[Mike Gale]

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.

Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.

The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...

You seem to be advocating some kind of aether theory, but you are way off topic on this thread. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand, shall we?

[Spring Theory]

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.

Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.

The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...

You seem to be advocating some kind of aether theory, but you are way off topic on this thread. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand, shall we?

Equivalence principle!!?

[Mike Gale]

I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You're suggesting that the phenomenon of time dilation is separate and distinct from gravity. I couldn't agree more. If you interpret GR in terms of variable light speed, time dilation is entirely due to velocity. Same goes for spatial dilation, but that one is a bit of a mixed bag because light speed defines the relationship between space and time. You could turn it around by making space squishy and time rigid, but SR teaches us that it's really a mixture of the two and that is the view I am advocating. Time and space are variable in SR, but light speed is constant. GR (or at least my interpretation of it) extends that concept by making light speed variable in a gravitational field.
BTW - you can link directly to a comment by copying the link above it, which reads "Re: topic".

[Mike Gale]

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.

Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.

The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...

You seem to be advocating some kind of aether theory, but you are way off topic on this thread. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand, shall we?

Equivalence principle!!?

The equivalence principle, which states that observers in free fall do not feel their own weight, is not in contention here.

[Spring Theory]

I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You're suggesting that the phenomenon of time dilation is separate and distinct from gravity. I couldn't agree more. If you interpret GR in terms of variable light speed, time dilation is entirely due to velocity. Same goes for spatial dilation, but that one is a bit of a mixed bag because light speed defines the relationship between space and time. You could turn it around by making space squishy and time rigid, but SR teaches us that it's really a mixture of the two and that is the view I am advocating. Time and space are variable in SR, but light speed is constant. GR extends that concept by making light speed variable in a gravitational field.
BTW - you can link directly to a comment by copying the link above it, which reads "Re: topic".

Agreed to a point, but I hold to the side that time is rigid and space is squishy...

[Spring Theory]

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.

Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.

The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...

You seem to be advocating some kind of aether theory, but you are way off topic on this thread. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand, shall we?

Equivalence principle!!?

The equivalence principle, which states that observers in free fall do not feel their own weight, is not in contention here.

Topic: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

[Mike Gale]

I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You're suggesting that the phenomenon of time dilation is separate and distinct from gravity. I couldn't agree more. If you interpret GR in terms of variable light speed, time dilation is entirely due to velocity. Same goes for spatial dilation, but that one is a bit of a mixed bag because light speed defines the relationship between space and time. You could turn it around by making space squishy and time rigid, but SR teaches us that it's really a mixture of the two and that is the view I am advocating. Time and space are variable in SR, but light speed is constant. GR extends that concept by making light speed variable in a gravitational field.
BTW - you can link directly to a comment by copying the link above it, which reads "Re: topic".

Agreed to a point, but I hold to the side that time is rigid and space is squishy...

My comment was in regard to timey's theory. I don't know what yours is and I strongly suggest that you take it up in a new thread. Otherwise this one will become incomprehensible.

[Mike Gale]

Reply #65 appears to be a typo. Authors are allowed to withdraw their comments so I would ask Spring Theory to do so and I will then delete this one.

[GoC]

Variable light speed was not my idea. Einstein wrote about it at length (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22). It just never caught on as a useful way of thinking about GR. Not that it's invalid, he just didn't find it helpful when explaining GR to non-believers. I expect it was hard enough to convince them that the speed of light is invariant in an SR context and chose to let that sleeping dog lie.
It's not really fair to say that the SC scaling factor is gravity, although it certainly involves the concept. Gravity is a force whereas the scaling factor represents energy. (A force is the rate of change of energy.) The scaling factor is in fact an expression of conservation of energy for the free fall case. GR theorists cringe at that definition. They contend that it is something completely different and any resemblance to classical concepts like conservation of energy is purely coincidental. I contend that they are confused because they have forgotten to account for SR effects when formulating the metric. But I digress.
Splitting gravity into two parts is a new one on me. Can you give me the executive overview or do I have to tackle four more discussion threads?

Of course I know what Einstein said.  I've read those papers.  What I meant was that it is because you can recognise Einstein's reference, and with respect that in your own interpretation of what you are doing that you appear to be open to alternative, (alternative that makes sense to me under current physics remits btw), that it will be easier for you to make the mental leap to understand and calculate these differences that I add...
And to say so it's really quite heartening to have a conversation that is progressive.

At present in physics we have this force called gravity.  We know everything about it mathematically down to the very last minute detail, apart from 'why' it does what it does...
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that gravity accelerates objects towards the greater mass.
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that m, no matter its value, will free fall to towards M at the same rate.

Also - I think it worth mentioning that physics does not have a fully coherent theory of time.  This is well documented in all of the books I've read.

Ok look - Just for the time being banish all thought's of GR time dilation and SR time dilation from your mind completely, and just think of what I'm saying in terms of attributing a physical cause for the fact that objects are accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m no matter its value, free falls at the same rate towards M.

Now place into this picture - of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m, no matter it's value, free falls towards M at the same rate - a time dilation that is inherent to the g-field surrounding M, where the seconds get progressively longer at h from M...

... Thinking upon this you will find that a physical mechanism as such would account for both the observation of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and the observation that m, no matter it's value, will free fall towards M at the same rate...

And after scratching your head, and rubbing your chin while you hmmm and ahh for a while, you would realise that this is 'well cool' because this means that all the maths for this concept already exist!

But then there are a few hurdles, such as that GR time dilation states clocks as ticking faster at h from M...
But...  It occurs to one, or perhaps it was dawns upon, that it is quite possible for both to be happening simultaneously, because in relation to what is occurring on M, each will be the opposite of each other equally, and just because m's time is as such doesn't negate m from being accelerated towards the greater mass.
SR time dilation* can then be added to the picture to move GR time dilated m through this time dilated related g-field.

* Not length contraction.

The remit of quite how this could work is laid out (only a few paragraphs) in posts 33 and 34 of this thread:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69592.0

Unfortunately there is no 'find post' function on this site, so if you want me to copy and paste those posts to this thread I will, but if you read the last 4 most recent posts, if you have already understood what I have said above, then these last 4 posts should suffice.

   I understand your reference to the cars in different lanes. That is the prelude to understanding Relativity GR. What you need to understand is your measuring stick (your meter stick) becomes physically larger and you measure distances with a larger (longer) measuring stick. As an example the distance to the sun would be say 92.9 million miles distance with a larger Earth vs. 93 million miles on the present size of our Earth. You measure a shorter distance in a slower clocks frame. This will feel counter intuitive until you work it out correctly. You need to get over this hump to recognize relativity to be correct.

SR is a visual measuring stick change and GR is a physical measuring stick change that has equivalence between SR and GR. SR being the hypotenuse for light travel and GR being dilation of space. Both have there equivalencies in being relative to c energy state.

You can understand relativity as motion, time or energy. I have found the easiest for me is through energy.  Geometry of motion for SR and energy state of dilation for GR. The clock measures dilation in GR and speed in SR. The equivalency is through the clock tick rate.

It's complicated until you understand it properly. Once that happens you wonder what was so difficult to understand. I can see both you and Mike are on the path. Relativity is the correct fork in the road. Gravity is explained by dilation of energy for the Pe state. There is an increase in dilation to the center of mass which can be followed orthogonally by the reduction of Pe to the center of mass. Mass has no fundamental energy. Electrons are moved by c. BH's have no time energy motion at all. No c period. Energy actually bends around a BH and the photon is a wave on energy. No direct access to a BH like you can with normal mass. Anyone suggesting light can reach a BH does not understand Relativity properly.

Normal mass (the atom) has a ratio of a marble to a football field where the electron travels 100 yards to a marble. A black Hole is a football field full of marbles. The fundamental energy of time and motion are excluded from a BH. The surface to the center is the same Pe=0. The fundamental energy c curves around the BH because of this. BH's are out of the relativity nature of normal mass and space.

So the equivalence principle is alive and well in normal mass.

[Spring Theory]

Reply #65 appears to be a typo. Authors are allowed to withdraw their comments so I would ask Spring Theory to do so and I will then delete this one.

Not a typo.

[timey (OP)]

Mike, to retain continuity I have posted my post that you answered, your answer, and my answer to your answer below...

At present in physics we have this force called gravity.  We know everything about it mathematically down to the very last minute detail, apart from 'why' it does what it does...
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that gravity accelerates objects towards the greater mass.
So far there is no physical cause that can be attributed to the fact that m, no matter its value, will free fall to towards M at the same rate.

Also - I think it worth mentioning that physics does not have a fully coherent theory of time.  This is well documented in all of the books I've read.

Ok look - Just for the time being banish all thought's of GR time dilation and SR time dilation from your mind completely, and just think of what I'm saying in terms of attributing a physical cause for the fact that objects are accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m no matter its value, free falls at the same rate towards M.

Now place into this picture - of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and that m, no matter it's value, free falls towards M at the same rate - a time dilation that is inherent to the g-field surrounding M, where the seconds get progressively longer at h from M...

... Thinking upon this you will find that a physical mechanism as such would account for both the observation of objects being accelerated towards the greater mass, and the observation that m, no matter it's value, will free fall towards M at the same rate...

And after scratching your head, and rubbing your chin while you hmmm and ahh for a while, you would realise that this is 'well cool' because this means that all the maths for this concept already exist!

But then there are a few hurdles, such as that GR time dilation states clocks as ticking faster at h from M...
But...  It occurs to one, or perhaps it was dawns upon, that it is quite possible for both to be happening simultaneously, because in relation to what is occurring on M, each will be the opposite of each other equally, and just because m's time is as such doesn't negate m from being accelerated towards the greater mass.
SR can then be added to the picture to move GR time dilated m through this time dilated related g-field.

The remit of quite how this could work is laid out (only a few paragraphs) in posts 33 and 34 of this thread:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69592.0

Unfortunately there is no 'find post' function on this site, so if you want me to copy and paste those posts to this thread I will, but if you read the last 4 most recent posts, if you have already understood what I have said above, then these last 4 posts should suffice.

I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You're suggesting that the phenomenon of time dilation is separate and distinct from gravity. I couldn't agree more. If you interpret GR in terms of variable light speed, time dilation is entirely due to velocity. Same goes for spatial dilation, but that one is a bit of a mixed bag because light speed defines the relationship between space and time. You could turn it around by making space squishy and time rigid, but SR teaches us that it's really a mixture of the two and that is the view I am advocating. Time and space are variable in SR, but light speed is constant. GR (or at least my interpretation of it) extends that concept by making light speed variable in a gravitational field.
BTW - you can link directly to a comment by copying the link above it, which reads "Re: topic".

Ok - going at it one step at a time...

No - I am suggesting the exact opposite.  I am suggesting that gravity is 'almost' entirely time dilation related*.
Not GR time dilation related.
Not SR time dilation related.
But due to a time dilation that is inherent to 'open spaces' in relation to M, that 'cannot' be measured by a clock...
(*This time dilation can be thought of as kinetic energy related)

This being because when you place a clock in an open space, that space is no longer open, and what is being measured is not what time is doing in the open space g-field surrounding M, but is measuring what time does for m in relation to M.  The measuring of a clock ticking faster at h from M being GR time dilation.*
(*This can be thought of as being gravity potential related)

The above is indeed the entire premises for my model.

If you have any questions about the above, ask now...

If you understand the above, and recognise that this 'new' time dilation can give physical cause for the observed actions of gravity, we can move on to looking at the mathematical structure of SR, the fact that these maths can describe physical observation, and examine 'actual' physical cause for both SR time dilation, and its associated length contraction maths.

[Mike Gale]

I think it's a mistake to attribute time dilation to GR so I'm with you there. My argument is that SR has that phenomenon covered for the free fall case and all other cases involve additional energy, which is not available in the GR metric. But it's certainly a mistake to disregard SR and attribute time dilation to something new. SR is a definitive account of KE. GR is all about PE.

[timey (OP)]

My model doesn't disregard SR time dilation in the slightest, and gives physical description of why SR length contraction mathematics work in the current maths to describe observation.

[Mike Gale]

Oh yes. I see. I read your list of nots backwards. You're conceding SR dilation and GR dilation (if there is such a thing), but you think there may be something more to gravity. I am reminded of Laplace's response to Napoleon's question about the absence of God in his physics. He is purported to have said, "I had no need of that hypothesis." Religious connotations aside, I think the same thing applies here. Perhaps I should address the question that sparked this discussion (i.e. the title of this thread.)
The answer to that question is no. There is no discrepancy. The equivalence principle is perfectly consistent with GR. It was in fact the founding principle, which inspired Einstein to seek answers. He called it the happiest thought of his life. It's disappointing that he didn't go to greater lengths to tie it into SR, but it's understandable because GR was a stunning breakthrough in and of itself. We stand in awe and despite what some egos claim, we still struggle to comprehend. I get that you seek comprehension, but I don't see the need to invent new causes for gravity. What's the motivation? The scientific method dictates that we have faith in SR and GR until they are proven wrong by observation. As the optimist said when she fell past the 20th storey, "So far, so good."

[timey (OP)]

Well she said - that would be all very well, but last time I checked the situation, GR and SR, in order to describe, so brilliantly and adequately, these observations of our universe, (under the remit of current physics model), cannot make this description without the 'added' and as of yet 'unobserved' dimensions of Dark Matter, and Dark Energy.

... And this model that I am trying to describe, by altering the dimensions of the equivalence principle ever so slightly, just uses what we 'do' observe.

And what physical cause is given to gravity as per current model?

What exactly is it that you are calculating when you calculate using G or g?

And isn't it a direct consequence of the equivalence principle that you are unsure if SR or GR time dilation is real or not?
On the one hand it is said that these time dilations only appear to happen from the other reference frame, and on the other hand a person ages in keeping with their time dilated clock...
How does one go about physically reconciling this anomaly?

[Mike Gale]

I see. You're trying to defeat the Dark Side, which is GR's answer to galaxy rotation curves. Good point. That would certainly qualify as a faith-shaking observation. You could have made that more clear in the topic title though. If you ask me, dark matter is a contrived solution. It points to a flaw in the physics as opposed to a new form of matter. I suspect it's an artifact of the weak field approximation, which is used to calibrate the SC metric. I think I know how to fix the metric, but there's a still lot of math to be done in order to debunk DM conclusively. It may well be that my theory is the same as yours, but it's too early to tell.
As to your probing questions:
Q1: what physical cause is given to gravity as per current model?
A1: Variable speed of light, which could be due to time dilation or spatial dilation, but not both.
Q2: what exactly is it that you are calculating when you calculate using G or g?
A2: Those constants represent coupling between mass and space. They are essentially unit conversion factors. You can actually measure distance in terms of mass or express mass in terms of distance. That's what the SC scaling distance is all about. Mass is essentially a hole in space. The same is true of the speed of light. It is essentially a unit conversion factor between space and time.
Q3: isn't it a direct consequence of the equivalence principle that you are unsure if SR or GR time dilation is real or not?
A3: I wouldn't say that we're unsure about SR or GR dilation. Given the equivalence principle, they are in perfect agreement with almost all observations of the solar system. (I say almost because precession of a planet's axis of rotation remains unexplained. That may be a lack of mathematical skill as opposed to a defect in the model though.) The model doesn't seem to hold for galaxies, but the metric is demonstrably dubious for strong fields. It therefore seems likely that the problem is in the metric as opposed to the principle itself. For now we have to stick with the DM explanation in order to compile evidence. It is an obvious cop out, but it's a workable thesis until something better comes along. It's annoying when its proponents talk like it's a done deal though. Ego hinders progress.
Q4: how does one go about physically reconciling this anomaly [with regards to reference frames]?
A4: I think SR and GR have us covered there. One's perception of the universe depends on one's velocity and the local field strength. Both of those factors are observer-dependent. The relationship between reference frames is difficult to comprehend, but the logic is infallible.

[timey (OP)]

My model is a fully described cyclic universe that makes all of its development from particle form to what we see today in a 'contraction' period that was initiated as soon as the inflation period of my model's Big Bang* stopped inflating...

...Therefore I am challenging Hubble's velocity related interpretation of the red shift distance correlation...
... stating the acceleration of gravity as contra directional gravitational time dilation related...

And in a contracting universe where the acceleration of gravity is time dilation related the necessity for Dark Energy, and Dark Matter is negated.

*The Big Bang of my cyclic model is due to the eventual contraction of all mass in the universe into one super super massive black hole.which will explode via its super luminal jets, where all the mass and energy of this universe are inflated into a sea of particles that start clumping together in a slow and prelonged contraction that accelerates in that contraction as matter further clumps.  ie: cyclic
(I'm pretty certain that I've posted this info in this thread)

1/ variable speed of light is not a physical cause for gravity.  It can be a physical consequence of gravity, but cannot be describing a physical cause for gravity.
So again - what physical cause are you giving gravity?

2/ Those constants are mathematical numbers based on measurement and observation.
You are calculating a phenomenon of which you know what it does, but not what it is, nor what causes it.

3/  I would contend and state that the equivalence principle is not making adequate description, because according to the equivalence principle the clock in the other reference frame is ticking with the same energy and frequency as the clock in your own reference frame, and this is in direct contention to the notion that one ages in keeping with their time dilated clock.

4/ I disagree...  As per in 3/, the logic stinks!  My rendition of the equivalence principle ensures that all remains equivalent, and unifies gravity with the standard model for a continuum in quantum.

[timey (OP)]

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69830.0

Did you see this thread (only 4 short posts so far)

[Mike Gale]

Ah, yes. Hubble expansion. That's a bit of a kerfuffle. The root of that phenomenon is the white hole known as the Big Bang. It seems to suggest dark energy, but I suspect that is an artifact of the metric defect, just like DM.
You are speculating when you talk about masses combining to form bigger black holes. The SC metric does not permit that without invoking QM and that's an entirely new kettle of fish. Despite Hawking's best efforts, the relationship between GR and QM continues to elude us. I am hopeful that correcting the defect in the metric will shed some light on that subject, but I don't have anything to hang my hat on yet. Note that the inflationary period of Big Bang theory is entirely contrived, just like DM and DE. It is an observation, not a causal explanation.
1) Variable light speed is the cause of gravity. Dilation is the cause of variable light speed. Mass is the cause (or a cause) of dilation. The theory has nothing to say about the cause of mass. It just is.
2) Call them what you will. The fact remains that they are unit conversion factors. The laws of physics are unchanged if you set both of them equal to one. All that changes is your units of measure. The GR interpretation of mass is the size of a hole in space. The SR interpretation of space is distance traveled in a unit of time at light speed. Another way of thinking about that is the number of wave cycles between events.
3) Incorrect. Energy is observer-dependent.
4) Many people have tried to poke holes in Einstein's logic. All (including me) have failed.

[timey (OP)]

Einstein himself said his logic was incomplete, and illogical.

I will watch you and your metric with interest.  And if you get a bit bored at-all while reconciling length contraction to the percentage of the coordinate speed of light your mass or light is travelling at in relation to distance travelled - just for laughs try setting time set at stopped in a 0 gravity field, and then re-calculate a prediction for the cosmological constant...

With regards to my own model, I've given it a great deal of incredibly deep thought for many years now, having read a lot of books that have told me all of the matters that need addressing in order to produce a theory of everything, of which my model addresses them all.

However - to understand my model, it would take the same type of paradigm shift in thinking that a person conditioned to think in terms of the geocentric model would have had to employ to start thinking in terms of the heliocentric model.

I'm not going to argue about relativity here, I find doing so incredibly boring.  It's all anyone ever does, back and forth, back and forth.
Many theoretical physicists are looking at the possibility of current physics being wrong, trying new ideas, new metric, MOND, MOG, etc, and if I can't find a progressive discussion that isn't going to result in the words 'incorrect because relativity says so', I'd rather put my energy into learning the maths that need to be employed to describe what I am describing in my model.