0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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...

Quote from: Spring Theory on 21/02/2017 02:26:42If 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?

Quote from: Mike Gale on 21/02/2017 04:24:57Quote from: Spring Theory on 21/02/2017 02:26:42If 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!!?

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".

Quote from: Spring Theory on 21/02/2017 04:51:08Quote from: Mike Gale on 21/02/2017 04:24:57Quote from: Spring Theory on 21/02/2017 02:26:42If 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.

Quote from: Mike Gale on 21/02/2017 04:52:42I 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...

Quote from: Mike Gale on 21/02/2017 01:38:04Variable 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=69592.0Unfortunately 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.

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?

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.

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".