captcass

Space is the other primary property. Spacetime. So…re the continuum and how we perceive events….. Assume an empty void. Dimensions, and therefore volume, are meaningless, and it evolves forward at an invariant rate of time. Because it has an invariant rate of time, light has a constant velocity. Now add 2 events. From each observer’s point of view they see the Lorentz contractions, but we know events are evolving forward at the same invariant rate in both frames and that a meter is truly a meter in both frames. However, for each observer, the other’s contractions are reality. They cannot see it any other way. We cannot imagine a universe, a reality, where everyone is evolving forward at the same rate of time with equal meters. It doesn’t exist and the math we use in SR and GR describe the evolution of events in the distorted continuum. They do not describe the evolution of events through a Cartesian, Euclidean, space. They describe the forward evolution of the distorted continuum, the space itself and the events occurring within it, which maintain a rational relativistic relationship to each other because of the constancy of C. So, the rate of time, space, and C are all remaining constant throughout the continuum, but for us the reality is that they aren’t, except C, and our maths have to reflect that. We are not describing the underlying reality. We are describing the illusion. So, when we say an event has such and such a relative velocity through space, we are also saying it has such and such a relative velocity in time. The velocity reflects the relative rate of forward evolution in time as manifested in apparent movement through Euclidean space. We keep seeing Mercury because even though it exists in an apparently slower plane in the rate of time, it is evolving forward at a faster relative rate, which is why we see it having a higher velocity that maintains its relative relationship to us within the continuum. Due to the continuum's constants, events in apparently slower time frames have to appear to have faster rates of evolution, velocities, within those frames to maintain their relative relationship with events in apparently faster time frames. Thus, the velocity is a direct indication of the relative rate of evolution of an event within the continuum. In stable systems, where multiple events are maintaining their relative relationships within the continuum, it is also a direct indication of the relative position of an event within the dilation gradients making up the system. Thus, in stellar systems, planets have higher velocities the slower their relative rate of time level is. In spiral galaxies, stellar systems occupying the same relative rate of time level will have the same velocities, varying only slightly due to the contribution of their own dilation fields and the other dynamics within the system.

I agree completely. And I think it is about time.

But does anyone really know what time it is? What other evidence are you thinking of?

Sorry, been through my history for 3 months on 2 computers and cannot find a link to the GPS time thing. It was in a magazine and some scientist said he was working on a new theory. I guess I didn't book mark it as it seemed untenable to me. I am not getting into using times that are part of the expanding model. The worldline time is the proper time for any observer: a 1 second rate of evolution every second, which I am taking as your invariant time. This would make external frames coordinate times. Even though we see Mercury as experiencing a different rate of time at its orbital level, on Mercury time is apparently passing at the normal rate and a meter equals a meter in that worldline. We see the rate of time approaching zero near the event horizon of a black hole, but an observer at the event horizon would see time passing normally. I think this puts us on the same page

Sorry for the confusion. Thanks, I understand tunneling. I don't want to get us off track again by debating inflation..... When I speak of a rate of 1 s/s, I am referring to the proper time rate we all experience as we evolve in our inertial frame: the proper time of SR, where my clock ticks at 1 s/s and my meter is a meter so C is maintained. All slower times are coordinate times and a percentage of the proper time. I am assuming time is completely relative. It is possible to accelerate or decelerate time relative to other coordinates without actually increasing rapidity. This I am associating with the constant acceleration of orbiting bodies that does not increase velocity. I find SR to be instructional but GR to be the "full" story. Einstein uses a special case of SR to develop GR. As an aside, I would like to ask you a question. I ran across an article that said SR was being called into question because although we see a GPS satellite as being slower in time, the reverse is not true. They have to adjust the satellite's clock for our perception of its rate of time, but not for what should be its "perception" of the surface rate of time. Have you seen this? If so, do you have an opinion on it?

Leaving the DM issue for later...... As Guth's inflationary model involves such extremely small increments of time, consider this: Assuming a creation event 13.8 Gyr ago, which I have no problem with, the singularity could not be sized. It only represents the perceived volume of the universe to an external observer. From within the singularity it would still be perceived as all that exists. So instead of inflation, since Guth's increments are so small to begin with, why not just say the energy field just appeared everywhere at once? It certainly would have appeared that way. Maintaining the homogeneous, isotropic nature of spacetime, all events would then proceed to evolve forward at 1 s/s, the rate of time in all inertial frames, throughout the universe. However, as all events are accelerated in space and time, and as it takes light time to travel to us, more distant objects would still appear to have been manifested in a slower rate of time. This would replace the cosmological constant contribution to Z.

So, do you think, regardless of whether there was a creation event or not, that, if all events are constantly accelerated in spacetime, that older frames could appear to have slower rates of time, creating a time dilation gradient? If not, why?

Thank you....

I don't think I changed my argument.....??? I don't see how reality proves me wrong just because we don't see the effects. They are still there. The Hubble dhift is self evident. It is there. How that is explained is the subject of debate and it has nothing to do with spirituality. Let's please get that clear. I am talking about concepts that I think you should be able to relate to relativity. It has nothing to do with spirituality. I can just relate to it that way. You can't. So that is that. Let's just drop the spiritual aspect and focus on the time dilation aspect. Deepak isn't quite there yet.....

I thought we stopped talking about this. It so happens that what I see spiritually concurs with quantum phenomena. I apply that point of view to everything and I could not propose a theory without it. I understand how you feel. I was that way from age 17-24. None of that crap makes sense. You are totally correct in that. I was extremely surprised when I did find it, because there is no way I could have predicted what I found. It is not an external "super power". It is not "some place else". Einstein was an agnostic, but tended to pantheism. He thought the universe could just be alive in some way we can never understand. Like most scientists, the fact that he was a part of the universe figuring out how the universe works did not let him see that it was working for him.The fact that everything is evolving forward in a sensible fashion for everyone, even though we can move around within the continuum is taken for granted. When I move my arm, my hand ends up where i want it to because the continuum evolves forward for me. The place where my hand used to be is no longer there. If it was, my arm would be there. The continuum evolved forward to a state where my arm is not there. None of you are looking at a quantum field. You are looking at a solid reality with actual depth. The evolving quantum field has no depth. It is only an evolving field. This requires a shift of perspective outside your normal parameters. gotta go back to work....

It is not intellectually dishonest, it is a true statement. The effect is there, even if it is so small we can ignore it under certain circumstances. The Hubble shift is self evident. Whether you can accept that or not is another matter.

How does reality disagree? Although we use Kepler for orbital velocities in the stellar systems, it is only because the masses of the planets are so small when compared to the stars, or the ISS to the Earth.. When we consider both masses, when they are both large enough to matter, the story is different. Kepler doesn't work anymore. What I have is a model based on logic. Proving it is, I agree, another matter, as far as DM is concerned. I consider the Hubble shift aspect to be self-evident with no new math required.

This is because no one has developed the math for it. I am thinking GR can be used, but can't see it clearly yet. The systems aren't the same. A particle moving across a flattened disk is still evolved downward, as in GR, and is still accelerated, as in GR, but is evolved forward at the same rate throughout the disk. I can almost see how to get it into terms of GR, but just can't see it......yet.. And, yes, different masses in the same orbit would have different velocities.

The "Kepler decline" is just how we describe what we see. It is not "why" we see what we see. Newton and GR are supposed to be the why. Now not Newton, really, but GR. Well, not GR exactly....... In terms of time, the stellar systems all evolve forward at the same rate of time, so they have the same apparent velocity. Two bodies of the same mass in the same orbit in a stellar system occupy the same rate of time level (plane, if you like), so evolve forward at the same rate. It is the shortest path in time. It's geodesic. This is why they have the same velocity. In the flattened disk of the galaxy, the objects also share the same rate of time, the same plane in time, and so have the same forward velocity. Velocity equates to relative speed of evolution in time. As all particles exist in gravitational fields (dilation gradients) they are undergoing constant relative acceleration in spacetiime, i.e., apparent acceleration through space and acceleration in the rate of time. Thus older frames have slower time and the Hubble shift, as stated elsewhere. It is the particle's position in the time dilation gradient, the gravity field, that determines its relative velocity. I can see this is going to be a cross post. Sorry 'bout that.

Sorry, I guess I am not getting the concept across. I am saying the rotational velocities in galaxies are generally the same, and do not increase with proximity to the center as in a stellar system, because they are being evolved forward at the same rate of time, unlike planets in a stellar system, which all exist within their own relative rate of time. Each mass has it's own gravity well, dilation gradient, so 2 bodies in the same orbit that have slightly different masses will have slightly different velocities, the more massive body having a higher velocity. I don't think we have galactic data that precise yet that can even determine that. Viewing angle, luminosity, dust content, galactic trajectory, etc., all contribute too many uncertainties. You would admit, though, that 2 Earths of different mass would have to have 2 different velocities? Off to work.....

Sorry, it is not too small to measure. The difference would be too small to measure considering the other current uncertainties noted. We couldn't be sure of what we were seeing, so the results would be meaningless. We would need to isolate 2 stellar systems and have certainty re the angle of perception and the other factors creating possible errors. The effect we would be looking for is the difference in velocity between the Earth as it is and an Earth with a slightly larger mass in the same orbit. The larger mass Earth would have to have a higher velocity to avoid falling in towards the Sun. I am saying the higher velocity would be due to a slightly deeper gradient in the more massive Earth.

Putting sensitivities aside, the spiritual aspect is not necessary to understand the other concepts and can be ignored, (though you guys are really missing out on the true beauty of the creation). I am only speaking about how we perceive the evolution of events re DM and how time dilation gives us the Hubble shift perception. The isothermal sphere is another adaptation device attempting to incorporate DM. The galactic dilation gradients are not spherical, though they try to make it so with the isothermal sphere. Dilation gradients are spherical in stellar systems, flattened in spiral galaxies. It is unreasonable to expect GR to return similar results for two different shapes of gradients. In a deepening gradient, objects have higher velocities the deeper they are in the gradient (the slower their relative rate of time). If there were two Earths in our orbit, or two Mercury's in its orbit, they would have the same velocities. Likewise, in a galaxy, stellar systems occupying the same relative position in the gradient (having the same relative rate of time) will have the same velocity.

I find it sad that a forum such as this has so many mean spirited commenters. If I looked at a thread and it seemed nonsense to me, I would just ignore it. I would see no merit in meanness. If I saw a thread I thought had merit, I would try to contribute to it. This is why I like Mordred. When I put up my other paper, he stuck with me, seeing me through my own blindness until I could see what he and, sorry, I would have to look to get his moniker and anyone can do that, were showing me. This time he started off curt, but he thought I was back with the same stupid paper. When he realized I wasn't, he tried to help and will stick to it until I can see the error of my ways. He likes to help. If he can't find the error, better for me. So..........

Let's just agree to disagree.

No. The difference between 2 stellar masses would be too small. We are talking about an evolution of the continuum, not particles moving through space. All particles, including gas particles. sharing a rate of time are evolved forward at the same rate and so have the same velocity. If you would know the Creator, know yourself.

It is being used to explain the rotational velocities as a gravitational effect, and this ties it to GR. Without DM, gravity as we now accept it does not explain the rotational velocities. This is the issue I am addressing. It just takes a slightly different view of what GR is describing.

Sorry, the entire creation is an illusion. I think you have it backward, DM accommodates GR. Without DM, GR does not work. I do not think my approach is inconsistent with any of GR's proofs. If you know of any, please let me know.

Vixra is just a repository, not a "publisher". All kinds of junk is deposited there as well as reputable papers. I am not claiming to be "published". I would remind you that the science is part of the illusion. GR does not work on the galactic scale. Everyone knows that. Hence DM.

Yes, but, it isn't, is it? Easily explained? We only have greatly flawed theories and are stuck going nowhere. Everyone is trying to find gap fillers on a dead end path. Anyway, I don't debate the spiritual things, I teach them if someone wants to know. They are not required to discuss the effects in time and I have already explained where I am founded. This is not the right place to continue that discussion anyway.

PS: I postulate on the CMBR in my paper....