0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Huh? - Thats a new one for me. Perhaps you have made a more in depth study of the Andromeda observed shift than I, in which case I apologise beforehand, but as far as I am aware, Andromeda is observed to be blue shifted.
In my model this blue shifting would indicate that the gravity field of open space is increasing in strength between Andromeda and our observation point here in the Milky Way Galaxy.
This being synonymous to 2 bodies of mass and a closing distance between them - under the premise of Fgrav being proportional to M1*M2/d squared, where the gravity field of the open space in-between M1 & M2, subject to the inverse square law at h from M, is described as escalating in value via the squaring law in relation to the closing distance between the masses of these 2 galaxies.
I just don't see how a steady state universe can emerge from a GR basis without incorporating a mechanism that balances the phenomenon of clumping...But you are right, given that an alternative interpretation of the red shift distance correlation can be employed, the possibility does exist that a steady state could be accomplished via the black hole phenomenon. Provided that the radiation and superluminal jet action of the black hole phenomenon is equal in value to the mass intake associated with the black hole phenomenon to retain a balance. This would mean that black holes have always existed in conjunction with stars, otherwise we are looking at a cycle in which neutron stars develop and collapse into black holes which consume other stars to become bigger black holes.
In this scenario of imbalance the black hole phenomenon becomes predominant and all mass will eventually clump into one singular black hole for a Big Bang scenario...
In Penrose's "Cycles of Time", he talks about black holes radiating away to extinction via Hawking's radiation, as a solution to the conservation of energy law anomaly surrounding black holes. He places this scenario as occurring in an ongoing expansion...If one takes this scenario of black holes forming and radiating away to nothing over time, and places it in a steady state setting, then that which is radiated away from a black hole is then inherent to the open spaces in between masses that are not moving away from one another...But this Hawking's radiation is a very slow process.
You say that superluminal jet action occurs when 2 black holes are spinning around each other. As I have understood the subject, superluminal jets from a black hole are thought to occur when a black hole encounters any large body of mass that becomes trapped within its gravitational field and is consumed.
There are theories as to how the superluminal jet actions occur, mostly taking the school of thought that some, or maybe all, of the mass of the consumed object is thrown back out into space without entering the event horizon. I have yet to read an explanation as to the mechanics of how a star can be transformed into jets of particles by having a close encounter with a black hole.(My model has a theory)
However, in that clumps of mass can be reduced to particle, or energy, form as such by the black hole phenomenon, this is a plus for a steady state balance between the inherent trend to clumping, giving mechanism for the required anti-clumping mechanics to achieve a balanced steady state.
My cyclic model simply places all the above in a contracting scenario where all mass will eventually clump into one singularity, and the mechanism for a Big Bang is that there will be no equivalent gravitational force acting upon this singular black hole. It will empty all of the mass of the universe via superluminal jets until its own extinction, leaving a sea of particles to then very slowly develop into clumps.
When you ask "What is it that dilates space?"In my model it is the contra directional gravitational time dilation of open space in relation to M that is responsible for dilating space at h from M, and reciprocally - also contracting space as h reduces closer to M, (where h is height).
Distant objects are generally observed to have large redshifts, so either they are moving away from us or the gravitational field outside the observable universe is stronger than inside, which would, of course, make the distant objects accelerate away from us!
QuoteAlso, my model does not predict this contra directional time dilation as a replacement for GR gravitational time dilation. It predicts this contra directional time dilation as an additional time dilation for space surrounding mass that gives cause for the acceleration of gravity. This being the how I can hypothesise an additional time dilation...But conventional GR time dilation is exactly correlated with the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration, with no requirement for any additional corrections.
Also, my model does not predict this contra directional time dilation as a replacement for GR gravitational time dilation. It predicts this contra directional time dilation as an additional time dilation for space surrounding mass that gives cause for the acceleration of gravity. This being the how I can hypothesise an additional time dilation...
I don't see why you would view a sea of particles as being devoid of energy.
...and, by adding the contra directional gravitational time dilation to open space in relation to M, and stating GR gravitational time dilation as an m in relation to M phenomenon experienced only by m - my model's black holes are the 'most' energetic places in the universe where, completely contrary to GR, time is running much faster than any other place in the universe.
To create a picture of this contra directional gravitational time dilation and how it affects light waves:In part 1 of this thought experiment we are going to be picturing cars moving at a constant speed, making marks on a track lane at a rate per second.Each lane will be inherent with a different length of second that is represented by the time period between a start and stop light in that lane, this time period being 10 x seconds of the length of second inherent to that lane.Each lane will have its own associated car that makes 10 marks per second that is the length of a second inherent to that lane.All cars will travel at the same constant speed in all lanes.We will be measuringa) How many marks will be made in the observed lane, when measured via the length of second of the observation lane.b) How much distance will appear to occur between the marks in the observed lane, when measured via the length of second of the observation laneI'm going to use 0 as a number as it will prove useful within the thought experiment.In lane 0 - the length of second is a standard second, and there are 10 x a standard second in the time period between start and stop light in lane 0. The lane 0 p car is making 10 marks per standard second, and these marks, when measured via a lane 0 second, are 1 metre apart in distance.(p for 'photon' to distinguish from the lane 0 'mass' car in part 2 of the thought experiment),In lane 1 - the length of second is 10% longer than a standard second. There are 10 x '10% longer than a standard second' seconds in the time period between start and stop light in lane 1.The lane 1 p car is making 10 marks per a second that is 10% longer than a standard second, and the distance between these marks, when measured via a lane 1 second, is 1 metre.In lane 2 - the length of second is 20% longer than a standard second and there are 10 x '20% longer than a standard second' seconds in the time period between start and stop light in lane 2.The lane 2 p car is making 10 marks per a second that is 20% longer than a standard second, and the distance between these marks, when measured via a lane 2 second, is 1 metre.When measuring what the lane 1 p car appears to be doing from lane 0 - lane 0 will observe the lane 1 p car make 90 marks that are a distance of 1.111 metres apart.When measuring what the lane 2 p car appears to be doing from lane 0 - lane 0 will observe the lane 2 p car making 80 marks that are a distance of 1.25 metres apart.If we continue this scenario:A lane 3 p car will make 70 marks at a distance of 1.428 metres apart.A lane 4 p car will make 60 marks at a distance of 1.666 metres apart.A lane 5 p car will make 50 marks at a distance of 2 metres apart.A lane 6 p car will make 40 marks at a distance of 2.5 metres apart.A lane 7 p car will make 30 marks at a distance of 3.333 metres apartA lane 8 p car will make 20 marks at a distance of 5 metres apartA lane 9 p car will make 10 marks at a distance of 10 metres apart.A lane 10 p car will make 0 marks at 100 metres apart.Now we can split our lanes into sub- lanes where each lane is now split into 10 sub-lanes, in which the length of a second is becoming longer by 1% per sub-lane instead of 10% per lane.So... Starting from a base of a standard second, lane 0(sub 1) is a second that is 1% longer than a standard second, and lane 0(sub 2) is a second that is 2% longer than a standard second.This way, as the lane numbers that are inclusive of these these sub lanes escalate, we have a linear increase in the length of second relative to the length of the standard second in lane 0(sub0).(As well as the sub-lanes having a length of 100 metres, it would be possible to give a sub-lane a width that could be proportional to actual observation. I'm not such of a mathematician that I can accurately work out at what h from M a 1% increase in a length of a second would occur, but it's the same h from M that a 1% decrease in the length of a second occurs under current GR remit.)Now we will travel our lane 0 p car across the width of these sub-lanes from 0 to 10 at constant speed, but we will reset the car to make marks as per the length of the second of the sub-lane it is crossing as it crosses it.What we are looking at now is marks that are being made at a slightly longer distance apart as the car travels across each sub-lane, and that these distance increases between the marks will be linear.This is a description of how my model travels light through the non uniform gravity fields of open space in relation to M.State the constant speed as being the speed of light, where the car makes marks at 299 792 458 marks per variable second - and from the perspective of a standard second, the sub-lanes of lane 0 through to lane 10 are describing redshift.Reciprocally, the sub-lanes of lane 10 through to lane 0 are describing blue shift.(Clearly this is an analogised description, using crude maths that are many orders too large)I will add my model's interpretation of GR gravitational time dilation for m in relation to M, and how this fits into the contra directional gravitational time dilation picture outlined above in part 2 of the thought experiment next post.
Here is where you are very close but do not fully understand relativity.
Now lets adjust the speed of light to 990 feet per second
Quote from: GoC on 29/01/2017 15:06:15My model cannot be described with conventional Relativity.Then you do not understand relativity completely. If you did you probably would not consider unconventional physics. Math, geometry and angles all coincide with observations. Change one puzzle piece and it fails. And yes I feel I have a QM process that causes Relativity. There is no rest frame. You can read a 1000 books on relativity and not understand it. Many understand it mathematically only. It's very difficult without a mechanical basis. Each level of understanding can lead you astray. It does not matter if a person has the correct physical nature of relativity. Very few could follow the process in their mind. Their are some basics that need to be understood that go against main stream subjective beliefs. c as a constant, electron motion and electron photon being confounded in every frame. These are the items being ignored by main streams standard model of space not having a medium. How can anyone understand relativity when this is what they are taught. I got over myself along time ago and I am sorry for upsetting you. That was not my intension. I believe my process follows relativity mechanically but you are correct there is no proof even when all tests are in favor of relativity. There is no proof relativity is correct even when it follows math. Math is only a tool to prove a theory is incorrect.QuoteThe seconds in each reference frame vary from each other (linearly in a reducing or increasing gravity field of open space), but the speed of light per metre in each reference frame is retained throughout.To be more accurate the speed of light is measured to be the same in every frame. Some meters are longer than others.
My model cannot be described with conventional Relativity.
The seconds in each reference frame vary from each other (linearly in a reducing or increasing gravity field of open space), but the speed of light per metre in each reference frame is retained throughout.
Can you now understand that in my model - the speed of light remains the same in all reference frames, the length of a metre remains constant, and it is the length of the second in the reference frame itself that is the variable.