The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

[godless dave]

The frequency shift you describe does occur. The problem is the space between the observer and the atom corrects it back to what you would observe (or very close to the normal time value) as if it was next to you.

Now if you look at the clock through a telescope, it will show a faster time flow.

Why would that be? The space between the observer and the atom is the same whether the observer is looking through a telescope or with the naked eye.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is because of the conservation of energy that the high frequency of 10X Time Space becomes 1X in our space.

No. You are wrong. I have explained to you why you are wrong. I will attempt once more, but if you still can't understand, then you are a lost cause.

Suppose we have an ordinary clock sitting in your low-gravity space. Next to this clock, also in low-gravity, fast-time, are a bunch of excited cesium 133 atoms emitting radiation. For each tick of the second hand of the clock, there are 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation from the cesium atoms. And this MUST be true because the cesium atom's radiation is also a clock.

Light from the clock and light from the cesium atoms then travels to us, in a higher gravity environment, where we can watch the clock and the cesium atoms. Since light from the clock and light from the cesium atoms covers the same space, light that was emitted in sync will be received in sync. You are claiming that the clock is sped up. If it's sped up by a factor of 10, then within 10 seconds, we will see the second hand of that distant clock tick 10 times. If it doesn't tick 10 times, then it isn't sped up by a factor of 10. Now, what happens to the radiation from the cesium atoms? Well, it experienced 9,192,631,770 periods for each tick of that distant clock (since it's in sync with that clock). Which means that WE see 91,926,317,700 periods within 1 of our seconds, since 1 of our seconds covers 10 ticks of the distant clock.

So if the flow of time is different, then the frequency must be different as well. It is not possible to change this.

As I've already pointed out, the only way to fix the problem of energy conservation is with gravitational potential. But that requires that your "low field" location, where time flow approaches infinity, actually approach infinite gravitational potential. So your theory has hit an obvious internal contradiction: as you get progressively "lower" field, the potential changes more and more rapidly, but since the field is the gradient of the potential, well, that means your "low field" is really high field.

And any theory with such an obvious internal contradiction is also obviously wrong. Your theory is wrong, DD. Give it up. Go learn some real physics.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nothing cancels out a gravitational field. The force may cancel out on an object, (it is resting at the apex of a slope in all directions).

Since the force is equal to the mass times the field, how can you cancel the force but NOT the field?

Well, you can't.

But a clock between two equal masses will experience time dilation equivalent to adding the two masses.

Yes, it will. Because in general relativity, gravitational time dilation is due to gravitational potential, not the field strength. A cancellation of the field is not the same as a cancellation of the potential.

 

[sol invictus]

If your interpretation of G.R. is correct, then I do explicitly and directly contradict GR.

In empty space, (zero gravity present), the time flow is infinite.

It's not an "interpretation" - it's mathematics. Look up the Minkowski metric and the Schwarzschild metric. Note that the coefficient of dt^2 is not infinite in either.

 

[DeathDart]

Why would that be? The space between the observer and the atom is the same whether the observer is looking through a telescope or with the naked eye.

The Time Space where the clock and the atom is 10X. 10X Faster .

The photon that the atom produces has ten times the frequency that it would have in the Time Space we occupy. Because inertia is lower in this time frame the amount of energy is equivalent in our Time Space at 1/10th the frequency.

There is not any way for the photon to enter our space without successively traveling though stronger gravitational fields and slower time.

10X Time Space is always bounded by either 9X Time Space, or 9x and 11X Time Space.

There isn't any way for a photon from a 10X Time Space to directly pass through to 1X space. This would represent an impossible gravity gradient.
When we look at the clock face the information it presents shows a 10X time flow. This information is not affected by the intervening space.

 

[sol invictus]

The Time Space where the clock and the atom is 10X. 10X Faster .

The photon that the atom produces has ten times the frequency that it would have in the Time Space we occupy. Because inertia is lower in this time frame the amount of energy is equivalent in our Time Space at 1/10th the frequency.

There is not any way for the photon to enter our space without successively traveling though stronger gravitational fields and slower time.

10X Time Space is always bounded by either 9X Time Space, or 9x and 11X Time Space.

There isn't any way for a photon from a 10X Time Space to directly pass through to 1X space. This would represent an impossible gravity gradient.
When we look at the clock face the information it presents shows a 10X time flow. This information is not affected by the intervening space.

You're not making any sense. The light you see through a telescope passed through exactly the same intervening space that the photon produced by the atom did. If one is affected, so is the other. If the effects cancel for one, they cancel for the other. If you see the clock ticking faster through a telescope, then photons emitted by the atom next to the clock will be blue-shifted when they arrive at your detector.

The only way out of that conclusion is if your time speed-up affects clocks but not atoms - which is total nonsense, since clocks are made of atoms.

 

[DeathDart]

Since the force is equal to the mass times the field, how can you cancel the force but NOT the field?

Well, you can't.



Yes, it will. Because in general relativity, gravitational time dilation is due to gravitational potential, not the field strength. A cancellation of the field is not the same as a cancellation of the potential.

My bad, not cancel, the forces are equal and opposite.
If the force from one mass is pulling the object in one direction and the force from another equal mass is pulling in another, they equal. The force doesn't cancel, it just doesn't have any affect.

Both gravitational fields add together.

 

[sol invictus]

The force doesn't cancel, it just doesn't have any affect.

You might want to go back and rethink that, DD.

 

[Ziggurat]

My bad, not cancel, the forces are equal and opposite.

That means they cancel.

Both gravitational fields add together.

And when you add a positive and a negative of equal magnitudes, they equal zero. They cancel.

 

[DeathDart]

You might want to go back and rethink that, DD.

So are you trying to say that gravitational fields can cancel? I can assure you they do not. The forces may equal on a object, but the flow of time by standard relativity, is equal to the effect of both masses. You cannot cancel out fields to achieve low gravitational fields locally.

 

[DeathDart]

Force can be equal to zero, field is equal to 2.

 

[Complexity]

By making time flow infinite, and by making inertia dependent on other matter, relativity can directly address issues such as the galactic velocity curves and SNR time delayed brightening.

Changing one assumption in G. R. allows it to address these problems.

I don't know how the Einstein equations are written, and I don't know how hard it would be to plug in an infinite time. Time may not be infinite, but the working value or term may be very large compared to the assumed value of one. The term could be like Planck's constant.

If the Einstein equations can accept this change in time, it should produce better, (or more usable), predictions for weak regions of gravity.

Do you realize how uninformed and delusional you sound?

Is this really how you want to appear to others on this forum?

You have been advised again and again to learn some things before embarrassing yourself further by posting on this subject.

Please take that advise.

 

[DeathDart]

Do you realize how uninformed and delusional you sound?

Is this really how you want to appear to others on this forum?

You have been advised again and again to learn some things before embarrasing yourself further by posting on this subject.

Please take that advise.

Do you believe in inflation after the Big Bang?

Do you really believe in Dark Matter? It really is all about belief, it only appears where they need it to appear, except in the laboratory.

Was Einstein infallible? I have read several of his biographies and I know what he would say.

Is what I am saying wrong, so far Einsteins theories are holding up pretty good. My theory seems self consistent, but tomorrow I may wake up and slap myself in the head and realize where I screwed up. This has happened more times than I can count.

But I have no one to bounce ideas off of. I am kind of impressed with the questions. Something you have said, may sink in. By tomorrow, the idea could be dead.

There are more then a few ways that I could of messed up.

I may have created a well told story, but if it is not true, there is ALWAYS a loose thread.

For now, here I stand.

 

[sol invictus]

So are you trying to say that gravitational fields can cancel?

Of course.

I can assure you they do not.

Nonsense.

The forces may equal on a object, but the flow of time by standard relativity, is equal to the effect of both masses. You cannot cancel out fields to achieve low gravitational fields locally.

The rate of "time flow" is not the same thing as the gravitational field. As has already been explained to you, variations in the rate of time flow arise from the gravitational potential, not from the field.

But this does not mean that you can achieve anti-gravity - the only way to cancel the field of the earth, say, would be to bring an enormously massive object very near it, and even then the cancellation is only local. That's not because gravity fields can't cancel - they obviously can - it's because mass is always positive.

 

[DeathDart]

I will look back through the blog and see if someone made a lethal point, that I missed on the first read. Then I will tackle the Poisson equations.

It has been irritating and instructive. When I have numbers on M33 and have validated a value for gT2 ,or have generated the mother of all Gordian Knots, I will be back.

I will check back daily. And yes, if I fail I will admit it.

 

[Complexity]

Do you believe in inflation after the Big Bang?

I think that inflation is an elegant and plausible explanation of several issues involving the uneven distribution of energy/matter after the big bang.

Do you really believe in Dark Matter? It really is all about belief, it only appears where they need it to appear, except in the laboratory.

I think that dark matter is an elegant and plausible explanation for stellar motion that is difficult to explain with out it.

It isn't an issue of belief - it is looking for the best explanations for the known observations.

Was Einstein infallible? I have read several of his biographies and I know what he would say.

Of course, Einstein was fallible.

That does not make you right.

Is what I am saying wrong, so far Einsteins theories are holding up pretty good. My theory seems self consistent, but tomorrow I may wake up and slap myself in the head and realize where I screwed up. This has happened more times than I can count.

You don't have a theory - you have a smear of words.

Show us the math or keep quiet about your 'theories'. please.

Theories in physics will be expressed as mathematics.

You have demonstrated that you don't even know which mathematical techniques are used in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and you've demonstrated absolutely no familiarity with or understanding of the equations involved.

But I have no one to bounce ideas off of. I am kind of impressed with the questions. Something you have said, may sink in. By tomorrow, the idea could be dead.

Converse with some good math and physics books. Talk with yourself.

The idea was dead on arrival.

There are more then a few ways that I could of messed up.

You have no idea...

I may have created a well told story, but if it is not true, there is ALWAYS a loose thread.

It is not true and it hasn't been a good story. I'm sorry, but that is the truth.

For now, here I stand.

Please don't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Force can be equal to zero, field is equal to 2.

No. You're completely wrong. You're so wrong that the only explanation is that you have some totally different idea about what a field is than the actual accepted definition of a field.

Go get yourself an introductory physics textbook. You are so badly mistaken about so many basic things that there's really no chance that this is going to be a productive discussion.

 

[DeathDart]

Of course.



Nonsense.



The rate of "time flow" is not the same thing as the gravitational field. As has already been explained to you, variations in the rate of time flow arise from the gravitational potential, not from the field.

But this does not mean that you can achieve anti-gravity - the only way to cancel the field of the earth, say, would be to bring an enormously massive object very near it, and even then the cancellation is only local. That's not because gravity fields can't cancel - they obviously can - it's because mass is always positive.

While researching a previous theory that included a term that would have a mass create alternating negative (Normal gravity) and positive (matter repelling gravity) waves like the frozen ripples of a pond. I thought that this would explain the center bar in galaxies and the ripples. Except that gravitational fields do no not have a vector that can be cancelled out.

The math was interesting and it kind of answered the Pioneer Anomalies. Except no gravity vector, no chance for a positive field, that was several months work disappearing into the depths.

 

[DeathDart]

No. You're completely wrong. You're so wrong that the only explanation is that you have some totally different idea about what a field is than the actual accepted definition of a field.

Go get yourself an introductory physics textbook. You are so badly mistaken about so many basic things that there's really no chance that this is going to be a productive discussion.

Gravitational fields DO NOT CANCEL.

 

[sol invictus]

Gravitational fields DO NOT CANCEL.

So you've been reduced to argument by shouting....

Sorry DD, but I'm afraid I agree with Zig. You need to go learn at least some basic facts before having this conversation. This forum isn't a high school physics class.