[Mike Gale]

When you say a recipe for the 3rd time dilation what do you mean?

Is it not enough to describe that this time dilation is the cause of gravitational acceleration.  That a body travelling at constant speed in a vacuum can be accelerated towards an M by seconds becoming progressively shorter closer to M, to the accelerative value of GM/r^2(if that is the equation that describes acceleration?)...?

I'll look at the link..

You are describing an existing interpretation of the SC solution. (The SC solution can be interpreted as variable light speed or variable time speed. The net effect is the same.) In a previous post you had postulated a different source of time dilation, which does not involve a gravitating mass. That's what Friedmann was on about.

[Mike Gale]

Anyway - perhaps someone can help me...
If we were to say that the value of GR time dilation, associated with M Earth, caused an acceleration to an object travelling at a constant speed, i.e. being accelerated by shorter seconds, negating any gravitational attraction or other phenomenon completely, what value of an acceleration would GR time dilation cause in metres per second squared?

GR is consistent with Newton in the scenario you describe (i.e. here on Earth) regardless of whether you interpret it in terms of variable time speed or variable light speed. In other words, acceleration due to gravity is GM/r² if the ratio of M to r² is small enough. GR corrections for other cases are hard to pin down because M loses its meaning in a sufficiently strong field. The SC metric gives something like GM/r²*(1-r_s/r) where r_s=2GM/c². I don't think that's quite right though because the validity of the SC metric in close proximity to the event horizon is questionable.

[timey (OP)]

If one can understand that an acceleration towards an M can be considered as time dilation related, and the deceleration away from M can be considered time dilation related, then this time dilation is occurring in the opposite direction to GR time dilation. (which my model retains as an m at h from M phenomenon)
It also means that time only runs faster in space for m in relation to M.  Open space h from M is running slower time.

This is NOT the current view.  The current view is that time runs slower nearer M and faster out in space.  My idea completely changes that notion and the consequences of doing so are immense.

Now when a bigger M is involved such as a black hole, the same will apply, and the M of a black hole will have a much, much faster rate of time than Earth.  And where there is m at h from M of black hole, time will run even faster for m only.
And this is what considering gravitational acceleration being time dilation related results in.

Calculating the SC under the remit of gravitational acceleration being time dilation related would result in a completely new picture of the physics for a black hole.  No time stopped, no energy/information loss.
Just normal physics on a larger scale.

I don't know where I said that the 3rd time dilation was not related to the gravitational mass, but a g-field surrounding M is obviously caused by M.  And the 3rd time dilation is caused by the g-field surrounding M, where the g-field is weaker at greater h from M, and the 3rd time dilation has longer seconds in the weaker g-field.

[Colin2B]

 

THE Alan Guth? Isn't he famously brilliant?

Yes Prof at MIT, the leading light on inflation, but free thinking and able to adapt it if necessary.

 

I imagine he would be loathe to drudge through this discussion thread because we are still waxing philosophical about timey's theory. We have yet to establish the (mathematical) recipe for her 3rd dilation for example. The relativistic correction to the SC metric thread might be more up his alley:

Like most busy people he is unlikely to look unless someone he trusts eg Pete says 'hey this is interesting'.
Some top phyicists do go onto some of the dedicated physics sites.
 

The density ratio you (Colin2B) speak of goes into the specification of the spatial topology in the Friedmann analysis. It's one of the parameters you fiddle around with to get the FD metric to match Hubble's data.

I thought you would understand

 

No, those maths are too complex for me, and it sounds like a calculation of an expanding universe. So no, there may be similarities from a mathematical perspective if one were to try and calculate a contracting model, but Freidman is not calculating a contracting model, nor is he stating the accelerative force of gravity as being time dilation related, far as I can see.

You can get to a contracting universe solution via these linking cosmo constant. However, big sticking point is, as you say, g being time related.

 
Mike, I think overall the issue is that Timey doesn't want an alternative that 'looks similar' unless it has certain specifications. In this respect although current maths solutions might suggest some techniques to use, it's not going to provide an answer.

 
Timey, somewhere else you mention time quantisation and filtering of time observed. Have you looked at chronons – particles of time?

 

 

[timey (OP)]

I have read about the concept of time being quantised, but not recently.

However when I am referring to time in the context of quantisation, I am referring to an observer dependency concept.  That an observation of a rate of time that is differing from one's own will be proportional to the difference in rate, and that the observation is then a quantised, or inversely quantised representation.

My model states that if one consider that the temperature energy added to the black body increases the rate of time for the atoms of the black body, that then radiate higher frequency photons, that one can hold the frequency of the photon relative to the rate of time of the emitting atom and all quantised effects will then be negated.

[Mike Gale]

If one can understand that an acceleration towards an M can be considered as time dilation related, and the deceleration away from M can be considered time dilation related, then this time dilation is occurring in the opposite direction to GR time dilation. (which my model retains as an m at h from M phenomenon)

Accelerating towards something is the same as decelerating away from it. The distinction has to do with initial velocity. Acceleration describes how the velocity of an object changes over time. Velocity describes how its location changes over time. It is possible for an object to experience acceleration yet remain stationary. In that case, it experiences a force, which is proportional to its inertial mass, and acceleration must then be interpreted as a change in the speed of time or, since m=E/c², a change in the speed of light. In either case, the force changes the object's perception of space (in all directions) because, as Einstein pointed out, light is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.

[timey (OP)]

Ok - well here you are saying about an acceleration that is caused by a force that is proportional to inertial mass...
My model differs as to what is the cause of this force, in that my model is saying that the accelerative force is caused not by a force that is proportional to inertial mass, but is caused by the 3rd time dilation of the g-field, which is denoted by h from M.

[Mike Gale]

The force depends on inertial mass, but acceleration (due to gravity) does not. Gravity imposes constant acceleration at a given location. The resulting force depends on the observer's mass. By comparison, a rocket engine imposes constant force so acceleration depends on mass in that case.

[timey (OP)]

In my model - the force depends on value of M, and h from M, and has nothing to do with m.
But there is the question of directional force, and that is why I was asking how many metres per second squared a constant velocity would be accelerated by GR time dilation increases in time in a gravity field.

[Mike Gale]

No. Acceleration depends on M and h. Force depends on acceleration and m. In mathematical terms: F=ma and a=GM/h². This is true for weak fields. The GR correction for strong fields is tricky, as I pointed out previously, and there is no consensus on it. One way to approach the problem is to recognize that the SC metric can be interpreted in terms of variable light speed. In that case, m and M are variables (because E=mc².) Even so though, the SC metric breaks down at the horizon so it is unreliable when you get up close and personal.

[jeffreyH]

No. Acceleration depends on M and h. Force depends on acceleration and m. In mathematical terms: F=ma and a=GM/h². This is true for weak fields. The GR correction for strong fields is tricky, as I pointed out previously, and there is no consensus on it.

In strong fields very small changes in h are more significant. Hence tidal forces. This tends towards a singularity.

[timey (OP)]

Yes - I understand how the current view is held, but I'm looking at a different means of description that attributes a physical cause for the force occurring, and this is a description that doesn't involve m.

A 100kg cannonball and a 10kg cannonball in a vacuum will both bounce off a perfect reflector to the same height that they were dropped from.
Both cannonballs will accelerate at same rate, and decelerate at same rate...
It is the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy that ensures the bigger ball bounces as high as the smaller ball, more mass=more potential energy for conversion.
But there is no physical description as to why mass should experience acceleration in the g-field, and my rendition gives a physical description where none is being currently given.

And in my model - because time runs slower in space, bigger masses than Earth are not going to have slower rates of time than Earth, as I said before.  This negates all trickyness in the strong field.

[Mike Gale]

In strong fields very small changes in h are more significant. Hence tidal forces. This tends towards a singularity.

True dat. Tidal forces are due to the spherically symmetric nature of the field. If you stand upright in a gravitational field and extend your arms, your hands experience less accleration than your head (because they are farther away from the centre of mass of the gravitating body.) This has dire consequences for your integrity when you are free falling in a strong field. Susskind calls it spaghettification.

[timey (OP)]

And in my model - because time runs slower in space, bigger masses than Earth are not going to have slower rates of time than Earth, as I said before.  This negates all trickyness in the strong field.

[Mike Gale]

GPS demonstrates that time runs faster (or light goes faster) in free space.

[timey (OP)]

No - GPS demonstrates that time runs faster for m in space.  You can't measure open space, and light that covers distance slower will look exactly the same as light that covers distance quicker.  If the positive time and the negative time are equal, the distance travelled will be the same.

[Mike Gale]

The mass of the satellite clock does not factor into the time dilation. And observers who disagree about the speed of time or the speed of light must necessarily disagree about distances in space and therefore simultaneity.

[timey (OP)]

No - and the factor of the mass of any body of mass at that h will not factor into the the time dilation.

pe=mgh.  And we can say pe/m so that all atoms within m experience equal pe.

I don't see any reason why time dilation for m at h from M should be any different...

[timey (OP)]

In my model no-one has to disagree about anything.  Distances are constant, and just by understanding which rate of time one is using to measure, everything is abundantly clear to everyone no matter where they are, although they may not be observing the entire picture where rates of time differ, because the observation will be proportional to the difference in rate of time and observations will result in being descrete, or quantised.  This will be more noticeable between vastly differing rates of time, but is indeed apparent in an observation of an atom at elevation to an observer as a change in the frequency of the atom.  Measure the atom via the rate of time the atom is experiencing, and the observation of the elevated atom will have the same frequency as the atom on the ground, when measuring the atom on the ground via the rate of time on the ground.

[Mike Gale]

Even so, you are not entirely wrong. One's mass does in fact affect one's perception of the passage of time. That's why GR is formulated in terms of an infinitesimally small test mass. It's a simplifying assumption to make the math easier. You can certainly take that effect into account, but you're not going to learn anything new unless you fully understand the small mass scenario. Nobody can claim that status yet.