The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

[Ziggurat]

The mechanical clocks information is not transmitted as wavelength, the light source is sending the information out as a wavelength.

That's irrelevant. The frequency of light from the atom is still a clock. If clocks run fast, then the frequency is blue-shifted. It is impossible to have it any other way.

 

[sol invictus]

Some people might get the impression that I am saying Einstein was wrong.

This is not correct, at the higher gravitational strengths and high velocities, he is correct.

I really do think that he brushed against his concept, but when it is incomplete and without structure, almost everything about this concept will cause the rational mind to recoil.

I think that this, (if it is true), complements Einstein' General Relativity, not refute it.

BZZZT, wrong. Your theory directly and explicitly contradicts general relativity. GR tells you the local rate of time flow for all matter distributions, including zero matter, and the rate does not go to infinity when there's no matter.

It also contradicts Newton, for the same reason.

 

[DeathDart]

The problem is, this is something we observe every day - and those observations prove you wrong. Indeed, that was the whole point of the Pound-Rebka experiment - but it's also observed in cosmology all the time.

And the reasons for that are quite obvious and have been nicely explained by Zig. If time is moving faster for the atom, then it emits light of a higher frequency by definition of "time moving faster for the atom".

If it is moving in any time frame it will change the frequency. If it is moving at relativistic speeds, time will add with the Doppler shift.

If it is fixed, (not moving), within any time frame, it does not change.

An atom in a 10X time space will emit a photon with 10X the frequency.

The photons path to an observer will shift the photon back down to our 1X time, it will look normal.

The difficulty of determining an absolute framework is actually worse.

The difficulty from both standard relativity (and I hope you mind, if I call it Extended Relativity) is determining your absolute velocity, within the space you occupy.

I don't believe that this is possible, because the failure of the Ether experiments. Velocity does not appear to be an absolute measurement. We can measure our velocity only relative to other frames.

The velocities in those frames are relative to the time flow, in that frame (Time Space).

Their velocity is relative to their own time frame (Time Space), then it is relative to our velocity in our (Time Space).

If anything, the absolute time frame problem is much worse.

 

[DeathDart]

BZZZT, wrong. Your theory directly and explicitly contradicts general relativity. GR tells you the local rate of time flow for all matter distributions, including zero matter, and the rate does not go to infinity when there's no matter.

It also contradicts Newton, for the same reason.

What is the origin of time?

 

[Ziggurat]

The difficulty from both standard relativity (and I hope you mind, if I call it Extended Relativity) is determining your absolute velocity, within the space you occupy.

You couldn't be more wrong. The whole point of relativity is that there IS no absolute velocity.

 

[DeathDart]

The origin of time, is in space.

G.R. assumes that empty space has a time flow of ONE

By analogy the more matter, the slower time gets, like time was being diluted by matter.

You are mixing more matter, with Time Space.

The origin of time, is in space.

 

[DeathDart]

You couldn't be more wrong. The whole point of relativity is that there IS no absolute velocity.

I don't disagree.

 

[sol invictus]

If it is moving in any time frame it will change the frequency. If it is moving at relativistic speeds, time will add with the Doppler shift.

If it is fixed, (not moving), within any time frame, it does not change.

I don't know what a "time frame" is. According to GR, two stationary atoms at two different heights above the earth's surface will emit photons that are red- or blue-shifted (i.e. one cannot absorb a photon emitted by the other). As far as I can tell, you are denying that - and if so, you are in direct contradiction to the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment (and many, many others).

The shift can be thought of as arising from the fact that time runs more slowly for the atom that is lower in the gravitational field of the earth - time runs more slowly for it, so the photons it emits are redshifted as measured by anything higher up, where time is running faster.

What is the origin of time?

Huh?

The origin of time, is in space.

G.R. assumes that empty space has a time flow of ONE

No, GR predicts that - or more accurately, it predicts that time flows at almost exactly the same rate in totally empty space as it does on (say) the surface of the earth. You told us that your theory, on the other hand, predicts that time flows infinitely faster in empty space than on the surface of the earth. Therefore, your theory explicitly and directly contradicts GR.

 

[DeathDart]

No, GR predicts that - or more accurately, it predicts that time flows at almost exactly the same rate in totally empty space as it does on (say) the surface of the earth. You told us that your theory, on the other hand, predicts that time flows infinitely faster in empty space than on the surface of the earth. Therefore, your theory explicitly and directly contradicts GR.

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.

 

[DeathDart]

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.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

GR is based on an assumption, and that isn't it. But you have made assumptions in your model which are obviously incorrect. You think time can pass at different rates in different locations without changing the frequency of light emitted at one location and observed at another. This is demonstrably and obviously false. It also has other consequences for your theory, including that your theory would violate energy conservation.

I don't know how the Einstein equations are written

That's rather the problem: you hardly know any physics at all. You're in no position to evaluate either existing theories or even your own one. And you won't be until you learn a hell of a lot more than you already know.

 

[marplots]

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.

Would this also be the case in space where different masses cancel out gravity locally, either mostly or entirely?

So, for instance, would time vary as I flew between the earth and moon as the sum of the pulls from the two masses came into balance?

 

[DeathDart]

Would this also be the case in space where different masses cancel out gravity locally, either mostly or entirely?

So, for instance, would time vary as I flew between the earth and moon as the sum of the pulls from the two masses came into balance?

Gravitational fields do not cancel. There isn't any vector (direction or polarity to the field). Both field are present, it just that the two forces, cancel out. Time flow is equal to adding the two fields together, slower than either alone.
That is how they proved it didn't cancel.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gravitational fields do not cancel. There isn't any vector (direction or polarity to the field). Both field are present, it just that the two forces, cancel out. Time flow is equal to adding the two fields together, slower than either alone.
That is how they proved it didn't cancel.

Nobody has ever proven anything of the sort.

In the Newtonian theory of gravity, the field is indeed a vector field, and it does indeed cancel. Under general relativity, gravity is not simply a vector field, but space-time can be flat (which corresponds to Newtonian zero field) when fields "cancel". And flat is flat, regardless of how you get it flat.

So if you're proposing an alternative, then it doesn't resemble anything in existing physics, and it has zero experimental support as well.

 

[edd]

Gravitational fields do not cancel. There isn't any vector (direction or polarity to the field). Both field are present, it just that the two forces, cancel out. Time flow is equal to adding the two fields together, slower than either alone.
That is how they proved it didn't cancel.

I think you're confusing field and potential.

This doesn't surprise me.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you're confusing field and potential.

Probably. He's screwed up basic units and dimensions in the past, so that would come as no surprise.

 

[DeathDart]

GR is based on an assumption, and that isn't it. But you have made assumptions in your model which are obviously incorrect. You think time can pass at different rates in different locations without changing the frequency of light emitted at one location and observed at another. This is demonstrably and obviously false. It also has other consequences for your theory, including that your theory would violate energy conservation.



That's rather the problem: you hardly know any physics at all. You're in no position to evaluate either existing theories or even your own one. And you won't be until you learn a hell of a lot more than you already know.

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

10X space also has an inertia of 1/100th of normal space.

An object which where moving with a velocity 50kms in 10X space will slow down to 5kms in our space. The amount of distance that would have to be traveled to move between these two regions (a galactic mass) would be huge. Kpc scales. Though stars on the galactic fringe could have have smaller scales, it would still be substantial.

Gravitational potential is not infinite, just different, the flat rotation velocities indicate that inertia has decreased (and time flow away from large masses has increased). The inertia for large masses like stars has decreased.

The calculation for a large mass in a weak gravitational orbit may follow Newtons calculations in that both masses must be considered to determine the orbital velocity. It may not be a straight forward velocity calculation at a certain radius solution.

So I really should get back to figuring out that Poisson fellows equations to see what works.

 

[DeathDart]

I think you're confusing field and potential.

This doesn't surprise me.

Do gravitational fields cancel?

 

[DeathDart]

Nobody has ever proven anything of the sort.

In the Newtonian theory of gravity, the field is indeed a vector field, and it does indeed cancel. Under general relativity, gravity is not simply a vector field, but space-time can be flat (which corresponds to Newtonian zero field) when fields "cancel". And flat is flat, regardless of how you get it flat.

So if you're proposing an alternative, then it doesn't resemble anything in existing physics, and it has zero experimental support as well.

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). But a clock between two equal masses will experience time dilation equivalent to adding the two masses. There isn't any cancellation. Cancellation would allow the existence of anti-gravity.

 

[DeathDart]

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). But a clock between two equal masses will experience time dilation equivalent to adding the two masses. There isn't any cancellation. Cancellation would allow the existence of anti-gravity.

You would have had a feast if I hadn't shot down a previous theory that incorporated anti-gravity.