[Mike Gale]

Relativity involves a lot of ratios and when a ratio changes, it can be hard to figure out whether that is due to the numerator changing or the denominator. Sometimes it's important. Sometimes not. The trick is to learn the difference. A convention or preference is not worth arguing about.
It's also easy to get trapped in the aether argument. Space and time are ultimately just units of measure. They have no objective meaning in and of themselves. They certainly must measure something though and that could be described as an aether. The nature of the aether is elusive. It seems to have intrinsic energy (akin to tension in a guitar string.) It is not the rigid stage that Newton envisioned, but a squishy stage doesn't really clarify anything. In order to make any progress, you have to put all that on the shelf (as Newton did) and think about what the math is trying to tell you.

[timey (OP)]

If one considers this aether to be a time dilation phenomenon it solves the problem in all respects.

But I'm getting really bored of saying so... Either someone here is going to take the notion seriously and calculate it, or their not.

In the mean time (excuse the pun), how you finding Oz, and have you seen Tombstone?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69840.0

[Mike Gale]

Before we can formulate a mathematical description of your model we have to separate the philosophy from the physics. I don't think we're there yet.

[Mike Gale]

I keep getting hung up on the term "standard second" because, in my mind at least, that translates to a preferred reference frame. I think you mean to say "proper time", which is what you measure on a stationary clock. Does that sound right? If so, you would be well served to adopt that terminology when conversing with physicists. The concept of proper time gets fuzzy in GR because it's not invariant like it is in SR unless you are talking about a free fall reference frame.

[timey (OP)]

The standard second is what all units of measurement that involve time are held relative to.

Speed of light = 299 792 458 metres per standard second...
Frequency = wave cycles per standard second...
Joules per standard second...
Etc...

So it is good news that you are hung up on the term standard second translating to a preferred reference frame, because that is exactly and entirely my point!

My point being that if one measures all the above as per the rate of time as per the clock in the 'other' reference frame, then distance, frequency, and energy measurements will be exactly the same in each and every reference frame.*

The equivalence principle currently states that this is the case, but for the reason that the clock is ticking normally in the other reference frame, as per a standard second measurement, and only appears different from the other reference frame.
The difference I make just states that the clock is actually physically ticking at a differing rate to the standard second, but it will appear normal if you go to that other reference frame for the reason that you and your atoms will also be ticking at the differing rate of that reference frame, therefore giving a physical reason for the notion of ageing in keeping with ones time dilated clock.

*But... 'a clock' cannot measure what time is doing in open space.
Therefore it is my suggestion that there is something different going on with time in open space than there is for a clock, (and m in general), when placed in open space.

So 'proper time' is the time on the stationary clock.  But what rate is 'proper time' running at?

Why do you say that SR time is invariant?
Clearly the clock in the frame that is in relative motion to the stationary clock is ticking at a slower rate.
But how can you state the stationary clock as stationary?
A stationary clock can be considered stationary held relative to a clock that is not in motion with respect to the stationary clock, but neither clocks are actually stationary.  Both will be in motion relative to a clock somewhere else.

Furthermore, both clocks may be stationary with respect to each other, but be placed in differing gravity potentials.
For instance:  Place your first clock on ground, and your second clock on a helicopter at a height of 100 metres, and then rather than the helicopter maintain its position directly above the ground clock, whereas the clock on the helicopter would be in motion faster than the ground clock, ask your helicopter to be in motion as per the clock on the ground, where the helicopter will observe the ground clock to be moving away with the rotation of the earth.
Both clocks are now stationary with respect to each other, but the helicopters clock will be ticking faster.
Which clock is displaying the 'proper time' in this instance?

[GoC]

The standard second is what all units of measurement that involve time are held relative to.

There is no standard second.

Speed of light = 299 792 458 metres per standard second...
Frequency = wave cycles per standard second...
Joules per standard second...
Etc...

So it is good news that you are hung up on the term standard second translating to a preferred reference frame, because that is exactly and entirely my point!

You can mathematically chose to vary the speed of light. I am not hung up on a preferred frame. If you vary the speed of light there is still no preferred frame. Mike explained that.

My point being that if one measures all the above as per the rate of time as per the clock in the 'other' reference frame, then distance, frequency, and energy measurements will be exactly the same in each and every reference frame.*

No the ratios of speed of light to reaction and distance measurements are the same in every frame. There is a distinct difference you may not be understanding.

The equivalence principle currently states that this is the case, but for the reason that the clock is ticking normally in the other reference frame, as per a standard second measurement, and only appears different from the other reference frame.

Yes observed to be physically different with equivalent ratios of reaction, SOL and distance within that frame but not between frames.

The difference I make just states that the clock is actually physically ticking at a differing rate to the standard second, but it will appear normal if you go to that other reference frame for the reason that you and your atoms will also be ticking at the differing rate of that reference frame, therefore giving a physical reason for the notion of ageing in keeping with ones time dilated clock.

Except for the standard second reference that is essentially correct. There is no standard reference frame of a standard second.

*But... 'a clock' cannot measure what time is doing in open space.

It can measure the energy density of the space it occupies. We can then compare spacetime energy by tick rate. A clock only measures the energy of a frame in terms of tick rate.

Therefore it is my suggestion that there is something different going on with time in open space than there is for a clock, (and m in general), when placed in open space.

Yes but the dilation of mass is insignificant for a ratio of masses we are measuring against. You suggest all mass falls at the same rate in a vacuum. The truth is we can not measure the difference in attraction because it is also insignificant. M is attracted to m and m is attracted to M. Divide the mass of the earth by the mass of  either item  and there is no significant difference. We cannot measure the difference.

So 'proper time' is the time on the stationary clock.  But what rate is 'proper time' running at?

There is no such thing as a stationary clock.

Why do you say that SR time is invariant?

Because we do not view objects as perpendicular. It's always an angle greater than 90 degrees by vector. c is constant while geometry of motion is corrected by relativity. If relativity was wrong than geometry of motion is wrong. I trust math.

Clearly the clock in the frame that is in relative motion to the stationary clock is ticking at a slower rate.

No such thing as a stationary clock.

But how can you state the stationary clock as stationary?

Before understanding relativity if I did I was wrong. There is no such thing as a stationary clock.

A stationary clock can be considered stationary held relative to a clock that is not in motion with respect to the stationary clock, but neither clocks are actually stationary.  Both will be in motion relative to a clock somewhere else.

So we can only measure the ratio's of the energy state of a frame. What is your issue with relativity's equivalency principle?

Furthermore, both clocks may be stationary with respect to each other, but be placed in differing gravity potentials.

So we are back to measuring the energy ratios based on how much of c is being used by each frame. Nothing to do with being stationary. There is no stationary. That is a local illusion.

For instance:  Place your first clock on ground, and your second clock on a helicopter at a height of 100 metres, and then rather than the helicopter maintain its position directly above the ground clock, whereas the clock on the helicopter would be in motion faster than the ground clock, ask your helicopter to be in motion as per the clock on the ground, where the helicopter will observe the ground clock to be moving away with the rotation of the earth.
Both clocks are now stationary with respect to each other, but the helicopters clock will be ticking faster.

This means the clocks are in different energy frames. Clocks measure the energy state of the frame it occupies.

Which clock is displaying the 'proper time' in this instance?

Both are displaying the 'proper energy state' of the frame they are occupying. Can you define time properly?

[timey (OP)]

If a clock is displaying the energy state of the reference frame it is occupying, then one cannot state that energy is observer dependent.

If a clock measures the energy state of the reference frame of space it is occupying, this statement in itself separates the clock from the reference frame of the space it is measuring.  Now you have 2 reference frames.  The reference frame of the clock, and the reference frame of space the clock is measuring.
As the clock is now occupying the reference frame of the space, how can you say the clock is making a measurement of the space it is occupying?
The clock is measuring the reference frame of its own self when in that space, not the other way round.

Define time:
Time is not a measurement to be imposed upon the universe, but is a reactive phenomenon inherent 'within' the universe.

[GoC]

If a clock is displaying the energy state of the reference frame it is occupying, then one cannot state that energy is observer dependent.

True, energy needs no observer to exist.

If a clock measures the energy state of the reference frame of space it is occupying, this statement in itself separates the clock from the reference frame of the space it is measuring. 

No it's in the frames energy state to measure. As in a thermometer for temperature.

Now you have 2 reference frames. 

Yes energy and mass. E=mc^2. mc for energy moving electrons and c for energy occupying space. Electrons and photons are confounded in every frame by c.

The reference frame of the clock, and the reference frame of space the clock is measuring.

They are confounded in the same frame to measure the same speed of light in every frame.

As the clock is now occupying the reference frame of the space, how can you say the clock is making a measurement of the space it is occupying?

By measuring the same speed of light in every frame. Once again mechanical and light clocks tick at the same rate in every frame so the photon and the electron are confounded in every frame.

The clock is measuring the reference frame of its own self when in that space, not the other way round.

Yes and the electron mechanical clock ticks at the same rate as the photon clock. The photon is pure energy displayed as distance.

Define time:
Time is not a measurement to be imposed upon the universe,

Correct man has no power over fundamental energy.

but is a reactive phenomenon inherent 'within' the universe.

The reaction phenomena is moving the electrons confounded with the photons in every frame. Time=Motion =Energy c. Relativity explains it all already. It even explains gravity as a difference in energy states and mass being attracted to the lowest energy state by dilation in GR.

Learn relativity mathematics. The gamma term is dilation of energy.

[timey (OP)]

Go and find me the Dark Energy and Dark Matter that are required for Relativity to be a viable theory...
Without them Relativity is dead!

Until such time please excuse me while I discuss this alternative that describes all observation without them.

[Mike Gale]

A clock can be stationary with respect to an observer. Your biological clock is a case in point. It just doesn't make sense to talk about the reference frame of space because space and time are observer dependent quantities. The standard second is whatever you perceive it to be in your reference frame. Everybody has a different perspective on that. The clock on the helicopter runs faster than one on the ground because they are in different reference frames. SR can't cope with that scenario because, even though the observers are stationary with respect to one another, they are accelerated to different extents. In classical terms, they have different PEs. PE can be interpreted as variable light speed in GR.  You can attribute that to time dilation or space dilation, but not both (as in SR.)

[timey (OP)]

Mike - it doesn't make sense that space and time are observer dependent.
... And this is where the staunch Relativist will tell me I don't understand relativity, which is wrong.  I do understand, and it doesn't make physical sense.

My objective is to make sense of the observations without the need to invoke any unobserved quantities.
My model can do this - but it requires that one assume that the energy and frequency of a GR time dilated clock, and the energy and frequency of an SR time dilated clock are 'not' observer dependent, and that gravitational acceleration/deceleration are a third time dilation phenomenon.

Yes - a second may be whatever one perceives it to be, however the maths describing all observations hold the NIST standard second relative to that observation via measurement.  Therefore the standard second is being used as the preferred reference frame whether one recognises the fact or not.
If one measures a differing rate of time via the standard second, energy and frequency will be greater, or lesser than a reference frame where one is stating a standard second.

What physics comprises of currently is a bunch of very different mathematical systems of which one may employ one or the other of a choice.  But none of these systems can describe the whole shebang, only portions of it.

A unified theory of everything will employ one system of mathematics that can describe all observations without relying on unobserved quantities.

This has been my goal...

I think my model and the changes that I suggest to the current mathematical systems are capable of doing such.

The clock on the helicopter that is maintaining the same speed as the clock on the ground, observing the clock on the ground moving away with the rotation of the planet is relevant.
This being because when NIST conducted their ground level relativity tests, they measured a clock that was at a greater radius than the clock on the ground, (albeit just 1 metre greater radius) therefore the elevated clock is experiencing a greater speed than the lower clock is, and will be subject to greater SR effects.

[Mike Gale]

Relativity may not make sense in your world view, but it is a perfectly consistent account of observation (except perhaps galaxy rotation curves.). The mathematical logic is infallible.
BTW - I am enjoying a sunny day in Perth and I can report that the laws of physics are alive and well down here, too.

[Mike Gale]

Note also that SR cannot cope with acceleration. It describes KE in the context of uniform motion. GR describes PE  in a stationary context, although it is also valid for free fall because PE=KE in that case.

[timey (OP)]

In answer to post 151:

I remember that the sky looks much higher in Perth than it does in UK. Observer dependency, or more Dark Energy down under.  Wotcha reckon? 

Look - I agree that relativity gives a very good, in fact the best representation of the universe that physics currently has.  There is no doubt about this, I am not contending the fact, and indeed am in awe of its brilliance myself...
Especially considering how Einstein was so very much less informed than we are today.

But come on Mike, the very author of this theory declared it incomplete, was sure that he was missing something, and spent the rest of his life trying to figure out what and why...

There are only so many ways of fitting observation together into an architecture of mechanical viability.  My model's alterations are all merely a transference of the current concepts and mathematics into an altered arrangement.  Mostly just switching polarities really.

There are many problems with current physics.  They are well documented in all the physics books I've read - and I have spent the last 9 years giving it a lot of in-depth thought and research.

There are many observations that do not agree with current theory.
For one - since the advent of the Hubble telescope, a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville plasma physics have conducting a surface brightness test first suggested by Richard Tolman.
When observing closer galaxies in relation to very distant galaxies they have found that there is an anomaly with luminosity magnitude:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space.

“We are not speculating now as to what could cause the redshift of light,” Mr Lerner said.

[timey (OP)]

In addition to my answer to post 151

Note also that SR cannot cope with acceleration. It describes KE in the context of uniform motion. GR describes PE  in a stationary context, although it is also valid for free fall because PE=KE in that case.

Yes - and PE is related to GR gravitational time dilation...
... And I'm suggesting that this description of KE is related to my model's contra directional gravitational time dilation, that gives physical cause to the acceleration, or deceleration, of gravity.

Edit: This also gives a counterpart reason for the dilation of space that is equivalent to SR dilation of the metre, this being a temporal dilation to replace SR's spatial dilation.

[Mike Gale]

Einstein certainly suspected that something was amiss in his theory. That's why he was playing around with the cosmological constant. The problem is that, without a cosmological constant, the white hole origin theory (aka. Big Bang) predicts an expanding universe. Einstein was trying to stop the expansion so the universe would be static. Hubble's discovery compelled him to abandon that effort. His theory was in perfect agreement with observation at the time of his death. Since then we have discovered accelerated expansion and anomalous orbits, which are attributed to DE and DM respectively. These are admittedly contrived, but they do not necessarily challenge relativity at its core as you contend.

[GoC]

Einstein certainly suspected that something was amiss in his theory. That's why he was playing around with the cosmological constant. The problem is that, without a cosmological constant, the white hole origin theory (aka. Big Bang) predicts an expanding universe. Einstein was trying to stop the expansion so the universe would be static. Hubble's discovery compelled him to abandon that effort. His theory was in perfect agreement with observation at the time of his death. Since then we have discovered accelerated expansion and anomalous orbits, which are attributed to DE and DM respectively. These are admittedly contrived, but they do not necessarily challenge relativity at its core as you contend.

DM and DE actually give cause to Relativity. The two different descriptions are actually one thing. The point structure of the Aether with spin for energy c creating Relativity. The Aether spin is Quantum Mechanics creating c. A planet has pe gradient. A solar system has pe gradient. A galaxy has a pe gradient. When the voyagers left our solar system they appeared to slow down. To this day scientists are scratching their heads wondering why? The threshold of the solar systems pe decrease was crossed and the clock tick rate increased. That signaled a slow down in their model not truly understanding relativity affects in the correct model.

Main streams model is red shift from SR only for galaxies. There is also a GR red shift not being accounted for by our pe position of observation further out in our galaxy. Light from galaxies mostly come from 25% in the center of galaxies where dilation is the greatest. We are out in the 75% distance from center. Einstein was probably correct in his steady state. We make up the BB due to main streams model of no medium of gravitational potential (pe). Now reason for a BB. BH's actually prove the BB time line wrong. There whole model needs revamping not relativity. Aether, Spacetime, Energy, DM and DE call it anything you like but transfer has to have a medium and that medium is what we call the spectrum.

[timey (OP)]

Einstein certainly suspected that something was amiss in his theory. That's why he was playing around with the cosmological constant. The problem is that, without a cosmological constant, the white hole origin theory (aka. Big Bang) predicts an expanding universe. Einstein was trying to stop the expansion so the universe would be static. Hubble's discovery compelled him to abandon that effort. His theory was in perfect agreement with observation at the time of his death. Since then we have discovered accelerated expansion and anomalous orbits, which are attributed to DE and DM respectively. These are admittedly contrived, but they do not necessarily challenge relativity at its core as you contend.

No - Einstein added his cosmological constant to GR that ensured that his rendition of a steady state did not CONTRACT!

Henrietta Swan Leavitt noticed that there was a correlation between red shift and distance, which Hubble then calculated as being velocity related.
This is what began the trend to the wide scale acceptance of the Big Bang notion and an expanding universe, and therefore Einstein retracted his cosmological constant as folly.

It is since we have discovered that the red shifts of the red shift distance correlation are getting redder, that Einstein's cosmological constant has come back into the forefront to become significant to an accelerated expansion of the universe, because in conjunction with Hubble's velocity related red shift distance correlation, the cosmological constant has become relevant to Dark Energy as a means of describing this accelerated expansion.

No - his theory was not in perfect agreement with observation at his death.  In consideration of QM and the fact that GR and QM are incompatible, Einstein was dissatisfied.

It is not I personally who contends relativity.  Nor did I invent any of the contentions to relativity that I discuss.  These are all contentions that qualified and respected physicists, who for the most part hold positions in respected Universities, who's books I've read, who's research I've investigated, etc, have put forward.

The DES, a project designed to identify Dark Energy, a supposed 5 year project, supposedly concluding in 2016, has found no sign of the stuff, and Dark Matter itself also remains elusive.

[GoC]

Nothing can be measured directly at the speed of light. It will remain elusive until we recognize the orthogonal measurements are all related to c as a constant fundamental energy. It's out there just not recognized for what it is they are measuring.

[timey (OP)]

If mass, or space, or time, or a combination of all 3, are contracted or dilated - then a change in energy occurs, either as a result, or due to being the cause...

And this c you are on about is 'just' speed.  A speed GoC...comprende? Just a speed!
Ok?