[Mike Gale (OP)]

Yes in fact it is completely wrong. At the moment I am dealing with lots of stuff so I am not entirely concentrating properly. We currently have no kitchen and chaos reigns. Builders don't appreciate the disruption they cause. My apologies.

No worries. I've been there and done that. My advice is lowered expectations.

[Mike Gale (OP)]

Thanks Mike:  I haven't published my diagram online, but if it became of interest for you to see it as you further digest, I can pm it to you.

I would appreciate that, thanks.
I'm half way through thread #1. I didn't realize that you have no formal training in physics or mathematics. That explains why some of my arguments seem to fall flat on your ears. I'll keep that in mind when I'm trying to make my point.
If I understand your proposal, you are suggesting that we can eliminate spatial dilation by interpreting the physics of GR and SR in terms of time dilation alone. I think you'll run into trouble with that approach because you'll need the passage of time to be directional in an unaccelerated reference frame. It's essentially the same as the variable light speed approach to SR. You can make the math work with that premise, but you have to inject new laws of physics to explain why time passes more slowly in one direction of space relative to another. Einstein's approach is harder to visualize, but it is actually the simplest option.

[timey]

I'm in process of going through my notes to send you a comprehensive description of my representation...
I'm actually having one of those having put something down for a long period of time and finding on picking it up again my education has evolved to understanding what my own self was doing back then much better now moments, which to say so is rather pleasant!

I'll be finished and pm you tomorrow with it.

[Mike Gale (OP)]

Still waiting for the official release of timey's new theory, but I finished digesting the threads (referenced above), I provide my diagnosis here for completeness, even though it is not directly related to the topic at hand:
I think people get confused about the Lorentz transform because each of the various parts of a moving object translates to different places and different times (relative to one another.)  Moving observers do not perceive space any differently than the rest of us. They just perceive events to occur at different times and it is the perceived simultaneity of events that defines distances in space. In that respect, you (timey) are not far off base trying to interpret SR and GR in terms of time dilation alone. If you take simultaneity into account, you will find that you are arguing for Einstein's interpretation. No shame there, by the way. The giants of physics made all of these mistakes, too. Your Maxwell quotation is a prime example.
If you want to expand your knowledge of SR and GR, I recommend the YouTube Viascience channel. He tells it like it is in terms we can all understand. Dirty laundry included.

[timey]

So in a model of variable speeds for light - which presumably you are placing within a model that is expanding under Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation - are you still rendering the measure of a non local metre as variable, as well as non local time being variable?

I'll give the YouTube a go, but find that Susskind's 'theoretical minimum' GR lectures are pretty accessible, and Einstein himself isn't exactly incomprehensible, nor any of the prominent physicists, (who's many books I've read), giving too shabby a description either...

[Mike Gale (OP)]

So in a model of variable speeds for light - which presumably you are placing within a model that is expanding under Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation - are you still rendering the measure of a non local metre as variable, as well as non local time being variable?

I'll give the YouTube a go, but find that Susskind's 'theoretical minimum' GR lectures are pretty accessible, and Einstein himself isn't exactly incomprehensible, nor any of the prominent physicists, (who's many books I've read), giving too shabby a description either...

I haven't addressed Hubble expansion in the context of the new metric, but I don't expect it to predict anything new in that regard because the metrics are equivalent in the weak field limit. Furthermore, the equations for Hubble expansion involve some dubious concepts. You have to imagine the Big Bang as repulsive gravity (i.e. a white hole as opposed to a black hole) and then accept the fact that it was a one time deal (a quantum fluke if you will) because we don't see any evidence of it elsewhere. The justification seems to be that the old metric falls silent beyond the horizon so you can imagine almost anything you like in that domain (e.g. reverse causality.) The new metric clamps down on such shenanigans, but it does not preclude the possibility of repulsive gravity.
Glad to hear you're giving Viascience a chance. You won't be disappointed.

[timey]

The old metric switches the time dimension for a space dimension in its approach to a black hole.
You, (I think I have interpreted correctly), are saying that the new metric doesn't need to do this, and you suggest changing from the old to the new when moving out of the weak approximation field, of which I can see the advantages, but still remain concerned regarding the fact that if a second and a metre are variables, if one is considering variable speeds for light, what exactly does one hold 'anything' relative to?

But to further analyse what is actually physically occurring for black holes, does it not bother you at-all concerning the second law of thermodynamics, and the conservation of energy law reversal of 'usual' physics with regards to black holes?

[Mike Gale (OP)]

The old metric switches the time dimension for a space dimension in its approach to a black hole.
You, (I think I have interpreted correctly), are saying that the new metric doesn't need to do this, and you suggest changing from the old to the new when moving out of the weak approximation field, of which I can see the advantages, but still remain concerned regarding the fact that if a second and a metre are variables, if one is considering variable speeds for light, what exactly does one hold 'anything' relative to?

But to further analyse what is actually physically occurring for black holes, does it not bother you at-all concerning the second law of thermodynamics, and the conservation of energy law reversal of 'usual' physics with regards to black holes?

Swapping time and space is not so easy because it's not clear how time would get divvied up amongst the 3 dimensions of space. It could be an artifact of the math,  just as the Pythagorus solution has a sensible solution and a non-sensical one. Another possibility is the phase of the matter wave overtakes that of the light wave so the object appears to slow down if you continue to apply force after it achieves light speed.

[Mike Gale (OP)]

On 2nd thought, I take that back. Swapping time and space is exactly what's going on. When Richard Feynman was asked how he would describe SR to the lay person, he said "One man's time is another man's space." You can see that for yourself in the Lorentz transform because x' is a function of x and t for example. The Lorentz transform is really a pinch as opposed to a rotation, but Feynman's quip is quite accurate despite his gender bias.

[timey]

I truly love Feynman and his intellectual acrobatics coupled with his top sense of humour!
The Feynman Lectures are a blast!

[timey]

But you are aware that SR uses absolute time, and relates motion directly back to the standard second via the speed of light?

[Mike Gale (OP)]

I truly love Feynman and his intellectual acrobatics coupled with his top sense of humour!
The Feynman Lectures are a blast!

Agreed. I never met him, but I do enjoy his books. His wit even shines through in his textbooks. (I think that's where I read that quote.) Back to business though. Does it strike anyone as odd that there is no equivalent to the Lorentz transform for the SC metric?

[Mike Gale (OP)]

But you are aware that SR uses absolute time, and relates motion directly back to the standard second via the speed of light?

I think you're misusing the term "absolute time". Physicists take that to mean invariant time, which is to say that it does not depend on your state of motion. The only invariant in SR is the change in distance over time for the crest of a light wave (i.e. light speed.) The variable in SR is the relative velocity of reference frames. GR turns that around by making light speed the variable and reference frame velocity the invariant. (The free fall case is really a sequence of stationary reference frames.)

[timey]

Yes - but what SR starts out with as a baseline is invariant time which all SR variable time is held relative to, and SR's use of the speed of light is held relative to a standard second.

[Mike Gale (OP)]

Yes - but what SR starts out with as a baseline is invariant time which all SR variable time is held relative to, and SR's use of the speed of light is held relative to a standard second.

Nope. SR does not define an absolute time. All it can tell you is how my time passes relative to yours. It makes no judgement as to who's right and who's wrong. GR does though. The reference frame of the distant observer (i.e. the free fall reference frame) is absolute in that case.

[timey]

Hmmm... yes that is correct, SR is not defining who is right or who is wrong...
But from which rate of time does SR start out from when it calculates the difference between your rate of time and mine?

Surely the difference between your rate of time and mine is arbitrary information if we only recognise the difference and haven't started out from the position of 'knowing' what rate of time either of us are operating at?

...and in the case of moving light under the remit of SR, the speed of light 'is' held relative to the standard second.

[Mike Gale (OP)]

That's the "relative" part of special relativity. An observer who is stationary in a moving reference frame perceives the rest of us to be in motion. Aside from the relative velocity of our reference frames, the only thing we can agree on (in the case of uniform motion, which is the "special" part) is the speed of light. You can nominate one reference frame to define a preferred time scale, but the choice is entirely arbitrary unless you invoke GR.

[timey]

Clearly - but just saying that's what makes SR special is in as much as saying there is magic afoot.

If people in uniform motion can agree on the speed of light, then they are each holding their own time relative to a standard second.

Placing people in uniform motion in locations of vastly differing gravity potential, what then?
Do all the people in uniform motion in these differing gravity potentials still agree on the speed of light?

[timey]

Ah yes - just read your edit.

Invoking GR!!!

[Mike Gale (OP)]

That's the ticket. All observers in free fall measure the same speed of light. It is only when you hold your position (e.g. with a rocket engine or a planetary crust) that you measure a different value. In other words, your perception of time and space depends on your velocity. Your perception of the speed of light depends on how fast you are accelerating.