Declan

Oh and I should add: (g) Showed that an observer will always measure light's speed as constant ONLY if space's geometry is fixed, but filled with a field that determines light's speed and the rate of Time.

a) Yes b) Not changed, but this is the background work that lead me to (a) c) No change to story, no change in position. Have maths showing the idea works, but not the Tensors you are looking for. d) same as (b) e) Not no knowledge, but am not too familiar with the maths to show it in Tensor form And f) If you give me a standard GR Tensor expressing the distribution of Gravitational Potential, then this is the same as the density of the energy field in my interpretation - no change required.

Ok, well I am not familiar enough with GR to represent it in tensor form, but the key point is that light will travel the same path in either the standard GR form or the medium with variable density form. So in GR space is 'created' near a mass thereby causing light to take longer in traveling - leading to gravitational lensing to an outside observer. In the alternate interpretation the space remains fixed and the density of the field within in increases in the same proportion as the space size increases in the GR example. Thus light slows and lensing occurs for an outside observer in exactly the same fashion as in the GR example. The equation for GR gravitational time dilation based on the gravitational potential gives the magnitude of the field density increase - thus causing light's speed to appear constant.

You don't seem to understand that the precise curvature as defined by GR can be represented as a field with variable density. So the same equations apply just the physical interpretation is different. If you interpret curvature as meaning density then you *know* that the shape of the field will be the same. It is a similar comparison between water waves and sound waves : vertical displacement versus air density. The Doppler shift equations are the same etc. If you allow curvature to equal medium density and allow the speed of light and rate of time to follow the density, then the affect on test particles will be the same. The kinematic equation x=vt reveals this to be true. You can optionally multiply x by some number or divide v by the same number - either one will give you the same value of t. So speed and distance are complimentary - you can allow one or the other to change and you get the same type of result.

To Mordred: Thanks... To ajb: It is possible to understand Relativity without getting into the Tensor maths of GR - especially when you view it from the point of view of a space-filling energy field that determines the local speed of light and Time Dilation. I hope you now understand that a space filling field with variable speed of light and Time Dilation is the only way to resolve the speed of light measuring problem by any observer. It has other advantages too - the original topic of this discussion: Galaxy rotation rates due to this field being consumed by black holes...

Interestingly though, when I did this for Special Relativity - deriving the Lorentz factor - the equation came out of the analysis unchanged: 'c' still remained 'c' in the equation, although the Physical interpretation used to build the equation was different. To an outside observer looking into a time dilated reference frame in regards to the Lorentz factor, he would change 'c' to 'c/gamma' and 'v' to v/gamma' - such that in the 'v^2/c^2' term the 'gammas' cancel, giving the original unchanged equation. To Granpa: I'm not sure how anti-matter falling upwards affects the current discussion, although if it did, a mechanism would need to be devised to account for it. To Mordred: Further to changes required to GR: The GR wave equation essentially tells us how space curves with respect to mass/energy & the resulting effects on a test mass - Do I have this essentially correct? As far as I can see, if we simply interpret the curvature as referring to the change in density of an energy field, rather than actual geometry changing, then we still have the same maths equations. It is just the physical interpretation that has changed. The effect on the test particle is still the same. I had a quick look through the book you suggested by Sean M Carroll. I don't have the time to work through the details at the moment - though it looks like a good text.

I'm not sure which equation you are referring to, but if you have a 'c' you could replace it with [latex]c/gamma[/latex] Where there is a 't' you could replace it with [latex]gamma*t[/latex] So a 'ct' would be invariant. It may be necessary to 're-think' the equations from the new perspective and build them up based on that interpretation in order to be confident in the understanding and formulation. I have done this in my Energy Field Theory paper for Time Dilation, Length Contraction, Mass Increase and Gravitational acceleration, however I have not tackled the GR wave equations/tensors, except for my suggested change to the Schwartzchild metric regarding flow into black holes.

No, the equations stay the same, but the Physical interpretation is different.

To Swansont: No, I was saying he would measure light speed as higher if light speed didn't slow by the same amount as the rate of time in his reference frame. To Strange: If you mean the size of the space in his reference frame increases so as to keep the speed of light invariant, then the observer would also increase in size by the same proportion and so he would still measure the speed of light to be higher than it should be as all his measuring rods would increase in size too.

As I have already said: light speed slows by the same amount as the observer's rate of time, thus all measurements he makes will still give the normal speed of light. You have clearly never built a computer model of space with light moving through it in a region with dilated time, otherwise you would realize the incoherence and impossibility of what you are saying.

What has special relativity got to do with it? The observer on the planet's surface is stationary yet he measures the speed of light to be the same even though his time is running slowly. If the speed of light was invariant then he would measure the speed of light to be higher than it should be.

Seriously if an atomic clock was placed on the surface of a huge planet where the gravitational potemential caused a reasonable time dilation and another placed in a group-synchronous orbit by one observer who then stopped looking at them. Then a hundred years later a different observer brought the two clocks together - the clocks would show a different time, regardless of whether an observer was looking at them or not. The gravitational time dilation effect is real and absolute and does not depend on the observer. Thus the speed of light must be slower in the reference frame on the surface of the planet, otherwise an observer would measure light speed to be higher relative to his clock. Group-synchronous should read geo-synchronous (auto-correct error)

To granpa: Yes anti matter falls downwards in a gravitational field too.

That is because light slowing in a medium (such as water) is a process of absorption and re-emission. See my paper on the real cause of Fresnel Dragging: http://gpcpublishing.com/index.php?journal=gjp&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=386

Thank you granpa you can see the point I am trying to make. I doesn't matter if the observer knows he is time dilated or not, he will always measure light to travel at the same speed - as his time slows by exactly the same amount as does the speed of light in his reference frame. Every physical process is determined by the rate at which waves (light or matter) propagate through a region of space, so time will slow down by exactly the same amount as does the propagation speed of light. All quanta - be it light, electrons, positrons or neutrinos are wave functions traveling through the space-time medium (aka energy field), so all will follow the geodesics. Light will bend, and matter will gravitate as a result of the slowed propagation speed in a region where the field is more dense.

I have been trying to answer all the questions but there is only one of me and about six people firing questions all at once. Yes light and antimatter are all embedded in the energy field medium and so are affected to. The bending of light due to the inflow appears to be lending due to Dark Matter. To Mordred, There are two ways to interpret Relativity: one where light's speed is fixed and the geometry of space deforms accordingly, and the other where light's speed slows in a region of dense medium (as does the rate of time such that an observer always measures light's speed to be constant). I am suggesting that the second interpretation makes more sense as the space geometry remains fixed but is filled with a field with vatiable density. When looked at this way one can see how the field can flow and get consumed by the black hole and thus explain the Galaxy rotation rates without having to invoke Dark Matter.

I don't mind talking about the idea, and have been doing so. In other discussion groups I have been part of people have been more interested to understand an idea fully and then criticize, rather than attack at every step of the way and make personal comments along the way. That is not Science it's arrogance. I have tried to explain an interesting new idea that could explain effects without requiring Dark Matter, and I thought this would be a good forum for it, maybe not.

To Swansont: Here is an article about it, the actual video is available on YouTube. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080222095358.htm

To ajb: Fair point, if you can't look out to anything else you wouldn't be able to tell. I don't know of any way to tell the difference - maybe something in the quantum vacuum might be detectable & reveal the difference? The statistics of virtual particles or something... To Strange: Thanks for the link - I will have a look when I get a chance....

When an electron is in free space it is a spherical standing wave, but when interacting with other particles it can assume other more complex wave function solutions too.

To ajb: Ok well if you are in orbit around a black hole with inward flowing energy field then you would be very slightly length contracted along the radial line from the centre of the black hole, and very slightly time dilated too (apart from the time dilation due to orbital speed, gravitational potential and frame dragging corrections), but given the small size of the inward acceleration due to the flow, the effects might be too small to measure.

To Swansont: An electron has a centre, sure, where its fields appear to come from, but it is not a point particle - it has charge layers (like an onion) and there is even Attosecond resolution video of an electron done by Lund University showing an electron riding up and down on a light wave - Google it and see for yourself.

I guess there might be a similar change required in other metrics if they are applicable to black holes. But if no black holes are involved then there would be no change as no gravitational collapse is involved. Indeed the classical radius of a particle is an arbitrary sort of definition. In fact each quantum particle is a 3D standing wave with infinite extent - but as these standing wave structures are comprised of waves, then these waves must necessarily be smaller than the structures they form. As the wave function for a particle extends to infinity there is an 'r' in the wave function so that you can know what the complex vector is at any point in space and at any moment in time.

I understand that it is important to get into the maths of GR and metrics if you are proposing a change to it. The thing is I don't have a problem with the current formulation of GR, it stays the same, except for the minor change I have suggested to the Schwartzchild Metric concerning black holes. To Swansont: But quantum particles are known to have certain sizes - so smaller than those size scales could be referred to as sub-quantum. To Strange: Can you please indicate the differences in galaxy clusters that are relevant to orbital speeds or Dark Matter as I do not know about this detail? Thanks...

Original work. It should not matter, so long as there is a reasoned argument and the maths to back it up. What is wrong with you people, can't you open your mind a bit and follow a logical train of thought. I know GR is a very successful theory, but it is not the be-all and end-all of Science.