The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

DeathDart said:
Where there is a lot of mass light will bend and time will slow down.

If at the other end of the time spectrum, for light to remain the same speed in all frames, then it must speed up.

Having light speed up is like stepping on one of physics' landmines, you really don't want to do that. I was hoping not to step on that mine. Looks like I might need some earplugs.
Click to expand...

No, that is part of GR, when light's path changes, it is because the space curvature is changed. Time is a related metric but you need to stop pulling it out.

Light does not speed up, time dialation occurs because of the invariant speed of light, I can't say it more plainly.
 
DeathDart said:
So there is a conflict between light having the same speed in all reference frames, and light having a fixed speed throughout the universe.
Click to expand...
No
If light's speed is dependent on the flow of time.
Click to expand...
It isn't you have it backwards, times relative flows is dependant upon the invariant speed of light
And the flow of time speeds up in low gravitational regions.
Click to expand...
No time dialation is lower
Then how could we tell?

Would Light or particles traveling between galaxies change in any way to indicate that it had traveled across the galactic gaps faster in our framework.
Click to expand...
yes, it would effect the fine structure constant alpha. I asked a different version of this question many years ago
To the photon, the amount of time it experienced would be identical to its speed being constant.
Click to expand...
No, for light there is no time.
To us it could seem like the beam of light was moving tens or hundreds of times its local velocity as it crossed the galactic expanse.

If light is traveling faster, then matter could also travel faster, ouch stepped on another mine.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
Having light speed up is like stepping on one of physics' landmines, you really don't want to do that. I was hoping not to step on that mine. Looks like I might need some earplugs.
Click to expand...

DeathDart said:
If light is traveling faster, then matter could also travel faster, ouch stepped on another mine.
Click to expand...

I don't think physics will be overly concerned. I don't think it's a land mine you've stepped in - you might want to clean off your shoes.
 
DeathDart said:
Having light speed up is like stepping on one of physics' landmines, you really don't want to do that. I was hoping not to step on that mine. Looks like I might need some earplugs.
Click to expand...

Not really. The amount of time it takes for light to cross a region of fixed size ("size" as measured by its area, for instance) depends on what matter or energy there is in the region - and not because the matter interacts directly with the light, only because the matter affects the geometry inside the region. So in that (perfectly reasonable) sense, the speed of light is not constant.

What I can't understand about your idea is that you are claiming (I think) that the light travel time will be extremely short if the region - and perhaps also the space surrounding the region? - is totally empty or has very weak gravity. And yet, even within the solar system there are both very empty regions and very large changes in the strength of gravity. So any such modification is quite likely to be detectable (and therefore probably ruled out) by experiments within the solar system.

But since you haven't provided us with any math, it's impossible to know.
 
DeathDart said:
Would Light or particles traveling between galaxies change in any way to indicate that it had traveled across the galactic gaps faster in our framework.
Click to expand...

Since the speed of light is a constant, we look at the wavelength of the light to tell how fast the origin is moving in relation to us. There's no need to wonder how much the speed of the photon has changed, because it hasn't.

To the photon, the amount of time it experienced would be identical to its speed being constant. To us it could seem like the beam of light was moving tens or hundreds of times its local velocity as it crossed the galactic expanse.
Click to expand...

You apparently don't understand Special Relativity, much less General Relativity. It's necessary to learn to walk before you try to run.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Since the speed of light is a constant, we look at the wavelength of the light to tell how fast the origin is moving in relation to us. There's no need to wonder how much the speed of the photon has changed, because it hasn't.



You apparently don't understand Special Relativity, much less General Relativity. It's necessary to learn to walk before you try to run.
Click to expand...

The wavelength of light is dependent on time.
A photon can pass through glass with a refractive index of 1.5, equivalent to T/1.5 with a wavelength that is 1/1.5 times less. When it leaves the glass, its speed and wavelength return to normal. While the photon is in the glass, it's energy does not go up, just because it has a shorter wavelength in the glass.
 
What would be the visible consequences if light's velocity were much greater than predicted in a region of space, with a fast flow of time?

Light passing through regions of very low gravity, (and I argue a faster flow of time), can change speed and wavelength without anything to indicate to a distant observer that it has happened. This may not be true for some processes that occur in low gravitational fields.

If a nebula has a very low density, so the local gravitational field is low, and the flow of time is fast, the wavelength stretched photon would reflect off of the material of the nebula as it normally would. The photon is also traveling with a speed that is the inverse of its decreased wavelength.

When the photon leaves the Low Gravity-Fast Time Flow LG-FTF, it returns to the light we would expect to see in normal time. The effect is the similar to the light traveling through a glass media. Except that fast time flow lengthens the wavelength and increases the velocity.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart: It screws with chemistry and atomic physics. We're able to probe those extremely well in many circumstances and don't see it.

Basically it turns out that it's difficult to measure the speed of light as such changing (it turns out to have the same effects as other parameters changing) but you can measure dimensionless quantities that involve it - notably the fine structure constant. If you go looking on how that might vary you'll see just how well we've nailed it down - the allowable variations are miniscule.
 
Now as far as processes in a Low Gravity-Fast Time Flow LG-FTF region of space there is evidence that would be visible to an outside observer.

Super Nova 1987A 24 February 1987

Estimated Mass BSG Approximately16 Solar masses. 3.182560E+31 kg

Distance 5.641418E+15 meters (37710 AU) from point of origin to distance where gravity equals 6.67E-11ms^2 and Time flow equals 2. The 6.67E-11ms^2 factor is based on the G gravitational time constant. It is a guess, the latest of many that I have tried. It linearizes the kg-m system for mass and gravity.

Arrival time for material traveling 7000 Kms to reach gT2 25.54 years 9,327 Days

Arrival time for material traveling 19000 Kms to reach gT2 9.41 years. 3,436 Days

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/news/newsletter/feb07/page1.html

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/646/2/1001/64713.fg1.html

An isotope that is experiencing a faster time flow, will decay more rapidly, heating up and releasing hard radiation. 1987A is following this timetable fairly well.

Why didn't the shockwave run into dust immediately, if the star was that unstable?

The Supernova explosion might have radiatively driven the nearby material away during detonation. If it did, when did this material slow down?
 
edd said:
DeathDart: It screws with chemistry and atomic physics. We're able to probe those extremely well in many circumstances and don't see it.

Basically it turns out that it's difficult to measure the speed of light as such changing (it turns out to have the same effects as other parameters changing) but you can measure dimensionless quantities that involve it - notably the fine structure constant. If you go looking on how that might vary you'll see just how well we've nailed it down - the allowable variations are miniscule.
Click to expand...

A process change MIGHT be able to explain why a low gravity region of space like a Supernova remnant would be able to generate particles with Cosmic Ray energies.
 
And why do supernovae show completely normal atomic transitions?
 
edd said:
And why do supernovae show completely normal atomic transitions?
Click to expand...

The processes of the Supernova are not relevant, since all the processes are within a strong gravitational field.

Even if a mass is a large sphere of exploding matter, its gravitational strength at some distance remains the same. (For a while)

The effect I am predicting does not occur until radioactive matter gets into low to very low, gravitational fields.
 
I'm not sure you get my point. My point is that changing the speed of light changes electromagnetism, which changes atomic physics, which changes what we see in atomic transitions.

But we don't see those changes.

Although you've not given anything quantitative so...
 
Complexity said:
How's that math coming?
Click to expand...

My stellar velocities are still too high. It may be in the density model or the value for gT2. A minor change in gT2 has a lot of effect on the graph.

I can get high velocities, but they are too high.

I would have to pick M33.
 
DeathDart said:
My stellar velocities are still too high.
Click to expand...


I have that problem all the time.

How about showing us some part of your math, even if it isn't quite right?

At least tell us about the types of math that you are using.

Which mathematical techniques are you using?
 
What Ziggurat said - atomic physics is clearly not that environment dependent. We can see transition lines from the wispiest of nebulae, and from the accretion disks of black holes, and it all looks as we expect.
 
Complexity said:
I have that problem all the time.

How about showing us some part of your math, even if it isn't quite right?

At least tell us about the types of math that you are using.

Which mathematical techniques are you using?
Click to expand...

I am using a spreadsheet model

So far I am using model with a rough donut shape with most of the mass increasing exponentially up to a peak at about 2Kpc radius. Then a rapid exponential decay downwards so very little mass is at the edges.

I may not have enough mass in the model and I may be prematurely applying gT2 correction to the curve.

Also I should have noticed the M33 curve's, lumpiness. Since so much matter is nearly the same velocity, radial stratification might not be as strong as in a standard gravitational field model.

The M33 velocity curve appears to show what could be a mass non-linearity, and that is probably why they call them spirals.

I have a clue, but when I am rooting around in the numbers, I tend to forget them. A bit of OCD.

I will be taking a break for an hour or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom