[timey (OP)]

I agree that c is the universal speed limit, and that despite dilation or contraction of time, that c remains constant in each and every reference frame.

My model clearly adheres to this axiom within the changes I make to the equivalence principle.

[timey (OP)]

... And not only does my model strictly adhere to the axiom of c being the universal speed limit, it actually manages to do so far better and more adhesivly than conventional relativity, which has a reference frame known as 'the fabric of space' that conventional relativity states as exempt from this axiom.

So as far as conventional relativity goes, relativity contravenes its own self stated axiom, this axiom being the very foundation that relativity itself is built upon!

[GoC]

To suggest there is nothing controlling the electron and photon to be confounded is a violation of logic in the first order. But that in no way interferes with Relativity based on its postulates. There has to be a substance creating the spectrum. The substance confirms mechanics over the magic of main stream beliefs in no fabric.

[timey (OP)]

Who suggested that there is nothing controlling the electron and photon to be confounded?

I'm trying to describe a new interpretation of relativity here.  I really don't appreciate your input.  I think your grasp on conventional relativity is lacking.  You continually bleat on about confounded this and energy dilation that, fundamental c, and so on, while not engaging with the topic or responding to that which is being discussed.

I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is time dilation related, and outlining a change to the equivalence principle.
Unfortunately I'm also having to point out the 'documented' flaws in conventional relativity as well.
If you even responded in kind to the 'current physics relativity' flaws that I'm pointing out, rather than engaging in the changes I suggest - I could just about forgive you - but you do neither.  You just clog up the thread with your confoundedness notion making it difficult to retain topical continuity.

Again - with all due respect, I do really wish you would open your own thread to talk about confounded particles upon.

[Mike Gale]

I agree with Timey about staying on topic. It's always tempting to interject your own hypotheses. I could be accused of that too, but I only do so to illustrate alternative points of view when the discussion ventures into areas of overlap.
As for the cosmological constant, timey is right that it was supposed to stop the universe from contracting, but it has the opposite effect for a white hole. The point is that Hubble's discovery alleviated the need for any such thing. But accelerated expansion suggests that Einstein was actually on the right track. The cosmological variable is a better way to account for that because it is not an ad hoc factor. There is actually a physical explanation for it.

[timey (OP)]

Only if Hubble's velocity related red shift distance correlation interpretation is valid.

If not then Einstein was on the right track but blind-sided by his steady state preconceptions...

What did you think about the findings of Eric Lerner and his team of astrophysics concerning the magnitude of very distant galaxies in relation to those much closer?

Btw - point of contention, the evidence for expansion, and accelerated expansion is not physical, nor fact, but is merely an interpretation of an observation!

[Mike Gale]

I would say accelerated red shift is an observation, which is by definition a fact. As such, it demands an explanation and the best one going comes from SR and GR. The only sticking point is that GR doesn't quite match observation unless you invoke DE. We're working on that.
As for fading galaxies, there are many possible explanations. Estimating galactic mass is an inexact science for example. Intergalactic dust is not out of the question either. It's worth investigating, but it's too early to draw any conclusions.

[GoC]

Who suggested that there is nothing controlling the electron and photon to be confounded?

I'm trying to describe a new interpretation of relativity here.  I really don't appreciate your input.  I think your grasp on conventional relativity is lacking.  You continually bleat on a to relativity about confounded this and energy dilation that, fundamental c, and so on, while not engaging with the topic or responding to that which is being discussed.

The confounding of the electron and photon is the very essence of equivalence between SR and GR. Nothing wrong with Relativity issues related to equivalency. I am trying to show you that. Your frustration is due to not being able to find a conjecture to invalidate relativity.

I am suggesting that gravitational acceleration is time dilation related, and outlining a change to the equivalence principle.

Gravitational acceleration is time related. Its in Einstein's gamma factor.

 

Unfortunately I'm also having to point out the 'documented' flaws in conventional relativity as well.

Your pointing out flaws in subjective interpretation only and not flaws in relativity equivalence.

 

If you even responded in kind to the 'current physics relativity' flaws that I'm pointing out, rather than engaging in the changes I suggest - I could just about forgive you - but you do neither. 

There are no flaws in relativity for those who understand relativity correctly. Equivalency is a corner stone of relativity. Forgive your self if you cannot really find a flaw.

 

 
 You just clog up the thread with your confoundedness notion making it difficult to retain topical continuity.
 

Confounded electron and photon in every frame is the very definition of equivalency. This is observed as fact!!!!!! The subjective nature of cause is the only issue.
 

Again - with all due respect, I do really wish you would open your own thread to talk about confounded particles upon.
 

Prove relativity observations of physics not being the same in every frame. Then there is a equivalency issue. Until then you need to understand relativity is correct.
[/quote]

[Mike Gale]

Perhaps I missed something. What's this business about confounded electrons and photons? And how is it relevant to timey's theory?
Note that the equivalency principle is that objects in free fall do not feel their own weight. You seem to be talking about something else entirely.

[GoC]

Perhaps I missed something. What's this business about confounded electrons and photons? And how is it relevant to timey's theory?
Note that the equivalency principle is that objects in free fall do not feel their own weight. You seem to be talking about something else entirely.

Or perhaps you are not including something. Equivalency is between SR and GR. Acceleration in SR and gravity in GR. Speed, time and distance are interrelated within a frame. When you measure the same speed of light in every frame the time, speed measured and distance measured are the same in every frame. This also has to do with equivalency. You said the same earlier in the thread. So for there to be a discrepancy in equivalency between SR and GR she would have to prove the electron and photon are not adjusted by the same amount to maintain the same observation of the SOL. Do you understand all of the ramifications of equivalency?

Timey needs to prove the observations of the SOL of every frame is not the same. Just like a sentence in a paragraph you can not pick words that change the meaning of the paragraph. If she understood enough about the entire equivalence issue she would understand where her objections are incorrect. I cannot help her frustration trying to change the physical nature of the universe. She is correct about the subjective reasoning of main stream. But not about the equivalency which is much more than free fall.

[timey (OP)]

The observation of red shift could just as easily be attributed to the light having taken a longer amount of time to travel, than distance/c, which is exactly what the velocity related interpretation is saying...
And therefore if one takes the 'speed' attributed to a red shift, and the 'distance' to the light source, and says:
distance/speed=time*c=distance/c=time
...one can know by how much of a longer time the light took to travel, and that will be by how much time has slowed in 'open space' due to a gravitational deceleration caused by the weaker g-fields of open space.

Anyway I OFFICIALLY give up.

It is the mark of an educated person to be able to consider an idea that they do not believe in themselves, and physics is not a belief, it's a system of mathematics based on interpretation of observation.

Anything can be calculated, but I dare say that it's too much for any mathematician who may be among the thousands and thousands of people who have been viewing my many threads.

Like everything else in my life this is done - finished - and OVER.
I cannot carry on anymore.

[Mike Gale]

Don't despair. It is the quest for knowledge that is exciting, not the knowing. Feynman himself said he was content to die not knowing all the answers. He just enjoyed discovering things for himself.
My last post was directed at GoC by the way and I didn't understand anything he said in Reply #169. It would be nice to know peoples' credentials so we can tell if they're talking from a position of authority. I have a master's degree in engineering physics and no formal training in GR.

[GoC]

I am a bum on the streets can't you tell?

Authority is an illusion in theoretical issues involved with the universe. I started out in engineering and switched to chemistry. My father was interested in quantum mechanics and we discussed it going to and from DuPont together. That was where my interest began. The past 15 years of my life I have had an obsession with relativity learning all I could. Many times I thought relativity was just plain wrong. But each time I found the path to show relativity to be correct. Equivalency was the most interesting and the same time most difficult between GR and SR. Einstein could not explain this well for GR. SR is simple angles in geometry of motion.
   My biggest obstacle was to discard the subjective opinions from the past so called authorities. No one is an authority of the universe. It is all speculation. I do consider myself to have a fair amount of intelligence but not exceptional. I learned relativity by math, motion, clock tick rate and as energy related to c. One more postulate I used was the cycle rate of the electron. Whatever that actually might be. At c there is no energy for cycling of the electron. From there I related relativity to fundamental energy c. That was my breakthrough for understanding relativity. The math is taught by the "authorities" and that is the easy part. How do you understand dilation in GR when the authorities claim there is nothing to dilate. As an engineering student you must have understood mechanics was always involved in all aspects of motion. Electrons do not move themselves. If you learned anything in engineering nothing can only create nothing. The electron and the photon measure the same distance in every frame (equivalency) between SR (photon) and GR (electron). The authorities will grant that to be true. Physics are the same in every frame. Tick rate of a clock is not the same in every frame. Energy c and distance c measure total available energy. The clock tick rate measures the energy of a frame by the distance between ticks.
Dilation in GR is an increase in distance for energy. Less energy per volume of space. This is engineering logic and needs no authority. The "authorities" will tell you there is nothing out there to dilate. That's when I think what moves the electrons? Mathematicians can violate mechanics but how can a mechanical engineer violate mechanics? All energy (QM) comes from c of space and mass occupies space within the sea of energy. The electrons are a conduit for that energy. Mechanics of mass is based on kinetic energy supplied by fundamental energy that move the electrons. You have that or magic. As an engineer I would hope you chose mechanics over magic. E= kinetic mass c * fundamental c. Without the energy for motion there would be no motion (QM).

Although I ended up in pharmaceuticals as an analytical supervisor my passion has been analyzing relativity.

[Mike Gale]

Thanks for that. I advocate disclosure of credentials not to brag, but rather to clarify the source of my lack of understanding. If I don't understand what you're talking about, there are two possibilities: (1) you are using technical jargon to describe a mainstream concept, in which case I can refer to the literature to get up to speed; or (2) you are conveying your own ideas in your own language, in which case you are my only source of information.
I think you (Goc) are confusing reference frames with frames of a movie (i.e. snapshots in time.) They are related concepts, but quite different. A reference frame in SR is a coordinate system that moves with respect to another with constant velocity. GR deals with special cases of accelerated motion, particularly those involving free fall and rotation (i.e. orbital motion.)  In that case, reference frames are snapshots in time.
Also, what you refer to as kinetic mass seems to be related to Newton's concept of inertial mass. I think you are suggesting that E=mc₁c₂ where c₁ and c₂ are two different speeds of light. I can't imagine what the physical justification for that would be, but maybe I don't understand what you're trying to convey.

[jeffreyH]

What you are suggesting here is that there is an absolute background frame of reference. This cannot be reconciled with relativity.

[jeffreyH]

The only way to proceed with your ideas is to start with SR and a sphere 1 light second in radius. Then consider the sphere to have photon emitters all around the surface set to fire all at the same time. Obviously just for this thought experiment. If they are all set to converge at the origin of the sphere then barring any unseen events they should all converge at the same time.
Then for GR do the same for a sphere near but no centred on a large mass. Now the photons will not all converge at once.

[GoC]

What you are suggesting here is that there is an absolute background frame of reference. This cannot be reconciled with relativity.

Energy can be reconciled with Relativity being the very cause of Relativity. There is no absolute background!!!!! There is absolute c total energy available. The energy density is not constant but the energy c is constant. Equivalence proves c to be constant. Measurement by a clock measures the density of c in your frame.

The only way to proceed with your ideas is to start with SR and a sphere 1 light second in radius. Then consider the sphere to have photon emitters all around the surface set to fire all at the same time.

Relativity would negate that approach because of equivalence in SR and GR. How would you measure one second and where? Would you use light for measured distance to the center? If you did you already fouled your test. You cannot use the thing you are measuring for distance. Light cannot be part of the measurement.
 

Obviously just for this thought experiment. If they are all set to converge at the origin of the sphere then barring any unseen events they should all converge at the same time.

Simultaneity of relativity measurements will be an issue also.. This is a failed experiment before it even starts. Use a better design!!
 

Then for GR do the same for a sphere near but no centred on a large mass. Now the photons will not all converge at once.

If you measure the distance with light and then use light for that distance the thought experiment would work for being the same distance light would travel to the center.  But that would be ridicules. Uniform time is not possible in a dilated frame. Just like acceleration does not allow uniform time. Understand time before using time in an experiment.

Relativity will not allow the point you are trying to make. I understand your point.

You have been taught subjective ideas and you carry them with you into discussions of Relativity.

Main stream is in a maze not understanding their model hit a dead end. There is a mechanical reason for Relativity. Main stream threw away their tools so they have no ability to work on the mechanics.

[timey (OP)]

Mike - please accept my apologies.  My outburst wasn't directed specifically at you.  It is born of sheer frustration that I cannot seem to get through to anyone concerning what I'm saying, and existence itself is not that appealing to me since I lost my horses and my way of life.

Ok - so you are an engineer first and foremost.  This is good, and I can work with you from the basis of an engineering point of view, and will elaborate.  I find your understanding of relativity to be very good, but if you want to get a really good grip on current state of physics, then I beseech you to read Lee Smolin's book 'The trouble with physics'.  Then we can talk from the basis of a professional theoretical physicist, and his professional equivalents observations of current physics and where relativity falls short.

Meanwhile, I have been discussing Joe Newman's energy motor, posts 82, 83, and 87 here:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69522.50

Copy and paste back to my thread here if you can find any part of what I say there is something you can relate to, not to clog up James's thread.

*

Jeff - Mike, in his relativistic correction to the Swartschild metric is using GR time dilation as a means to variable speeds of light.
My theory attributes the speed of light as variably derived via a time dilation that gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.
Mike is using the PE value.
I am using the KE value, this being to describe the absolute reference frame.*  Where I then also use the PE value for GR time dilation for m only.
This ensures that m, and the location of space that m is in, are always the positive and negative of each other in relation to M, and therefore light, travelling at the speed of light via either the negative value rate of time, or the positive value rate of time will ALWAYS travel 299 792 458 metres from either point of view...
And also describes how m and M and light move through the absolute reference frame of open space.

Then SR time dilation is drawn on top of this picture to describe relative motion, for m and M's experience of their own time, *but there is no need to use the length contraction/dilation concept of SR, because this has already been taken care of as a temporal dilation in the absolute reference frame.

It's a different way of calculating the same observations.

*

GoC - I've read your 'define time' thread.  I kind of understand what you are talking about, but the basic physics references are lacking.  You make good points, but more from the philosophy based perspective.
If you want to talk on 'my' threads you 'must' speak from a physics based perspective.  I advise that you also read 'The Trouble with Physics' to understand where relativity falls short.
I don't mean to be horrible to you, but I am indeed trying to describe something extremely specific here that is important to me.
You are welcome to join in with regards to the topic, but please get up to speed on the subject matter, I have little patience otherwise.

[GoC]

timey- Relativity does not fall short no matter what your patience level might be for it to fall short. Its always the understanding that falls short. Even with so called physicists.

[timey (OP)]

timey- Relativity does not fall short no matter what your patience level might be for it to fall short. Its always the understanding that falls short. Even with so called physicists.

In that case you have no business posting on this thread.

This is the type of post that makes me feel like deleting my profile here!