[timey (OP)]

Since this is just a thought experiment, and as such does not strictly have to resemble an exact physical possibility - and as in this thought experiment it is the experimenters who are setting the cars to make marks at certain values and the lanes to have different durations of time, then all we are actually doing here Alan is examining what would happen under the remits that the thought experiment's experimenters denote.

The thought experiments experimenters have decided that a start and stop light on dashboard of the car is denoting a period of 10 seconds, of which the length of second used to denote this duration may vary.
The experimenters have also decided that the car will travel at constant speed without the necessity for acceleration or deceleration (impossible for a car) and that it is part of the mechanics of the car that the car itself will make marks as per the length of second that the experimenters denote.
We can indeed quite logically conclude that the experimenters, in deciding which length of second to use for both the duration of the lane 1 start and stop light, and the rate that the car is set to make marks at in lane 1, which are operating as per the same length of second in lane 1, would naturally have used the length of second that they themselves are experiencing in their reference frame.

What's the problem? 

[Colin2B]

When I introduce the lane 2 and lane 3 cars, we swap parameters and set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second.  The lane 2 car travelling in the lane 2 duration between start and stop light will now make 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
But the lane 2 car travelling in the duration of a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart... 

OK, I think I can now see what you are doing so let's go through this bit by bit so we can check my understanding.

I'm going to refer to Lane 1 seconds as s₁ and Lane 2 seconds as s₂.

To summarise my understanding:
Cars in Lane 1 are stopped after 10s₁
Cars in Lane 2 are stopped after 10s₂
The car in Lane 2 has to travel 100m, make 100 marks, all in 10s₂.

Consider that 10s₂=11s₁ so car2 has to travel 100m in 11s₁ and it can only do that by travelling at 9.09m/s₁. At this speed, to make marks 1m apart it will have to make a mark every 0.11s₁ (=every 0.1s₂ ie 10 marks/s₂), hence making 100marks.
If car 2 now moves into Lane 1 it will be timed to travel for 10s₁, hence it will travel for 90.9m. However, it is still taking 0.11s₁ between marks so it will still make them 1m apart and will make 90.9 of them.
So rather than the distance being expanded to 1.1m it will remain at 1m.

I am disappointed to say that the maths don't work.

[timey (OP)]

Colin - I am disappointed that you have forgotten that the Lane 2 car is set to make marks at a 10% faster rate than a lane 1 second.  I don't really see how the maths can be stated as not working without including this parameter.

Let me please check that you understand fully all the parameters.

Lane 1 itself and the lane 1 car are using a standard second.  The rate of second in lane 1 is equal for both the lane and the car.

Lane 2 is using a second that is 10% longer than this standard second, but lane 2's car is using a second that is 10% shorter than this standard second.

I already described that if we use the shorter second to measure the scenario, that the car will make 120 marks that are 1 metre apart...
I already described that if we use the longer second to measure the scenario, that this will be synonymous to a lane 3 car in lane 1, (as in part 1 of thought experiment, where lane 3 car is making marks at 1.2 standard seconds), and the car will make 80 marks that are 1.2 metres apart...
...Now we are going to use the standard second to measure what both lane 2 itself and the lane 2 car are doing.

The lane 2 car is running at 0.9 of a lane 1 standard second, and lane 2 itself is running at 1.1 of a lane 1 standard second...

Lane 1 is observing the shorter rate of second moving through the longer rate of second.
Your maths are not representative of this description.

Also... your commentary regarding the maths you have represented somewhat confuses me, as it is indeed the remit of this thought experiment that all distances that are thought to be stretched or contracted, (under current physics), should remain physically constant in the face of this contra directional gravitational time dilation that my model adds to the universe...  So, if a metre is calculated to be not stretched or contracted, then this means that the maths DO work.

[Colin2B]

Colin - I am disappointed that you have forgotten that the Lane 2 car is set to make marks at a 10% faster rate than a lane 1 second.  I don't really see how the maths can be stated as not working without including this parameter.

Perhaps we are talking about different scenarios. If you look at the beginning of my last post, #121you will see that the one I quoted is this one:

When I introduce the lane 2 and lane 3 cars, we swap parameters and set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second.  The lane 2 car travelling in the lane 2 duration between start and stop light will now make 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
But the lane 2 car travelling in the duration of a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart... 

I did take the 10% longer into account:

Consider that 10s₂=11s₁ .....

The reason I say the maths don't work is because the answer is 1m not stretched to 1.1m as you quote.

What you are quoting below looks like the next stage where you put in GP. I would like to resolve the one above first:

Let me please check that you understand fully all the parameters.

Lane 1 itself and the lane 1 car are using a standard second.  The rate of second in lane 1 is equal for both the lane and the car.

Lane 2 is using a second that is 10% longer than this standard second, but lane 2's car is using a second that is 10% shorter than this standard second.

I already described that if we use the shorter second to measure the scenario, that the car will make 120 marks that are 1 metre apart...
I already described that if we use the longer second to measure the scenario, that this will be synonymous to a lane 3 car in lane 1, (as in part 1 of thought experiment, where lane 3 car is making marks at 1.2 standard seconds), and the car will make 80 marks that are 1.2 metres apart...
...Now we are going to use the standard second to measure what both lane 2 itself and the lane 2 car are doing.

The lane 2 car is running at 0.9 of a lane 1 standard second, and lane 2 itself is running at 1.1 of a lane 1 standard second...

Lane 1 is observing the shorter rate of second moving through the longer rate of second.

[timey (OP)]

Ah, ok... I misunderstood.

In part 1 of the thought experiment we ran a lane 1 car (making marks as per a standard second), in the lane 2 timing (this being a 10% longer second)...  The lane 1 car made 110 marks in lane 2.
Then I set what we will now refer to as lane 2 car(a) to make marks as per a lane 2 second.  When running a lane 2 car(a) in lane 2, the car makes 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
If we then run the lane 2 car(a) in lane 1 timing, the car will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres long.

All this is illustrating is, that if we measure the journey distance using a car time that differs from the lane timing, that it will seem as though distance has been changed, but if we measure the journey distance where the car uses the same rate of second as the lane it is travelling does, then the car will always make 100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
Once this is understood and suitably matched in ones phycology as the constant speed being light speed, and changes in distance between marks being frequency changes, and extended amounts of marks exceeding 100 metres in a lane being extra distance travelled, then I add the gravity potential considerations.

What is the problem you have with this part 1 representation?

[timey (OP)]

Part 1 of the thought experiment, when transposed to the phenomenon of light, shows that there is a physical possibility that observation of redshift can be interpreted differently to Hubble's red shift velocity interpretation.

This alternative interpretation that I suggest results in a universe that makes all its development in the contraction direction...

...I think there is significant cause to consider a universe that is contracting.  A subject that am partially addressing elsewhere having given the subject its own thread, and am discussing a particular cause of consideration for a non expanding universe here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69399.0

[Colin2B]

Did you read my post #121?
I'm having problems making your 1.1m appear as the answer. This is probably in the description of the methodology so I'm trying another interpretation. I'll try and post this as soon as I get time to write it down. In the meantime do check my assumptions.

[timey (OP)]

Yes - I did read your post, but do not understand where the problem you are having is...

The lane 2 car(a) is making marks at 1.1 of a lane 1 second, so it makes marks at 1.1 metres apart relative to being measured via a lane 1 second.

In lane 1 the period of time between start and stop light is 10% less than in lane 2...
When we were measuring the lane 2(a) car making marks in the period of time between start and stop light in lane 2, the car was making 100 marks 1 metre apart. (Here we are using the 10% longer second to measure the car making marks as per a 10% longer second... Here the lane second and the car second are equal, as with a lane 1 car in lane 1)

Remembering that the lane 2(a) car is making marks as per a 10% longer second than the lane 1 second - When we run the lane 2(a) car in lane 1, we can see that as measured per a lane 1 second the car will be making marks at 1.1 metres apart... and that within the 10% shorter duration of time between start and stop light in lane 1, (relative to lane 2), the lane 2(a) car will only have time to make 90 marks in lane 1.

Can you please explain where this description is not making sense to you?

[Colin2B]

There are a number of ways your Instructions can be interpreted. In #121 I outlined the one where:
"set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second[/b].  The lane 2 car travelling in the lane 2 duration between start and stop light will now make  100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
But the lane 2 car travelling in the duration of a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart..."

If we do this and try to make the 100 marks 1m apart in Lane 2 (at 10marks/s₂) we end up, when the car travels in Lane 1, with the marks being 1m apart not 1.1m.
Clearly the maths of this scenario do not work - see #121.

So let us try just one instruction "set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2".

This would make 10 marks/s₂, or 10 marks/1.1s₁.
In lane2 the car travels 110m in 10s₂, or 11m/s₂ so will make 100 marks in 11m or 1 mark every 1.1m.
Moving the car to lane 1 we can see that the car will travel 100m at 10m/s₁ and will make 90.9marks (10marks/1.1s₁) and so again the marks will be 1.1m apart.

However, the speed of the cars (and also light) will change between lanes (as measured in the time of each lane) from 11m/s₂ in Lane 2 to 10m/s₁ in Lane 1. Also the frequency will change from 10marks/s₂ in Lane 2 to 9.09marks/s₁ in Lane 1. All of this is due to the way your model treats distance and time.

I don't expect you to accept what I am saying, but I am just pointing out that any mathematician will hit the same issues and will be unable to put your theory into a consistent formula or group of formula and get the same result you do.

[timey (OP)]

I cannot make head nor tail of your interpretation of making 0.9 of a mark.  A mark is a mark and cannot be broken down into fractions.

Let us just deal with the first paragraph of your post.

You said:
"There are a number of ways your Instructions can be interpreted. In #121 I outlined the one where:
"set the car in lane 2 to make 10 marks per second as per the rate of second used for the 10 second duration between start and stop light in lane 2, this being 10% longer than a lane 1 second[/b].  The lane 2 car travelling in the lane 2 duration between start and stop light will now make  100 marks that are 1 metre apart.
But the lane 2 car travelling in the duration of a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart..."

If we do this and try to make the 100 marks 1m apart in Lane 2 (at 10marks/s2) we end up, when the car travels in Lane 1, with the marks being 1m apart not 1.1m.
Clearly the maths of this scenario do not work - see # 121"
Unquote:

The maths of this scenario do not work with respect to what?  What exactly are you imagining the goal of these maths to be?

The lane 2 car(a) is making marks at 10 marks per second as per a lane 2 second.... But it is making 10 marks every 1.1 seconds (as per a lane 1 second)...

When the lane 2 car(a) travels in the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 1, it will still be making marks at 10 marks every 1.1 seconds as per a lane 1 second.
...But the lane 1 duration of time between start and stop light is only 10 seconds as per a lane 1 second, so the lane 2 car(a) making marks at 10 marks every 1.1 seconds as per a lane 1 second will make 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart.

There is nothing wrong with these maths.

I do not understand how you arrive at the lane 2 car(a) making 90 marks 1 metre apart in the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 1.

[timey (OP)]

If you need a more visual representation:

Let me now add an observer in lane 1 car who is observing the lane 2(a) car travelling in lane 2, from the lane 1 car travelling alongside in lane 1...

As far as the lane 2 car(a) is concerned, it has travelled 100 metres in lane 2 that are 1 metre apart.
As far as an observer in lane 2, timing the event by his lane 2 stopwatch is concerned, the lane 2 car(a) is making 100 marks 1 metre apart...

Matey travelling alongside in his lane 1 car, in lane 1, observed the journey that lane 2 car(a) made in lane 2, timing the event via 10 seconds as per his lane 1 stop watch, and making a mark on lane 1 every time he saw lane 2 car(a) make a mark on lane 2.
As far as Matey is concerned, within the 10 seconds that he timed as per his lane 1 stop watch, and by making a mark on lane 1 every time he saw lane 2 car(a) make a mark in lane 2, according to Matey's measurements the lane 2 car(a) is making 90 marks that are 1.1 metre apart.

Any better?

[Colin2B]

Matey travelling alongside in his lane 1 car, in lane 1, observed the journey that lane 2 car(a) made in lane 2, timing the event via 10 seconds as per his lane 1 stop watch, and making a mark on lane 1 every time he saw lane 2 car(a) make a mark on lane 2...........
Any better?

Again we appear to be talking different scenarios.
I was interpreting your earlier scenario “Then I set what we will now refer to as lane 2 car(a) to make marks as per a lane 2 second...........If we then run the lane 2 car(a) in lane 1  ….......”
However, what you are describing above is different.

The maths of this scenario do not work with respect to what?  What exactly are you imagining the goal of these maths to be?

I'm not imagining it to be anything. I was responding to:

do the maths work?

All I was trying to do was help by looking at the maths of the scenarios and you are welcome to use that or not as you wish.
What this has highlighted is what Alan describes as the knitting and you may want to consider rewording some of your scenarios so that the 'interpretation' effects are removed.
I like your idea of the visual approach which does help to clear any confusion.
Good luck, but I'm running out of time on this one - Christmas approaches!!.

[timey (OP)]

Actually what I'm describing with Matey is no different at-all from running a lane 2 car in lane 1.  You are thinking, I think (scratches head) on the basis that lane 1's time is going to affect lane 2 car(a)'s rate of marking.  I'm calculating the effects as separate from each other.

Did you say Christmas?  Sorry hadn't noticed.  Just seems like more of the same old hell on earth but now getting much much worse, for me anyway, but I don't suppose I'm the only one.

The purpose of part 1 of the thought experiment is merely to illustrate that in the case of distance being travelled at constant speed, using 1 length of second to measure a journey being traveled in a reference frame that has a different length of second, that the calculation will change the value of the 'actual' distance travelled...
...and to illustrate that if one uses the time inherent to the reference frame to measure in that reference frame, that the calculation will not change the value of the 'actual' distance travelled.

Part 1 of the thought experiment also seeks to introduce the notion of the possibility of 2 time dilations in 1 reference frame.  The lane 2 car(a) is experiencing 1 time dilation.  If the lane 2 car(a) travels in lane 1 it is experiencing another...
This notion of 2 contra directional gravitational time dilations, 1 for the car, and 1 for the lane, comes into play properly in part 2 of the thought experiment.  In part 1 we only calculated the results of 1 contra directional time dilation in relation to another.  By adding GR to the lane 2 car(b), this being a rate 10% shorter than a lane 1 standard second, calculation of lane 2 from lane 1 now incorporates the calculation of both an increase and a decrease in length of second relative to the standard second being used to calculate with in lane 1.  We are now calculating using 3 gravitational time dilation values.

Clearly there is then SR to include, which makes matters far more complex.  Hopefully we 'will' get to the stage were we can add in this motion related effect to the picture...

(If one takes the part 1 of the thought experiment representation of each lane number having a progressively longer second, transposes the constant speed of the experiment into light speed, and runs this light speed not on a lane, but across lane 1, lane 2, lane 3, lane 4, etc, the calculation from lane 1 will cause lane 1 to observe a value change in the distance travelled when crossing each lane.  In my model this can be held synonymous to a gravitational redshift into a weaker gravitational field)

[Colin2B]

Actually what I'm describing with Matey is no different at-all from running a lane 2 car in lane 1.

That would depend on how the Lane 2 car has been modified.

You are thinking, I think (scratches head) on the basis that lane 1's time is going to affect lane 2 car(a)'s rate of marking. 

No, I'm assuming that changing lanes has no effect on the settings of the car.
If you look at my calculations you will see that they are double checked by referencing back to standard seconds. That's what you need to do with the lane 1 car because, unless you have changed the speed of the car, the Lane 1 car will only travel 90m when counting the 90marks.
Moving the Lane 2 car into Lane 1 is the right way of doing it, you can show how an object or light will behave when moving from one area of space to another.

I cannot make head nor tail of your interpretation of making 0.9 of a mark.  A mark is a mark and cannot be broken down into fractions.

Sorry, forgot to say, if a car travels more or less than a whole number of marks you denote this with a decimal fraction. This is common with frequency measurements and is essential when you need to convert back and forth between lanes or areas of differing time, otherwise you will just concatenate errors in the calculations.

Anyway, try to get as best a break as you can and enjoy some family time. Come back to it fresh.

[timey (OP)]

Yes you are right, I forgot to define which lane 2 car, and now redress this by stating the car in my comment to be the lane 2(a) car, which if you remember is set to make marks as per a lane 2 second.  And this lane 2 second is 10% longer than a lane 1 second.

*

Nope - you are wrong.  The lane 1 car travelling in lane 1 will still travel 100 metres in the duration of time between start and stop light in lane 1, (or the duration of 10 seconds on a lane 1 stopwatch.)
Matey in the car will make a mark on lane 1 when he observes lane 2 car(a) making a mark.  By the remit of a lane 1 second, the lane 2 car(a) making marks at 10 marks per lane 2 second, will be making marks at 1.1 metres apart.
Matey, within the 100 metres that his lane 1 car has travelled in lane 1, making marks on lane 1 at the rate that the lane 2 car(a) is, will have made 90 marks that are 1.1 metres apart.

There is no disputing these maths...
Again, I do not understand how you are arriving at Matey making 90 marks that are 1 metre apart.

*

The car cannot and does not travel over fractions of marks.  It can and does travel over distances between marks, and these distances between marks can be fractionalised.  The duration of time it takes to travel these distances between marks can be fractionalised, and the speed that is used to travel over these distances between marks can be fractionalised...  But... It is not physically possible for the car to travel over half a mark, or 0.9 of a mark.  Well, it is physically possible actually, but would be entirely bloody irrelevant to any calculation that we are seeking.
Sorry...

*

I guess it would be impossible for you understand the situation Colin, but take a break from what?  That because people in positions of social responsibility and sworn oath abused me, that I am now watching everything I've worked for disintegrate and my animals intermittently going hungry, getting sick, and dying?   ...Anyway, as I said, people somewhere in some refugee camp are watching their families, their people, children, going hungry, getting sick, and dying, so what have I got to complain about?  Maybe we should perhaps agree to not do seasons greetings aye?  Sorry, but I'm not just having my period, or suffering from a bad day at work, ok?

[timey (OP)]

Colin, your last post has disappeared... in that post, yes you are getting the idea...but as you mentioned, (in the post that disappeared), the effect of these changes in distance in relation to a change in speed - again, I tell you that the speed must be regarded as constant, that it is the differing length of seconds that is causing the effect, and that distance remains constant...

The lane 2 car(a) does not travel any further in lane 1 than the lane 1 car in lane 1.
The lane 2 car(a) in lane 2 does not travel any further than the lane 1 car travels in lane 1.
...And, the lane 1 car travelling in lane 2 does not travel any further in lane 2 than it does in lane 1....

...It is only because lane 1 car is measuring the distance it traveled in lane 2 with a lane 1 second that it thinks it has travelled 10 metres further in lane 2 than it did in lane 1.

If we were to place an observer in the lane 2 car(a), travelling in in lane 2, who were to drive alongside the lane 1 car making marks in lane 1, and Mateyess in the lane 2 car(a) made a mark on lane 2 every time she saw lane 1 car make a mark in lane 1, she would make 100 marks that were 0.9 metres apart.

Yes this thinking 'can' be equated with light travelling through space, where in my model of the universe, lane 1 is ground level, and lane 2, lane 3, etc, are elevations at radius.  In my model a second gets progressively longer at radius as lane numbers escalate.  Light travelling across lanes through changes in length of second, will appear to be longer in wavelength when passing across escalating lane numbers, because it takes the light, travelling at constant speed, longer to travel the same distance.
(This can be another means of interpreting red shift observations as an alternative to Hubble's red shift velocities, for a contracting universe.)

Adding GR (not for light, but for anything with mass), by shortening the second for lane 2 car(b) is more complex.
Adding SR, (again, not for light, but for anything with mass), being more complex again.

(Also... I didn't think you were insulting me.  I've sent you a pm)

[timey (OP)]

Pearl stitch?

0.9 of a mark?

Seriously?

[timey (OP)]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujan's_master_theorem

When adding GR and SR overlaid upon my addition of this contra directional gravitational time dilation, it will be obvious that as a body of mass, (ie: m), moves into escalating lane numbers, (ie: radius from M), that because of the addition to the equivalence principle that my model makes, (ie: that light speed cannot exceed the local rate of time), as mass moves into the slower rate of time, the speed m is travelling at starts to be an increased percentage of the speed of light in that reference frame, (ie: speed of light being 299 792 458 metres per longer second), and that SR time dilation effects will be kicking in to a greater degree...

This value of a greater degree of SR time dilation will cause the mass to travel the same amount of distance in a longer amount of time.

Either the value of the degrees of slowing of time, or, when measured via a standard second, the degrees of extra distance travelled, (both will be relative to each other), when travelling through reference frames that are inherent with an increase in length of second relative to the previous, 'should' be synonymous to what is known in current physics as the gamma function...

[timey (OP)]

I'm not really sure what there is to be misunderstood about General Relativity describing a contracting universe.  Clearly as Einstein had to introduce a cosmological constant to stop GR from describing a contracting universe, GR is indeed naturally inclined towards describing such.  It is only Hubble's interpretation of red shift velocities that stand in the way of GR describing a contracting universe.

My models addition of this contra directional time dilation inherent to the gravity fields of open space in relation to M, while describing an alternative interpretation of red shift observation, completely changes the outlook of gravitational time dilation in relation to mass.  GR gravitational time dilation becomes an m in relation to M phenomenon, and M in relation to open space is now not 'slowing time', but is instead 'speeding time up'. (giving cause for the acceleration of gravity)...

... Now instead of these cold, frozen in time, energy conservation law breaking, second law of thermodynamics breaking, information losing, black holes of current physics, we can have black holes that are full of the energy usually associated with matter subject to extreme compression, ie: very hot...  Indeed a black hole in my model is plasma hot where light cannot shine, hence the blackness.

So... Not only does my model solve the Hawking, Bekenstein conservation of energy law, second law of thermodynamics conundrum, it also negates the need for both dark energy and dark matter, while relying only upon the standard model. (which my model unites with gravity via the added contra directional gravitational time dilation factor for a continuum in quantum).

Given that my model also gives cause and effect mechanics for a Big Bang, an Inflation Period, and a Contraction Period (during which all development of mass clumping occurs).  Gives cause for these mechanics to be cyclic.  And gives cause for each cycle of the universe to expand in size relative to the last, to trace the many previous cycles of smaller universes back to a primary universe of microscopic proportions born of an energy fluctuation creation moment, (the cause of said creation moment admittedly defeating the extent of my personal logical ability) - I am becoming really disappointed with this site, and indeed do not understand why there is so little response here..

[alancalverd]

So you want deep space to have a net gravitational field. Now my tiny mind says a field has a defining vector, but as deep space is uniform, homogeneous and infintely symmetrical,  the net vector must be zero at any point because there is no special direction.