:

If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

I've read about tired light theory, including description of why Lee Smolin discounted the notion, and I personally dismissed it out of hand for reasons I can't be bothered to remember.  It is a fact that red shifted light has a reduced frequency, and tgerefore reduced energy, but we must always remember that when we see this red shifted light, it has been blue shifted in our increased gravity field before it reaches our eyes in our reference frame on earth.

If red shift did not describe an expansion, then blue shift, being red shift in reverse, would not describe contraction.

When I say a contracting universe, the contraction is facilitated by mass being drawn into clumps...
Red shift would be indicative of an ever decreasing strength of gravity field between far flung masses, but this being due to the general trend of mass itself becoming more tightly compacted together with the passing of time, and not due to a light source hurtling away from us at speeds that are faster than the speed of light.

The velocities associated with redshifts transposed into time values and viewed as slower time in space that light must travel through, is a much more subtle means to the same observation.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Smolin's book should have been titled "The trouble with string theory" since physics is doing a fine job everywhere else. There may not be a reconciliation between general relativity and quantum mechanics but that is unlikely to be brought about by string theory.

[timey]

Smolin's book should have been titled "The trouble with string theory" since physics is doing a fine job everywhere else. There may not be a reconciliation between general relativity and quantum mechanics but that is unlikely to be brought about by string theory.

Have you actually read the book?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.

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

That is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

If you map the potential differences around two dense objects in orbit around each other you will actually be able to plot the propagation of gravitational waves as a time evolving system. When you have finished your calculation there is now data with which to compare it. If they match you are likely to be going in the right direction. This is why physics without mathematics is not viable.

[timey]

OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.

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

That is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.

Well now you've finished telling us why you are so much more qualified than I to come up with an interesting alternative idea regarding physics, I'd like to get back to the fact that I'm requiring a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate the idea that I have come up with.

Thank you...

So you haven't read "The Trouble with Physics" then?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.

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

That is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.

Well now you've finished telling us why you are so much more qualified than I to come up with an interesting alternative idea regarding physics, I'd like to get back to the fact that I'm requiring a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate the idea that I have come up with.

Thank you...

So you haven't read "The Trouble with Physics" then?

I'm not likely to read it. I do know it has upset a lot of string theorists. So mission accomplished for Lee Smolin.

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

[timey]

You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?

If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.

I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.

If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea.  It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.

If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution.  Why would they contest mine?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?

If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.

I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.

If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea.  It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.

If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution.  Why would they contest mine?

Because it doesn't compute. Your mental model is not mathematically rigorous. That is what various people have been trying to tell you.

[timey]

You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?

If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.

I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.

If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea.  It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.

If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution.  Why would they contest mine?

Because it doesn't compute. Your mental model is not mathematically rigorous. That is what various people have been trying to tell you.

Rubbish!!!

No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Let me see. How many mathermaticians are famous. Partially famous in the UK Johnny Ball and Carole Vordeman spring to mind. Internationally you might add Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein. So mathematics is not much of a spectator sport. Normally you won't see mathematicians pushing themselves into the limelight. If you ask someone in Britain who won the Nobel prize for physics in 1966 they might look at you strangely. Ask them who scored the winning goal in the final of the world cup of the same year and you would get a much more enthusiastic response. So good luck in your search for that fame hungry calculator.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Just so there is no ambiguity here is the definition of a mathematical inverse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(mathematics)#/search

If we follow the definition then an inverse of time dilation has to involve an inverse of gamma which you yourself said was not what you meant. If that is the case then demonstrate the method you see that will produce the required effect without an inverse gamma function. The onus is not on us to prove you correct but on you to demonstrate that you are right.