captcass

I can't take the time right now to answer all of this point by point as I am at work. I'm just letting you know I am keeping up. First, This is not mainstream, which is why I put it under speculations. Briefly, in SR we know we all experience the same laws in our inertial frames. Two observers see each other's time as slower and a meter shorter, but each experience the same rate of time and length of meter in their inertial frames. I am saying we are already looking at it backwards. It is effects in time, i.e., time dilation, that is causative. Mass accretes due to time dilation. This is what we see gravity doing. Time dilation accretes mass. I am not saying what follows is correct yet, but the theory I have been developing says time dilation changes the density of space and creates relativistic movement that evolves those densities down the time dilation gradient as per GR, and that concentrates mass at the center of spherical time dilation pits. The forward evolution of events is impinging on itself from all directions in the center of a pit. When enough mass builds, you get a star. I am thinking the density in space is caused by the expanding meter required by time dilation to be compressed into a shorter length This could also generate heat through compression. The uncertainty principle allows for the perceived fluctuations in time, but they are always fluctuations relative to the rate of the observer and all observers share the same rate in their inertial frames. This rate can be considered the rate of time in Einstein's Fundamental Metric. When that rate fluctuates it creates the relativistic evolutionary movements of GR. Einstein said it is all an illusion. In relative motion, both clocks cannot be running slow. They both appear to be slower and that forms the basis of our reality. What we see is what we get, so to speak. Although acceleration mimics gravity, it is not the same thing, by this theory. Gravitational dilation originates with uncertainty principle fluctuations and acceleration mimics the effects by forcing a change in the rate of evolution. Older frames are older. Therefore if we accelerate into them, they must appear to evolve forward faster so we are in the present when we are in them. This creates the drag. As we approach c the frames cannot be forced to update any faster as c is the limit of the speed of evolution. I do agree that clocks run at different speeds in a gravitational time dilation gradient. All observers agree with that just like they all agree on c. Time is not another dimension. We always use time in our formulations. Einstein just took into consideration time dilation, which gives time a dimensionality in space. Look up. Time is going faster. Events are evolving from that faster time down through the gradient, It can be plainly seen without imagining another dimension and a twisted spacetime. Spacetime does not curve. Within the evolving continuum (spacetime/quantum) events appear to take on curvature of motion as the continuum evolves forward, both space and the events therein. This is what GR describes and that curvature is the resultant of the Fundamental Metric evolution we each experience in our inertial frames, within us, where we are the focal point of the light cones, and the relativistic down gradient evolution created by time dilation. If older frames are also slower frames, as I postulate above for the Hubble constant, that coupled that with the dynamics in time discussed here then allows us to consider a stationary, eternal, universe. Consider this. Because we as individuals have mass, we know we are evolving more slowly then frames containing the air touching our skin. Surrounding events are evolving forward within the continuum ahead of us and down gradient into us, sustaining us. The continuum has no depth in the sense of moving through something. It is just an energy field. On the Hubble constant matter, as all events appear accelerated in the continuum, it appears there is an acceleration aspect to the passage of time and that that is what I show there. The passage of time itself includes a constant acceleration.

I am hearing you say you don't know why mass dilates time and that we do not experience the same rate of time in each inertial frame as per SR.

Hey, Mordred, my polite, patient, friend, are you following this thread?

Please explain to me how mass creates time dilation. I have found no such explanation. Please do not say "acceleration" as I have seen in other places, as in "gravity is acceleration". I mention the GR as it shows that just because something is currently accepted as so, does no make it so, especially when we cannot explain it. As I started this thread I am OK with it wandering some as other concepts attach. For instance, we know that what we see is not what is happening even though we must accept it as reality and our physics must be based upon it. There is an invariant rate of time experienced by all observers, even though we cannot see each other that way. We are confined by the constraints of General Relativity, knowing that GR is utilizing dilated times and shortened lengths that do not actually exist except in our perception. In Lorentz contractions we see a dilated time and shortened length. This is an anachronism. Slower time requires a longer length to maintain c........etc. Please also note that the solution works for a difference in the rates of time of exactly 1 s/s. Does any other theory you know of account for a 1 s/s difference in the rates of time between us and 13.9 Gly?

Hi Strange. As currently accepted......I am saying perhaps not. We also say mass creates time dilation, but we cannot say why. Yet we know General Relativity is based on time dilation and that all events evolve down time dilation gradients, accreting mass. So it is not mass creating time dilation, but time dilation that accretes mass through the forward evoltution of events as per General Relativity.

Events are always undergoing acceleration as they evolve forward in the time dilated continuum. Therefore, when we look out into space beyond the solar system, and back in time, we are also looking down a time dilation gradient into slower time. The observer’s invariant relative rate of time is always faster than that in frames in the perceived past, and we find that as D → ~13.9 Gly, difference in the rate of time, denoted here as "dRt", → 1 s/s, recessional V → c, and lateral V → 0, just as it does near the event horizon of a black hole. Slower time results in lower frequency and the Hubble shift. Assuming a Hubble constant of 70 km/s/Mpc, we find the apparent recessional velocity reaches c at 4282.7494 Mpc = 13.968062372 Gly. For a 1s/s dRt at this distance the rate of change is: 1/13968062372 = 7.1592*10^-11 s/s/ly = 2.3349516024*10^-4 s/s/Mpc. So for each Mpc the dRt = 2.3349516024*10^-4 s/s and: c*(1 + dRt) = (299792.458) m/s * ((1+(2.3349516024*10^-4)) s = 299862.458 m and: 299862.458 - 299792.458 = 70 km/s/Mpc = the Hubble constant This indicates that the forward evolution of time includes a universal constant of acceleration. Because we are always being accelerated forward in the rate of time, and therefore apparently space, events in the past must appear to accelerate away from us in the opposite direction. This also creates the impression we are at the center of the universe and leading it in its evolution.

Hi BeeCee. Perhaps you should just review what I posted. I just edited it for submission to a pub, so I can't post that update here. What I just posted, however, gets the gist. You just have to get your head around the fact that you are not tying the quantum (spacetime) continuum and the apparent evolution of events of GR together. You still separate the two. To you, particles are moving "through" space. They are not, hence, IBEX found no "bow" shock. To combine the quantum field and the gravitational field together you have to view them as the effects of the same thing, i.e., time dilation. GR describes the apparent relative evolution of events within the continuum relative to their relative rates of time as per Special Relativity, SR. This is not particles moving "through" space, which, as a physical person, a physicist, you want to see. It is what we see, after all. But what we see is relativistic and is dependent on ∆D, as per GR, even though we each experience the same invariable rate of time in our own worldline (proper rate of time). I know this is counter-intuitive, but so is General Relativity. Einstein believed we could just pass through a black hole without noticing anything different. Since he developed all this, I believe him, and I believe I am describing the same thing as he did because it is just as plain as day to me. Hey, Mordred! Are you listening? Look, Physics is all nice and physical. Quantum physics is not: it is all ephemeral. The spacetime continuum evolves in the ephemeral, quantum physics way. There is no solid reality, with actual distances in space, only an evolving spacetime continuum with differences in the rate of time between and within events.

There is no dark matter. One only has to apply General Relativity correctly to have the galactic orbital velocities we see. Flattened spiral galaxies and spherical stellar systems have different shapes and different shaped time dilation gradients. Within a stellar system, all events appear to accelerate increasingly as they approach the center of the dilation "pit", where the dilation gradient only equalizes in an infinitesimal point within the star. At his point, where ∆D = the difference in the rate of time between frames (designated proper and coordinate times) the math is determined by the following: as ∆D→0, ∆Y, ∆X and ∆Z→0 This impedance to the future evolution of events in all directions results in highly concentrated energy in the form of a star. In flattened spiral galaxies, the dilation gradients from above and below the flat disk equalize within the disk and all events are evolved forward at the same rate of time, and, therefore, the same apparent velocity in space: and, as ∆D→0, ∆Y→0 and the curl of the orbit is the simple resultant of: ∆aX and ∆bZ Because of the higher density of energy (mass) when a flattened galaxy is viewed from the side, giving it its "bar" shape, there is a deeper time dilation gradient when viewed from the side, so: b is always > a As events can no longer be evolved forward along the Y axis, and since the continuum MUST evolve forward, it appears to evolve forward (revolve) around the Z and X axes and we get circular motion. The black hole at the center of a spiral galaxy is just a space where ∆D→1s/s

How did I end up here? The previous thread was blocked, but now I end up here? Explain that, Strange. WTF am I doing in this thread? Hello? I did not search this out, so why am I here? Thought I got away from you! Newtonian gravity does not work to predict the speeds as observed. GR should but also doesn't because we do not properly understand what GR describes. I mean, really, Strange, why was this page here on my browser instead of the dead thread page? Any idea? I am totally serious.....Totally freaky, man.....

At this point I am just throwing out ideas for discussion. You guys don't want to do that, so that is fine with me. As I rambled above, I cannot un-see the world I live in. My path has been far different from you guys. I understand your frustration with me, but that is that. Thanks for your time. Sorry if I raised your blood pressure.

I believe you. I'll work in looking at your math. The trouble, my friend, is that we are aspects of the illusion looking to understand the illusion. It is a lot of fun, but every time we try to figure it out, we get lost in it. That is its purpose, lol. We are losing ourselves here. You said you are trying to be a Christian of some sort. Sorry, I don't want to go back to see which sort. I am not a Christian. I studied all the great faiths, and the occult and arcane, after I learned in 1972 that I could wash my hands in acid harmlessly if I had faith, and burned the hell out of them when I didn't have faith. Seemed the sensible thing to do. But as you are taking a Christian approach, I will ask you where Jesus said the kingdom of heaven was? You probably would have to look it up. But he said it is not over there or over there or up there. It is within you. When we feel "faith", the real feeling, not faith "in" something, we have divine power. Things can help people reach a feeling of faith, but faith is the feeling itself. If you have faith in your thumbnail, it will work, not because of the thumbnail, but because of the feeling of faith. Jesus again, "Your faith makes you whole", and, "Your faith has made him whole." I don't worship Jesus. I follow Jesus. I also follow Krishna and Buddha and others you have not heard of. I am not speaking religion, i.e., brushing your teeth everyday, washing your hands before you eat and after you crap, not screwing around, etc. I am just talking about a spiritual perception. I am not knocking religion. People do things religiously because that is the wisdom of their ancestors about what to do and not do for their own health and the health of their communities. Big bad it makes for so many crazies..... Spirituality deals with how the world manifests, including embedded moral laws. 95% of humanity believes in a "Creator". Nearly all faiths, major and minor, say we are the Creator's children and that the world is made for us. Nearly everyone believes in miracles, with strong traditions in all faiths. Mohammed only claimed the Quran as a miracle, but Islam recognizes the miracles associated with the other prophets. My point here is that there is a longstanding universal understanding, with innumerable proofs, that miracles occur. This proves the "laws" are not invariant. I personally know this to be true from an endless stream of experiences, including lifelong materializations. Indeed, it is materializing for me just as i write this. I am searching for the science to fit my spiritual point of view, a quantum field view, because I have been living in that world since 1974 and I have always felt that both relativity and quantum physics were completely compatible with what I experience. I cannot be convinced otherwise, because I LIVE in the world of light and magic. It is impossible for me to see it otherwise. I found the kingdom within myself..... It is only evolving light. It is great we can do so much with it with our science, but it is still just evolving light. I know that is a little sad. But it is also friggion' great. Because I see the evolving light field, and not movement through space, I believe we will find the correct answers by following Lorentz and Einstein into a world of perspectives, not solid physics. We are doing this in quantum physics. I would note that there is no agreement on why qm works. The Copenhagen convention is a cop out. I agree that all this illusion stuff lets us detonate an H bomb, but we are way deep into the illusion there. To repeat myself, we know what we see is not what is going on, though it sure seems that way. Light, itself, is not logical, as its speed is independent of not just the movement of its point of origin, but also the perceived rate of time difference between frames. Don't you find this strange? (Sorry, not you, Strange), We just accept that and it makes everything else work, but, really, is that logical at all? I don't think so. I think there is much to be thought about there alone. Sorry for the ramble. Time for bed. I would say no, though the others on this thread will disagree. I would say matter is linked to time, not time to matter. Matter is not solid, it is events in space occurring over time. Chicken and egg? I think not. I am thinking dilation in time is responsible for events in space, including the perception of depth.

See, I knew you knew your stuff. Very impressive work. I won't insult you by pretending to read and understand it. Too bad it can't come together. I'm not trying to minimize you. You really know your stuff and you have put in the time and study and math. Much more than I have. But it isn't conclusive is it? It still doesn't work. None of it does because we are seeking to explain what isn't there. Even if they come up with the math to "prove" DM, unless they can detect DM it doesn't exist. The math is not the proof in that case. I really appreciate your time and friendly demeanor. It seems you are the gentleman here. Gotta love you, Mordred, really I do.

I love what you are saying. I love that BeeCee loves the data and how it all fits together so well, the CMB and the thermodynamics, et. al.. We have had this debate before. The simple truth is that none of it is coming together and it is now constructed of far more outrageous claims than I am making. At least we know it is really a matter of perception now. We need to pursue that track. Higgs seesaw indeed. Can you tell me how many proposed mechanisms there are "out there"? All I see is hopeful thinking and a lot of clap trap. The only facts I see out there is that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate and that GR does not appear to explain galactic rotation velocities. The theories that follow are all just lunacy to me.....totally unsupported rubbish.

It is not about random statements. It is about concepts that move people to test them to either prove or disprove them. If our only language was math we would be SOL and get nowhere fast. You can not prove either DM or DE to me or anyone else. These are simply "theories" you embrace and strive to justify. These concepts are meaningless junk to me that shout out, "WE DON'T KNOW!" and "WHAT WE KNOW DOESN'T WORK!" Math, indeed.

It is not about random statements. It is about concepts that move people to test them to either prove or disprove them. If our only language was math we would be SOL and get nowhere fast. You can not prove either DM or DE to me or anyone else. These are simply "theories" you embrace and strive to justify. These concepts are meaningless junk to me that shout out, "WE DON'T KNOW!" and "WHAT WE KNOW DOESN'T WORK!" Math, indeed.

Why are only the carrion birds ugly? Why are precious things so rare and hard to get to? Why do I keep engaging you guys? Hi Mordred. I agree, but I am from outside the community and don't always know the lingo. Familiar territory to me, having visited over 50 countries. Did you know nearly everyone can swear in English?

Yawn......isn't it funny, though, that the guys who have to see it to believe it believe so deeply in things they can't see? What is more ludicrous than dark matter and dark energy? Even the Standard Model is dead since CERN can't find anything new! Time to find a new approach......

yawn...

It can't be helped when you dismiss theoretical discussion as BS. You are lacking perception of a conceptualization I am trying to share with you. That would be my fault as I am not getting it across to you. You also don't seem to understand that advances in our understanding come from concepts. Relativity is full of concepts. The math then follows. You just call all of it BS because the maths haven't been done yet. That tells me you think no one should be trying to find the math that will explain galactic rotation velocities because they shouldn't be trying to conceptualize another solution than DM. DM is it for you, and that is that. We have absolutely no idea what it is, but it is just fine with you becaue "everyone" says it is the answer. It has to be or GR doesn't work. Well, guess what, GR doesn't work for that. I have found a concept, but cannot develop the math.....yet.... You guys need a good strong materialization to open your eyes. To make you say, "Wow!". Anyway, this discussion is pointless unless someone else wants to add something.

I think you just lack imagination.....Actually, the true "reality" is beyond your comprehension because you cut yourself off from a whole realm of possibilities. It is certainly not what you are seeing. It is also not what your science tells you, no matter what that is. All of that is very useful, and shows us the logical nature of the constructs, but they are just constructs. Accepting what GR describes as a reality is illogical. We all experience the same things and yet just can't see it that way. This means GR is not describing the reality, only what we perceive. The actual manifestation process is different. I'd say you are strange, but you are not. There are a lot of people in the scientific community who are the same. There are also a lot who will tell you they are just figuring out how the Creator does it. They live in a more wonderful, magical world where anything is possible. Your world doesn't allow you that. You are confined by the limits of your understanding of the illusion. No miracles there. For that you have to live in the world of light. The quantum world. A world you accept as being illusionary. The world is materializing around you, for you, every instant and you can't see it. You do not see the light. You see stuff. Stuff we know isn't there. There is no real stuff. Just energy. Just evolving light. You lose a great potential in your life because you refuse to believe you can ask for things and expect them to materialize. People who know to ask have a great advantage over those who don't. You will never know the truth of this because you have too much false pride to ever ask. What is really funny is that that is all it takes. Just asking.....and you will never do it. So...you can BS this and BS that, but really, I know as a certainty that it is actually your conceptualizations that are just that. You will never know that. You will never enter the world of light that you can see is being manifested just for you. Sad, really. Oops, late for work!

I agree our "reality" is the one described by GR, but it is also true that we all experience the same rate of time in our inertial frames, though we can't perceive it that way. I see that as the underlying reality we cannot see. GR describes the relative evolution of events in a deepening gradient. The gradients above and below the flat galactic disk are deepening as the disk is approached, and GR describes the motion of a body transiting that gradient, but then the gradients stop deepening. All the masses occupy (approx) the same level in the gradients above and below the disk. The angle of deflection GR determines in a deepening gradient can not be determined once the deepening ends. There is no more angular deflection down gradient because there is no down gradient, except when viewed looking in from the edges of the disk..

I C. and stand corrected. The trouble is that GR describes the spherical system. I am still not sure it can be adapted to the flat dilation gradient as the orthogonal relationship is different and the gradient along the edges of the disk also has to be considered. Spiral galaxies are more complex than a simple sphere. I am still working on it, though..... Thank you all for your time and input. What we "see" is reality for us, but it is not what is actually happening. Time is actually invariant, as is c and space. GR describes what we see, the distorted evolution of the continuum that represents our reality, not the continuum where the rate of time is invariant.

Because all events are actually evolving forward at an invariant rate (thanks, Mordred for "invariant") their apparent velocity in space plus their apparent velocity in time must equal a unity, just as C, as in E = MC^2 , is maintained through a perception of balance between the rate of time and the length of a meter.

I am not trying to disavow GR or SR. I am trying to clarify what GR describes as regards the evolution of the continuum, events in space over time. Apparently it is not so easy to get people to visualize different scenarios. People prefer to think events are evolving through space, even though they know what they are seeing is not what is actually happening. Go figure. The atoms making you up are not evolving through space. They are evolving forward in space; in situ. Change the frame of reference. "Space" is evolving forward in time with you.

Sorry, thought I'd give it a last try. Different thread, anyway. E = MC^2