[Mike Gale]

I still don't have the gist of Goc's theory, but I think timey's theory involves an absolute reference frame, which she calls the reference frame of free space. The problem with that approach is that motion is relative. If you and I are moving past one another in free space, far removed from everything else, we have no point of reference to determine which of us is in motion and which of us is stationary. Even Galileo would have to admit that the answer is observer dependent. Maxwell proposed some kind of average of the fixed stars, but there's no way to know how many stars are currently beyond one's visible horizon in any given direction and as they become visible over time, I may see more or fewer than you do, depending on our vantage points. That makes it observer dependent again. There's just no way to pin it down.
Having said that, there is in fact a preferred reference frame in a GR scenario, specifically that of the gravitating mass. In that sense, timey is correct.

[Mike Gale]

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.

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

You have already provided an authoritative reference to debunk this opinion.

[timey (OP)]

I still don't have the gist of Goc's theory, but I think timey's theory involves an absolute reference frame, which she calls the reference frame of free space. The problem with that approach is that motion is relative. If you and I are moving past one another in free space, far removed from everything else, we have no point of reference to determine which of us is in motion and which of us is stationary. Even Galileo would have to admit that the answer is observer dependent. Maxwell proposed some kind of average of the fixed stars, but there's no way to know how many stars are currently beyond our visible horizon in any given direction and I may see more or fewer than you do, depending on our vantage points, and that makes it observer dependent again. There's just no way to pin it down.

Oh thank goodness. A post I can respond to.

Mike - I do get what you are saying, but you present an unlikely if not impossible scenario.  If you or I were moving in space relative to each other, we would have both arrived at our positions 'from' somewhere.
Unless we were extremely remiss, or unaccountably forgetful we would both know where that somewhere was that we had departed from, and be able to work out where we were in relation to each other.
If we were able to observe each other for an observer dependent perspective, we would be in close proximity to each other, and even if we could not observe each other, being in radio contact with each other, we could work out our relative speeds via both of our g-field trajectories in much the same way as all space trajectories are calculated.

Therefore by knowing where one is in the g-field, and understanding how M is moving to create the g-field, if there is no actual dilation going on in spatial terms and the metre always remains constant, then our relative speeds are now easily definable.

[GoC]

I still don't have the gist of Goc's theory, but I think timey's theory involves an absolute reference frame, which she calls the reference frame of free space. The problem with that approach is that motion is relative. If you and I are moving past one another in free space, far removed from everything else, we have no point of reference to determine which of us is in motion and which of us is stationary. Even Galileo would have to admit that the answer is observer dependent. Maxwell proposed some kind of average of the fixed stars, but there's no way to know how many stars are currently beyond our visible horizon in any given direction and I may see more or fewer than you do, depending on our vantage points, and that makes it observer dependent again. There's just no way to pin it down.

Oh thank goodness. A post I can respond to.

Mike - I do get what you are saying, but you present an unlikely if not impossible scenario.  If you or I were moving in space relative to each other, we would have both arrived at our positions 'from' somewhere.
Unless we were extremely remiss, or unaccountably forgetful we would both know where that somewhere was that we had departed from, and be able to work out where we were in relation to each other.
If we were able to observe each other for an observer dependent perspective, we would be in close proximity to each other, and even if we could not observe each other, being in radio contact with each other, we could work out our relative speeds via both of our g-field trajectories in much the same way as all space trajectories are calculated.

Therefore by knowing where one is in the g-field, and understanding how M is moving to create the g-field, if there is no actual dilation going on in spatial terms and the metre always remains constant, then our relative speeds are now easily definable.

My business in the threads is to challenge ideas to either make them stronger or weaker.

I do not think you actually understand what Mike is telling you. You read his words but not his understanding.

Somewhere is always moving in space and the meter never remains constant. The meter is observer dependent. A meter is a meter in every frame but not between frames. Here I am challenging your use of the word meter and its limitations of use in our understanding of relativity. There is no meter we can use as a reference. There is no position in space we can use as stationary for a reference. We cannot know which one of us are moving the most compered to the other. To bring it home there is no rest frame.

If you do not want to have your ideas challenged by relativity all you have is faith. Science is not about faith. Once you start with the equivalency principle there are many obstacles of math and observation you have to overcome to challenge relativity's explanation. Relativity can be explained as energy, motion or time. Mathematically they line up perfectly with each other. This is what you have to overcome. I chose energy to challenge your ideas because that is where you are challenging Relativity.

[timey (OP)]

I still don't have the gist of Goc's theory, but I think timey's theory involves an absolute reference frame, which she calls the reference frame of free space. The problem with that approach is that motion is relative. If you and I are moving past one another in free space, far removed from everything else, we have no point of reference to determine which of us is in motion and which of us is stationary. Even Galileo would have to admit that the answer is observer dependent. Maxwell proposed some kind of average of the fixed stars, but there's no way to know how many stars are currently beyond our visible horizon in any given direction and I may see more or fewer than you do, depending on our vantage points, and that makes it observer dependent again. There's just no way to pin it down.

Oh thank goodness. A post I can respond to.

Mike - I do get what you are saying, but you present an unlikely if not impossible scenario.  If you or I were moving in space relative to each other, we would have both arrived at our positions 'from' somewhere.
Unless we were extremely remiss, or unaccountably forgetful we would both know where that somewhere was that we had departed from, and be able to work out where we were in relation to each other.
If we were able to observe each other for an observer dependent perspective, we would be in close proximity to each other, and even if we could not observe each other, being in radio contact with each other, we could work out our relative speeds via both of our g-field trajectories in much the same way as all space trajectories are calculated.

Therefore by knowing where one is in the g-field, and understanding how M is moving to create the g-field, if there is no actual dilation going on in spatial terms and the metre always remains constant, then our relative speeds are now easily definable.

Mike - I wrote the text below to Jeff earlier on in the thread...  In vain no doubt as he only makes seagul posts where he does not respond, nor probably even read the replies...

But:

"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."

Therefore one can know exactly where one is in the g-field in relation to anything else,

(btw, I am ignoring GoC from now on)

[Mike Gale]

If you or I were moving in space relative to each other, we would have both arrived at our positions 'from' somewhere. Unless we were extremely remiss, or unaccountably forgetful we would both know where that somewhere was that we had departed from, and be able to work out where we were in relation to each other.

Exactly. "Somewhere" is the missing point of reference. Without that third point in space, we can't tell who's moving and who's not. Even if you add a third party, all we can say is that one of us (or both of us) is in motion with respect that observer. Note also that the concept of rotation doesn't make sense if you and I are alone in the universe. All of this comes from Galilean relativity. SR is the next logical step if you invoke conservation of (kinetic) energy.

[timey (OP)]

The point I'm making is that in reality, that 'somewhere', the third reference point 'always' exists.
It is only in a hypothetical scenario that it doesn't.  So why bother with it at-all?

One must use triangulation wherever one is.  It's just that in space stuff gets fuzzy because of time shift.  And with SR it gets fuzzy because a spatial shift.  Overlaying one on top of the other gets complicated, as the time shift coordinates change with spatial dilation.

In my model the spatial dilation is taken care of as a temporal dilation that gives physical cause for the acceleration of gravity.  This renders your g-field coordinates as static, well not quite because M is moving in relation to m, but it is now possible to triangulate taking only these two opposing time shifts into consideration.
And SR time dilation and conservation of kinetic energy then becomes a very interesting prospect indeed!

[Mike Gale]

Building blocks. You have to understand the 2-body problem (SR) before you can make any sense of the 3-body problem (GR.) You can't do an end run around SR and jump straight into GR because the latter is based on the former.
BTW - I downloaded Smolin's book. Looks like a good read (thanks for that), but from the TOC and Intro, it is clear that he is well beyond SR and GR and deep into string theory. The theme seems to be that, despite standing on the shoulders of giants, we have made scant little progress in theoretical physics during the last 4 decades. It must have been published before the vindication of Higgs though because that was pretty good.

[Mike Gale]

I don't contest the idea that GR can be interpreted as dilation of time in rigid space, but I do contest the idea that GR time dilation is a substitute for SR. They are complementary effects. GR dilation is due to PE. SR dilation is due to KE.

[timey (OP)]

But I am not suggesting that one consider that GR time dilation is a substitute for SR...
What I am suggesting is that there is a 'third' phenomenon of time dilation inherent to the g-field itself, exactly and equal to GR time dilation at h from M, but negative in value.  And that this causes the gravitational acceleration that causes SR time dilation.  And that under this remit there is no need to add the spatial dilation that is the resulting companion of the maths of SR.  This being because the third time dilation of the g-field has already added this effect as a temporal dilation of space to replace the SR spatial description, and that this suggested temporal description can equally describe the observed curvature of space.

Furthermore, I am suggesting that the current maths can be considered to be already calculate this acceleration caused by the third time dilation in the use of G and g.

As G and g do not have physical cause in current physics, all I have done is give physical cause to mathematics that are already being used, and in that the curvature of space is now represented as a temporal representation, the spatial geometry is back to Newtonian, and the right hand triangle is now not extended as a spatial extension.

It's a differing means of describing observation, that does not require dark energy, or dark matter, to balance the books.

[Mike Gale]

I don't get it. If the 3rd dilation cancels GR dilation, there is no PE. That's just the free fall reference frame, which is fully described by SR.

[timey (OP)]

Ah - but this third time dilation for open space doesn't cancel out GR time dilation...
What it does is separate the concept of m at h from M, from the concept of h from M, where h from M is inherent with open space time dilation that m at h from M experiencing GR time dilation, is in or moving through...
With the third time dilation of open space being the cause of any change in gravitational acceleration or deceleration that m experiences at h from M.

This provides another description of free fall that gives physical cause the the description of the acceleration of gravity, and also gives a physical cause for the curvature of space as a 'temporal' dilation.

Then SR time dilation becomes a description of how motion will 'further' affect the value of GR time dilation for m and M.

Mass experiences the positive value of GR time dilation, and the effects of motion related SR dilation, while moving through the negative value of the third time dilation of open space.

And big bodies of mass, and galaxy clusters will be changing the rate of the negative value of the time dilation of open space 'positively' as they move through the negative value open space time dilation...
This concept is exactly synonymous to the GR remit of mass telling spacetime how to curve, and spacetime telling mass how to move.

[Mike Gale]

It's not clear from your description whether the 3rd dilation cancels GR completely or only in part. Either way, it's an ad hoc factor unless you can justify it with a new or existing law of physics (e.g. conservation of energy or momentum.) In other words, how does one go about calculating it?
The distinction between m at h from M and nothing at h from M is moot because GR is formulated in terms of an infinitesimally small test mass. That means m=0 and volume=0 for all intents and purposes. Note that the coordinate system for the metric is the one in which the gravitating mass (M) is at rest. Proper time is local time. Proper space is more complicated, but Flamm's paraboloid is a good way to think about it. In that view, the local radial dimension is stretched compared to that perceived by a distant observer. Angles around the gravitating mass stay the same. (I contend that the stretch is due to SR, not GR, but I think I am alone in that belief so far.) Note also that SR does not depend on M or G or g or m except insofar as they determine free fall velocity.

[timey (OP)]

Mike -the hypothetical third time dilation of open space that I suggest can be thought of as an aether type scenario that M and m are moving through.

You are right that GR time dilation will be affected by this third time dilation, but not in the sense of cancelling it out.  You are still thinking in terms of 2 dimensional mathematics.
The GR time dilation will be affected by the hypothetical third time dilation of open space for the reason that the value of M is creating the open space g-field, and the g-field is inherent with the third time dilation that runs counter directional in value to GR time dilation for m at h from M, where the GR time dilation of m at h from M is also related to the value of M.

These concepts can be calculated as a 3 way time dilation matrix annexed to a spacetime matrix, where ones space coordinates in the g field relate
a) to the g-field hypothetical time dilation of h from M
b) to the GR time dilation of m at h from M
c) to the SR time dilation experienced by m due to m's velocity at h from M
...and result a calculation for the time aspect of the spacetime matrix as sequential time.

a) will be causing the curvature of space as a temporal dilation, and m will move as to this curvature
b) will be the time m experiences at h from M
c) will cancel out the GR time dilation effects that m experiences at h from M.

Equivalence principle:
The speed of light is held constant at each coordinate at h from M via the length of second of the hypothetical third time dilation of open space.
Light will cover 299 792 458 metres held relative to the 'longer' second...
But - because the hypothetical time dilation is the negative value of GR time dilation - m at h from M will also observe that the light is travelling at 299 792 458 metres per the 'shorter' second experienced by m at h from M.
Now we implement the part 2 change to the equivalence principle which incorporates stating all m at h from M as gaining energy at gravity potential as an addition that 'doesn't' incorporate calculating in the value of m.  In other words, simply add the energy at gravity potential as a blanket addition, where all m is affected to that value equally.
Now all remains equivalent for all at any h from M.
One has a physical reason for the fact of a person ageing in keeping with their time dilated clock.
And this concept of a blanket addition of potential energy for m at h from M can be thought of as free fall upside down.

Lastly - one then must then use the speed of light value as per held relative to the hypothetical third time dilation timing in order to calculate SR time dilation for m in motion in a changing g-field.
This means that as m moves into g-field coordinates where the speed of light is held relative to the negative value 'longer' seconds, the constant speed that m is travelling at will become a greater percentage of the speed of light of that coordinate, and m will experience an escalation of the slowing of its own experience of time, and take a longer time to cover a metre.
Interestingly Mike, under this remit -if m then regulates its speed to remain a constant percentage of the speed of light as held relative to the increasingly longer seconds of the coordinates in the weaker g-field m is travelling through, ie: slows its speed down, SR time dilation effects will be lesser, and m will experience itself as covering a metre faster...
This being because the curvature of space is a temporal dilation where a metre always remains a constant metre, and curvature is simply a matter of there being longer seconds in the weaker g-field.*

We can then see that under this remit  of regulating SR time dilation effects via speed control, this can cause m to avoid some of the temporal dilation of space, and therefore avoid at least some of the curvature to get 'there' wherever that may be, quicker.

* If you really examine this structure, you will realise that it is just using the currents maths in a rearranged fashion.

(Even the maths for the concept of length contraction/dilation are used in my model, switched to a concept of an observational time frame dependency that insures the fact of a universal absolute 'now' that all coordinates have in common despite their rates of time differing)

[Mike Gale]

Your recipe for the 3rd dilation is missing ingredients and quantities. On one hand you say it is "the negative value of GR time dilation". On the other you say it "doesn't cancel out GR time dilation." Isn't that contradictory?

[timey (OP)]

Only if you are looking at GR time dilation being inherent to space at h from M, rather than to m at h from M.

I am making a clear separation of m at h from M, from the space of h at M, and stating that m at h from M is experiencing its own time, this being GR, and SR time dilation effects, while moving through a space inherent with a separate time dilation that affects how m moves through this space.

This is stating that both GR and SR time dilation effects occurring for m, and the hypothetical third time dilation occurring for space, are both occurring simultaneously as separate issues, where the value of GR time dilation, and the value of the hypothetical third time dilation both relate back to the value of M via the g-field, and the value of m's SR motion related time dilation effects also relate back to the value of M via the g-field.

[timey (OP)]

As a foot note:

This structure is rendering the concept of time itself as a reactive phenomenon that is related to energy.

[Mike Gale]

SR does not depend on M or m, although it does have implications for both (because they are observer dependent quantities.) There is no distinction between the field for m at h from M and that for nothing at h from M because the field is calculated under the premise that m is vanishingly small. It is certainly true that a finite value of m will alter spacetime in the same manner as M, but that is an unnecessary complication and teaches us nothing new. Note that SR and GR treat time as a function of energy.

[timey (OP)]

What you say is correct in conventional relativity, no doubt about it, and I am not contending this as being the case in conventional relativity.

But...  What I am describing above is an altered relativity that describes my contracting cyclic model.

Yes, you are right, conventional relativity is based on the fact that energy and frequency are observer dependent...
My model differs in that while it holds that the observation of light is observer dependent because one can only see light when it arrives at ones location, it holds that the observation of an atom's energy and frequency, that is not at one's location, is not observer dependent but 'is' actually the differing frequency and energy that it is observed to have.

Yes you are correct in the fact that relativity does not consider space as anything but a distance, or fabric, that is extended in the right triangle.
My model differs in that it says that the distance of space itself is not spatially extended in the right triangle, but is instead temporally extended in the right triangle, and it uses the third time dilation of the g-field-field itself that applies to space 'only,' as a means of a physical cause for the acceleration of gravity in order to achieve this extension of the right triangle as a temporal phenomenon.

This structure that I have put forward can describe a a fully described model of the universe without adding any unknowns that are not observed, unites the standard model with gravity for a continuum in quantum, and gives mechanics that describe Big Bangs both before and after the fact.

Conventional relativity cannot do this.  Therefore I am looking for a mathematician who can create the mathematics to describe my model.
These mathematics will be of the same values as conventional relativity mathematics, but these values are employed in a differing alignment for alternate reasons...
One could consider that what I have done here by considering space as a temporal dilation is give complex numbers a physical reason for existing.  A physicality that ensures that one can calculate both the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.

Please understand that I have made the changes from conventional relativity, that you note, purposefully and intentionally.  These are not misunderstandings of conventional relativity, but are indeed consciously derived alterations.

[Mike Gale]

OK, but you still have to be accurate about what conventional theory does and doesn't do. And you have to demonstrate a need for the 3rd dilation. As far as I can tell, it's nothing more than a dodge around spatial dilation in SR or a re-interpretation of it. In any case, a mathematician is not going to be of any help unless you can specify a recipe for the 3rd dilation, along with ingredients and quantities.