[guest39538]

If one considers the possibility that space is filled with gravitational waves, and that they are absorbed and emitted by matter, then the density of the wave energy in space is related to the proximity of matter, quite like general relativity. Except spacetime doesn't have to stretch and curve; space just has to be filled with gravitational wave energy density at varying levels related to the ever changing motion of particles and objects (perhaps).

I 'see' that space is filled with energy in the forms of fields, I believe these fields to be linear .    The waves you mention I believe are field fluctuations due to permitting factors and oscillations of the field.
Consider how a pond is when there is no wind to disturb it.   It only waves when there is a force applied.  To me all waves are experiencing force.

... the same amount of time relative to the invariant rate that time passes regardless of what our clocks might suggest.

yes

Though the same amount of "invariant universal time" passed for the marble that was falling in each fluid, the higher density of the oil fluid slowed the rate, as the higher wave energy density for a moving clock causes it to run slower.

Yes, something like that.

[Bogie_smiles]

The crux of universal time is that time simply passes at some invariant universal rate, but the rate that clocks measure the passing of time is not invariant. The measurement of passing time is governed by the gravitational wave energy density of the of the local environment of the clock, i.e., the local gravitational field points occupied by the clock, because the particles that make up the clock function at a variable rate governed by the local gravitational wave energy density at that location in the field.

I 'see' that space is filled with energy in the forms of fields, I believe these fields to be linear .   

Here is a nice Wiki link to “Field”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

The Wiki on “Field” is quite complete for talking purposes. I don’t see much on linear fields, but I think I understand what you mean. When it comes to what “field” means in terms of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space, the first line of the Wiki nails it:

“In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time” … and the term “physical quantity” means that the field establishes the structure of the physical values of each point of the field and the relationship between those points.

For example, a volume of space has three dimensions, and every point in that volume of space is an individual point in the field, where all points make up the entire field structure. Linear, in that sense, might mean that every point in space is connected to the entire space by its relationship with each surrounding point in any linear direction or vector. Does that sound right to you, in regard to fields being linear?

If so, then the field that is associated with the clock measurements of the passing of time is referred to as “the gravitational wave energy density profile of space”. That field is made up of points within that space that each have a specific physical quantity expressed as a value of wave energy density. The “Wave energy” part means that gravitational waves carry energy as they traverse space at the speed of light, so the quantity or value at each point is an amount of energy carried by all of the waves passing that point in space at the same time. The density at any point in the field is the net value of the peaks and valleys of the energy carried by all of the spherical waves converging at that point in space and time.

There is a back-history associated with each spherical wave that makes up the energy density of each and every point in the field. Therefore every point is constantly changing in value. However, the changes are not generally “jerky”, if you know what I mean, because there are so many individual waves converging at every point in space and time, that no one wave will generally dominate, but instead, the change in the moment-to-moment value of the net wave energy density of a point in space is more smooth than jerky.

An exception to that would be the relatively rare waves associated with extreme cosmic events like supernovae or the convergence of stellar black holes, as discovered recently by LIGO and the ESO.

[guest39538]

For example, a volume of space has three dimensions, and every point in that volume of space is an individual point in the field, where all points make up the entire field structure. Linear, in that sense, might mean that every point in space is connected to the entire space by its relationship with each surrounding point in any linear direction or vector. Does that sound right to you, in regard to fields being linear?

Every point of space is connected to every point of space.  We can look at  any direction expanding away from any individual point and consider a linearity between the point and any distant point.   Now this linear can be also looked at isotropic from the point, that makes up a spherical field that is a linearity in all directions.   I mean for what reason as this field to wave?   Now to me,  if anything acts on the linear field, like a stationary jelly it wobbles (waves). 
But I suppose with space, there is something always acting on fields so fields always wave.

I imagine a carrier signal that travels in a linearity, but if it encounters resistance it waves.  I think the electromagnetic radiation traversing through space is not a wave but can wave. A 0 constant that allows slower signals to be detected as a wave.

[Bogie_smiles]

Every point of space is connected to every point of space.  We can look at  any direction expanding away from any individual point and consider a linearity between the point and any distant point.   Now this linear can be also looked at isotropic from the point, that makes up a spherical field that is a linearity in all directions.   

Ok, we pretty much agree.

I mean for what reason [h]as this field to wave?

The field doesn’t wave. The field is a point by point set of values of the energy in the field at a point in time.

Now to me,  if anything acts on the linear field, like a stationary jelly it wobbles (waves).

The values of each point in the field continually change because the quantity of energy at each point is continually changing.

 
But I suppose with space, there is something always acting on fields so fields always wave.

The field doesn’t wave. Gravitational waves carry energy through the field, and the motion of those gravitational waves through the field are what makes the quantity of energy at each point continually change.

I imagine a carrier signal that travels in a linearity, but if it encounters resistance it waves.  I think the electromagnetic radiation traversing through space is not a wave but can wave. A 0 constant that allows slower signals to be detected as a wave.

Put that last paragraph out of your mind, lol.

[Bogie_smiles]

I will move further discussion about my gravitational field ideas to my thread, since I suspect is it outside the scope of your paper. To close out here, the gravitational field discussion is specific to my personal version of quantum gravity, lol, so by moving it over to my thread, I save you any connection with my musings.

Let me state here though, in conjunction with my posts about “field”, that when I said each point has a value in terms of the net energy carried by all of the gravitational waves passing through that point in space, at a point in time, I don’t mean to say that the value of the energy at any point in the field has ever been established, or even can be established, without specification of an appropriate unit of measure, without defining the spherical motion of the waves that carry that energy through the field, and without a reasoned approach to establishing a point by point energy value.

Einstein and Maxwell took on field theory over a hundred years ago, and general relativity is a pretty precise field theory of gravity featuring spacetime, and they work without ether. I’m happy with that, except to the extent that there is some logic involved in my perspective that suggests that the same effect that spacetime conveys, can be achieved by the gravitational wave energy density profile of space that I have mentioned to you in this thread.

I’ll leave you with that for now, and get back to my own territory.

[guest39538]

since I suspect is it outside the scope of your paper

Indeed, my paper is intended for relative correctness of semantics involved in time dilation and length contraction. Also to give time a definite structure and understanding.
My paper is not intended to give an answer to why the Caesium atom in motion changes frequency.  That would have to be a different paper in which I do have some notions.
However my paper is not really a paper because I have done nothing with it.  Perhaps somethings are best left alone rather than showing how naive the majority of the population of earth is.

P.s I do see your points on density, my N-field and n-field orbits rely on field density for their distance apart.

[guest39538]

Silence is the acceptance of the truth.   I still do not understand why my paper is so ignored?

[Bogie_smiles]

My advice is to post without expectations, and appreciate any response. Good luck.

[guest39538]

tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1753 times)


lorentz1.jpg (14.2 kB . 985x507 - viewed 1753 times)

[The Spoon]

tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1753 times)


lorentz1.jpg (14.2 kB . 985x507 - viewed 1753 times)

Interesting. Reminds me of a very poor copy of Kandinsky.

[guest39538]

tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1753 times)


lorentz1.jpg (14.2 kB . 985x507 - viewed 1753 times)

Interesting. Reminds me of a very poor copy of Kandinsky.

Dirac was not very good at drawing too.

[The Spoon]

No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.

[guest39538]

No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.

So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?

[The Spoon]

No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.

So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?

If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.

[guest39538]

No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.

So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?

If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.

Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.

[The Spoon]

No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.

So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?

If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.

Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.

I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.

[guest39538]

No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.

So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?

If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.

Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.

I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.

Your so funny, reminds me of an immigrant getting stopped by the police with the ''I no understand''.   It is a simple question in plane English which we both know destroys time dilation myths.

[The Spoon]

No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.

So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?

If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.

Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.

I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.

Your so funny, reminds me of an immigrant getting stopped by the police with the ''I no understand''.   It is a simple question in plane English which we both know destroys time dilation myths.

'your now time and your next now time' is Lewis Carol humpty dumpty language. But hats off to you for incorporating border line racism into your last reply.

I was wondering what 'plane English' is? Is it what pilots use to communicate?

[guest39538]

No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.

So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?

If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.

Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.

I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.

Your so funny, reminds me of an immigrant getting stopped by the police with the ''I no understand''.   It is a simple question in plane English which we both know destroys time dilation myths.

'your now time and your next now time' is Lewis Carol humpty dumpty language. But hats off to you for incorporating border line racism into your last reply.

I was wondering what 'plane English' is? Is it what pilots use to communicate?

Have you never watched Uk customs programs or police programs?  There is no racism in the truth.

Anyway I assume you know what a chronological position is!

I want you to start at 0, what length away is your next chronological position?

[The Spoon]

No, but at least he had other redeeming qualities like being good at physics.

So do I, it is not my fault that most people in the world do not have the brain power to understand or can even have a good debate about the content provided. I am only about 7 years in, I am sure by another 7 years I will explain it much more simplified for those who do not get it.
If you were as smart as you think you are, then you should be able to answer this very simple question,


How much length is there between your now time and your next now time?

I suggest there is no length it is immediate ahead?

If you would use generally accepted terms people may be able to understand you. As you insist defining things to suit your nutty ideas how do you expect people to understand you?
That said, over 7 years you have been shown to be consistently wrong on a whole range of subjects and to just be seeking attention.

Like I thought, you avoided the question because you know the answer contradicts time dilation and length contraction.

I avoided the question because it makes no sense. It has more in common with Alice in Wonderland than any kind of science.

You are consistent in this though aren't you? Putting a 'question' that makes no sense so you can crow that you are right. Like Zippy in Rainbow.

Your so funny, reminds me of an immigrant getting stopped by the police with the ''I no understand''.   It is a simple question in plane English which we both know destroys time dilation myths.

'your now time and your next now time' is Lewis Carol humpty dumpty language. But hats off to you for incorporating border line racism into your last reply.

I was wondering what 'plane English' is? Is it what pilots use to communicate?

Have you never watched Uk customs programs or police programs?  There is no racism in the truth.

Anyway I assume you know what a chronological position is!

I want you to start at 0, what length away is your next chronological position?

Why don't you tell us all how you define a 'chronological position' pigeon?