captcass

OK, I'm tryijng to follow and will work out the GPS bit sometime today. But I need some clarification here. In the above equation, what are the variables? I see this equation as the same as To/Tf = √((1-(Rs/Rs)) and To/Tf = 0 Would you say that Is correct?

Trying to sort out the confusion over the formula. This is the formula from Wikipedia. To = Tf * √((1 – (Rs/r)) To = the proper time between events A and B for a slow-ticking observer within the gravitational field, I am placing the slow ticker observer at Frame 1, which is 1 Rs from the center of the mass (energy density). Tf = the coordinate time between events A and B for a fast-ticking observer at an arbitrarily large distance from the massive object. r = the radial coordinate of the observer. I think this is where the confusion comes in. The observer here is the observer at the fast ticking coordinates, not the observer at 1 Rs. Thus r = the distance from the observer at Frame 1 to the coordinates of the fast ticker. Therefore: If r = 1 Rs, then To = 0 and the formula implies that time stops at the Rs, which is the event horizon of a black hole. This is in accordance with current assumptions. But Tf does not equal 0. Tf still depends on distance. At infinity the rate of time is 1 s/s. Thus the dRt relative to infinity is 1 s/s, as follows. If we solve for To/Tf between any two frames, we get the ratio of the difference in rates, At 1 Rs this also equates to 0. There is 0 difference in the rates. This is also in accordance with current assumptions. 1 s/s = 1 s/s. If we move the fast ticker farther away, we get a ratio, To/Tf = 0.999999whatever. 1 - that ratio equals the difference in rates of time per s/s between observers, the dRt. Using this at 1 Rs, we get 1 - 0 = 1, a 1 s/s difference in the rates of time at the Rs. This is also in accordance with current assumptions that have time stopping, so the difference between 0 at the Rs and 1 at infinity is 1 s/s. As r approaches infinity Rs/r approaches 0 (we can never get to infinity) and To/Tf approaches 1. The dRt therefore equals 1 - 1 = 0, again in accordance with current assumptions that 1 s/s = 1 s/s at both ends of the gradient. The thing is, we are using Frame 1, which would be the event horizon of a black hole if the energy density was one, and not the center of the energy density, Frame 0. The rate of time has to continue to slow beyond Frame 1 and so the dRt to infinity must increase. Frame 1 is our personal frame of perception, our inertial frame. We are an energy density with an Ro. This means the dRt has to continue to increase within our energy density as time continues to slow. I am saying in my theory that time does not stop at the Rs, even at a black hole event horizon. As per my main theory, when the update impinges on itself as it approaches the bottom of a gravity well, it goes into a spin, a time vortex that is a quantum. In the Fundamental Particles section I quantize the quanta in terms of space. The smallest radius that gives us whole number multiples of 2 constants (pi and Planck length) for the dimensions is 1 Planck length. As the quanta are time vortices, like black holes, this is the radius to the event horizon of the quanta, their Rs. First: We can never get to infinity. So from our perspective, the difference in the rates of time, dRt, continues to decrease towards 0, but never reaches 0 as we approach infinity. Within us this dRt continues to grow as the distance to the Rs' of our quantum diminishes. until the difference between infinity and our "insides" nearly reaches 2 s/s, but it can never get to that, just as we can't get to infinity at the other end of the gradient. As the update is shifting into us, it is ultimately shifting into the quanta that make us up, which are the update impinging on itself from all directions, creating time vortices, which are the quanta. In the vortex, the update is nearly instantaneously re-updating the same frame over and over again. As per my theory, time evolves forward at C in any inertial frame and the update shifts down the gradient at C. The dRt to infinity within us continues to grow until the update is forced into the spin when the update impinges on itself, where the nearly instantaneous repetition of the update creates a nearly 2 s/s rate of time at the event horizon of the quantum: at our energy density's end of the gradient relative to infinity. I also note that the dRt drops off dramatically in a spin. The dRt in the inertial frame of the quantum itself is 4-16*10^-65 s/s, as per my main theory. Meanwhile at the other end, approaching infinity, the dRt also continues to decrease. When it gets to 4-16*10^-65 s/s, it equals the dRt in the inertial frames of our quanta. I haven't worked out the distance required for that dRt, yet, my bad, but it is extremely large: most likely infinitely....... If we have a nearly 2 s/s rate of time difference just outside the quantum time vortices at our end, we also have that at infinity relative to us. Thus I attribute a 2 s/s difference between the two. Time vortices attract each other and combine to form larger and larger complex vortices until a critical mass is achieved and the individual vortices of the composite particles collapse into one giant time vortex, a black hole. I'm still working on the graph thing.

Thanks folks. Also, how do you folks do those pretty formulas here? How do I do math symbols? Are copying and pasting?

I want to post a graphic here. Does anyone know how to do that? Perhaps a file type? It won't let me use the image extension.

I have been through this before but am mis-remembering about what I thought at the time. Sorry, senior moment. You are correct, it appears the same to any observer. At the time I thought it was faulty because it put us each at the center of the universe and didn't allow for the singularity, which I do understand is a highly compressed energy density, etc. My thinking was that If it did originate in a singularity, then there has to be an origin point, and edges, Edges on the infinite really bother me. Also, for us to be experiencing inflation that always appears to put us at the center, without being able to discern any difference at all in the direction of the singularity, then we are much too far from the origin point for the proposed age and size of the universe. The origin point is much too distant, it seems to me. I have no problem with us seeming to be at the center of the universe, because that is what I see. We are each at the center of our own universe. Our individual universes are harmonized so they make mutual sense to us. The universe is evolving around each of us for us, otherwise my hand wouldn't end up where i want to move it. In an eternal universe, I see black holes re-emitting the energy they absorb. The same is true of quanta. Time vortices generate viable energy. Two ends of a cycle. Time vortices form quanta that form particles of increasing size until we get a massive time vortice in the black hole which changes the form of the energy. Possibly just as potential energy in the fabric of space/time, or the unknown Hawking radiation...... As per my theory, I also have no problem with the universe appearing to expand at an accelerating rate. I'm simply trying to express why it appears that way in terms of time and the way time is perceived to change over distance so we don't end up with a cold void. "thermodynamics determine the rate of expansion, not the seperation distance/recessive velocity. That changes per observer. rate of expansion doesn't food for thought. Matter collecting into Blackholes, galaxies, stars etc. Actually causes a universe to expand...all by its little ole lonesome... The reason being is the global density distribution of matter gets lower as matter falls into localized distribution...The very moment two particles collect or pool together. Expansion occurs...." Could you say then that energy contraction, or concentration, creates the impression of expansion by lowering overall energy density distribution in the vacuum? Could such a contraction cause the reverse perception of expansion? I was just thinking and, really, I also have no problem with the thermodynamics, only some of the parts that are theoretical and devised to fit the overall theory, like Guth's inflation. From my primary point of view, the spiritual reinforced by the quantum point of view, the science itself is part of the illusion. Spiritually speaking, the universe appears to be logical so we have the faith to try to manipulate it, and that faith allows us to direct the direction of evolution of the continuum to suit our needs. It passes eternal time in a constructive way that pleases itself through us. There is divine power in faith. This I know to be a fact from lifelong personal experience. I learned to wash my hands in acid without harm when I was 22 and a pretty angry atheist. The circumstances gave me the faith. I also did it with doubt the next day under different circumstances and it was like liquid fire that took off about four layers of skin. And so on throughout my life. So I m firmly based in that perspective. What are the odds that a universe that is so unlikely to even exist, would produce intelligent parts that could manipulate events within it to serve the needs of those intelligent parts of itself? How could such a thing expire in a cold dark void? The fact is we will never know what lies beyond the wall. Perhaps what we can see is the limit of what is. Beyond that the only thing that exists are quantum possibilities and probabilities. This is in accord with quantum theory. I'm thinking a lot about the section of yours I put in parenthesis. It really is elegant.

I understand that. The sharp curve is very evident in the dRt's as one nears the energy density. I see this as a lensing effect and tried to use that in my original derivations but failed because I was using a compound effect, when it is a point of origin effect, as per my revision. But this doesn't really answer my question. We are seeing more distant bodies moving away from each other and us at higher and higher speeds with distance based upon the red shift. The farther away they are, the more distant back in time the shift occurred. Whether due to to pressure expansion of just velocity through space, higher velocity = greater distance. It really doesn't matter "when" we are looking at. Higher velocity = greater distance. Thus it seems we should see a sparser density with distance. We do not. We see a uniform galactic density, regardless of distance and relative apparent velocity. How does the BB and pressure expansion explain that difference.

I explain the mirror gradients in the revised paper I just put up on Vixra. It is too long to go into here. Let me ask this.....If galaxies farther away from us appear to be moving apart from each other, and us, at greater speeds, then shouldn't galactic densities seem sparser at distance? Yet they do not. Galactic distribution seems to be uniform at all distances. This is a serious question. In the BB view, how is this resolved? The "raisins in a rising loaf" analogy does not work to explain this. Even in a rising loaf, the more distant the raisins, the greater the separation and sparser the raisins near the edge of the loaf.

I am not changing my tune. This is what I have been saying all along, though not clearly enough here obviously. My only objective is to show the red shift can be explained in terms of a non-expanding universe. The mirror gradients accomplish this. This is the most basic of derivations that doesn't include rotation or motion or the presence of other bodies. It is meant merely to show how the effect can be generated. Don't know what else to say........If you want to understand it, you have to put the BB and the accelerating universe aside and just consider the basics of a non-expanding, most likely eternal, universe. I know this is difficult as everything has been developed over the last hundred years assuming the shift is due to the Hubble effect. I fully agree all of that seems to make nearly perfect sense.......except for the conclusions of a singularity, BB and accelerating expanding universe that eventually goes cold. By-the-by, I am certainly not the only one who does not agree with the BB, et al. Lots of folks are looking for other answers to the effects we see.

WOW, you guys are quick! You've added so much I don't have time to read it all right now, but will as time allows. However, with just a quick glance, I would note the following: You are just misinterpreting my terms. Ro = Schwarzschild radius. r = distance from observer. To/Tr = difference in rates ratio between observer and distant point. I am using the formula beyond its normally accepted limits because I see a nearly static, non-expanding universe. You folks are looking at it like the universe is expanding and the velocities away from us apply. I am saying they do not and the formula therefore works to infinity. Likewise, in a non-=expanding universe, OmegaM and OmegaVac do not apply. As long as you keep trying to compare this to an expanding universe model you will find fault because the two don't mix or apply to each other. I'll follow up if necessary when I have time to review all this you put up Thanks for the feedback.

Sorry, didn't mean to appear terse. I was at work and didn't have time for a longer post and see no reason to go through derivations of formulas that are readily available online. The formulas used by others here are correct for time dilation effects due to motion, but not gravitational dilation. The formulas for gravitational time dilation and their derivations can be found at the Wikipedia site I provided a link to above. I'm confused as to why you think they are not there. Mordred has the formula in his last post. I am simply using Ro for Rs (Schwarzschild radius). Is that the point of confusion? Ro is often used to denote the Schwarzchild radius. This is not a formula used just for infinity, the "r" in the denominator is a variable used to determine the time difference at different distances. If the formula was just for infinity, "r" would always be infinity. Does this help? I'm confused as to why you folk don't understand this.

In my last post I have it as to = Tr*sq. rt ((1-(Ro/r). Same difference. Tr is the time at radius r, not infinity unless r is infinity. As in all equations things can be moved from one side to the other. No wonder you think I'm talking gibberish, wrong formula. Since we are talking gravitational dilation, I assumed you knew the formula, which I use in my paper. This is why I have urged people to read it from the beginning so they understand the basic precepts and postulates I am using..

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, look under "Outside a non-rotating sphere"

I am using the formula for a stationary, non-rotating body, where To = Tr*sq.rt.(1 - (Ro/r)), which is the distance aspect.This allows us to determine time vs distance. These derivations have nothing to do with velocity. Ro is where v has to = c in order to escape the gravity well. It is the event horizon of a black hole or a quanta. Both black holes and quanta are time vortices. Just on a different scale. Approaching a quanta is the same as nearing a velocity of c or the event horizon of a black hole. In a quanta, the update is nearly instantaneously, every 4 - 16*10^-65 s, repeating updating temporal time in the local frame. It is moving the local frame forward in time at nearly c^2, thus creating an apparent rate of 2 s/s and an apparent dRt relative to infinity of 1 s/s. If there were no difference in the rates of time, there would just be the eternal moment and time would appear to stop. There would be no update. The screen would go dark. Eternity in an absolute void. Meet the Creator. Traveling at c has the same effect, you get to the eternal moment in totally dimensionless ("flat") space. Getting back to the graph: 2 s/s 2 s/s l l l l l .5 s/s l l l l_1 s/s__________________________1 s/s l Frame 0 (Frame 1) (near) oo I mislabeled the Frames. Frame 0 is actually Frame 1, which is our inertial frame, and the other end is not infinity, but near infinity. Frame 0 is the center of the energy density, which is in each of the the quanta that make us up, where the difference in rates is 4-16*10^-65 s/s. Thus, even though time appears to be slowing towards the bottom of the gravity well, the rate of update increases as the dRt between the update and temporal evolution decreases, and that creates an impression of quickening time as regards the forward evolution of the continuum. These are the mirroring effects. This is why I really appreciate your feedback, it makes me find better ways to express what I am seeing.. Anyway, it is not possible for time to stop. It is time's nature to move forward. Even in the eternal moment, the observer's rate of time would apparently be 1 s/s. This is why we cannot travel at C, nor reduce space to 0. Back to the graph: As distance always stretches out to infinity from us in all directions, we can be visualized as being at the midpoint where the dRt = .5. This equates to Frame 1, our perceptual frame, where 1 s/s = 1 s/s, not Frame 0 in our quanta. If we are at a .5 dRt and we experience a 1 s/s rate, which we do, then at the extreme ends of the gradient, time must nearly be at a 2 s/s rate. The extreme ends are infinity and within the quanta within us. Even though we can visualize this scenario, we are still at a 1 s/s rate and therefore experience the external universe as is portrayed by Frame 1 in the graph.

Thanks, I'll think about this at work and get back later. Off the top of my head, though, I would again say that you are referring to motion induced effects, not static effects.

Sorry, the graph was not a response to your post above it, I put it up before I saw your post. Then a tree hit a pole and I lost power last night. So.... "Really not sure how you drew this conclusion from the time dilation formula. Yes time runs slower in a stronger gravitational potential. However time dilation has nothing to do with seperation distance, except length of time for a signal between events to reach each other" Using the time dilation formula, the difference in rates decreases with distance. This means time is slowing over distance. until it again = 1 s/s of our inertial frame at infinity. Going slower than what? From where? The top of our heads? It can't slow from 1 s/s to become 1 s/s. "I will always see my own time as the fastest. I will also see my own length as the longest." This is for motion. At the center of a gravity well we see our own time as slowest. If you are at the bottom of Mt. Everest and a buddy is at the top, both will agree his clock is going faster. If you double the height, time will still appear to be going faster, but the difference in the rates halves, so time is going slower. This is the conundrum. How can time go faster slower with altitude? Time does not go faster and faster with altitude (distance), it goes slower and slower until 1 s/s = 1 s/s. If time is slower, equaling 1 s/s at infinity, then time is going faster as the distance to us shortens. How can this be in a gravity well, where time is slowing as the well deepens? Likewise, from infinity time slows until 1 s/s = 1 s/s in our inertial frame. Slows from what? This is the head twister. The answer is that there are 2 mirror gradients that equalize the rate of time to 1 s/s in any inertial frame, so we are always experiencing 1 s/s. I fully realize how difficult this is to visualize. That is because we are always limited to our 1 s/s perception and our position at the bottom of the gravity well that always makes time to appear to be going faster with altitude. But if we stand outside the gradients, an observer placed equilaterally at infinity, we would see the interplay of both gradients. This is what the graph shows. The 2 s/s apparent rate within the time vortices of our quanta decreases to 1 s/s at infinity as the rate of time from infinity decreases in the gravity well until our 1 s/s perceived rate in our inertial frame. This has to be a reciprocal relationship, so if the perceived rate within our quanta is 2 s/s, then it also has to be 2 s/s at infinity. The proof is in the derivations of the dRt's to and from the midpoint (dRt = .5), which mirror themselves. We do not get .5 s/s at that point using the time dilation formula from us, we get a much smaller dRt. But we get that same dRt halving .5 from the midpoint to our inertial frame. "m/s is a unit of velocity. Not a unit of time. Unit for time is seconds." If a body has a velocity of so many m/s, are not so many seconds passing per meter of motion? s/m? But I am not talking about the evolution of a body moving through preexisting space. I am talking about space itself, and the apparent events within that space, evolving forward over time. How the spatial aspect evolves forward over time. "That graph is meaningless. Go ahead devide by infinity. Why do you think infinity has 1 s/s in that graph? as you approach infinite redshift time gets slower and slower. It doesn't jump back to being in the same frame as frame zero" Again, there are two mirror gradients. If time is slowing in a gravity well to 1 s/s, what rate is it slowing from? Wine, anyone? Sorry, got to go to work now....

2 s/s 2 s/s l l l l l .5 s/s l l l l_1 s/s__________________________1 s/s l Frame 0 oo How can you insert a graphic here? Anyway, draw the lines from 2 - 1, Crisscross.................

Yes. Things are much more complex in the substantial aspects of mass and energy. They are fairly simple in time. What was the added factor in Einstein's 4 factor? Time; specifically differences (distortions, if you'd like) in time. In the 4 factor, time is the determinant. The spacial aspects are merely descriptive. Different rates of time determine motion through the other 3 factors. Mind you, this is a theory. But the way I see it, it works for all aspects I derive. Gravity can be visualized as a force in time that is responsible for the dark matter effect. Difference rates in time in different frames alter perceived frequencies. The Fundamental Particles section is primarily derivative, but is the logical extension of the shift in time. Where is mass located? In time vortices. I was pleased to see that the 2 s/s rate of time showed up in the red shift derivation as it is a primary aspect of the Fundamental Particles section. Can you explain how time can go faster with altitude, but do so at a slower rate until 1 s/s at infinity equals 1 s/s in our inertial frame? Where is it then fastest? At the top of your head, or within you? It must be within you, in your quanta, as per my theory. If the rate of time is decreasing from infinity until it is 1 s/s in our inertial frame, what is it decreasing from? It has to be the mirror image of 2 s/s. It definitely is if you put a mass at infinity because the mass is made of quanta. Most importantly, can you disprove any of its aspects? I don't mean, "Does it agree with current theory", but does it violate any current facts. I don't think it does. I just see it as a different aspect of how things work.: time instead of space. Old things simply fade from view. That is our real "wall" at the "edge". 'Tis all an illusion, you know. I know this is very difficult for a normal physicist to see. Physicists love substantiality and everyone is caught up in the BB and the idea that the universe began some time ago due to the Hubble shift interpretations. I started out with a simple notion, inspired by Einsteins 4 factor. Believe me, I had no idea I would be getting into the red shift, dark matter and particles when I began. It al just evolved that way. I had no idea the math would work when I started out and was, frankly, surprised when it did. Of course I was wrong in the first red shift derivations, but the concept was correct. The length of a meter does get longer in slower time, but it is not a cumulative effect, as I first used, It is a matter of the frame of propagation. At frame 36, the dRt is .5. This means a meter = 2 meter and that means Z = 1. Since the mirror gradients needed explaining, I worked the derivations in time instead of in respect to a length of a meter in those frames. Whatever can be described in terms of space can also be explained in terms of time, an I have been havin gthe time of my life with all of this. Isn't it about time? I encourage you to just accept my premises for the sake of argument and then see if it makes sense based upon those premises. I'm more than happy to provide clarification on the concepts if they seem confusing. Again, thanks for the feedback and your time. I am only talking about causation. What happens after that, what we see in space, distortions in space and their behavior that we quantify, are the result of distortions in time we have yet to quantify A GUT will be simple and elegant. That's what will make it a GUT. Let me ask this another way...... How can time be going faster with altitude but slower with distance so it equals 1 s/s at infinity? I think I explain that......

Sorry you feel that way. I can clearly see it and the math works. It has noting to do with substaniality. It is all just relativistic perceptions.

OK, the revised paper is up at http://vixra.org/abs/1606.0038?ref=9028962.

I canceled the revision as I realized I could reduce the deviations in distance to 11%. I will be re-substituting the paper in the morning.

Thanks for the feedback. I just wanted to show the results here until I revised my paper and replaced the old version on Vixra, which has now been done. It should be available shortly as I just finished replacing it two minute ago. I know I have a weakness for decimal places. I reduced most to scientific notation in the official version (though I confess I left Z at the full number of places.) There is another time dilation effect, a mirroring effect between infinity and and the center of an energy concentration (mass). This effect does not require any of what you mentioned above, as the results show. I am not using the time dilation formulas for gravity or motion. This is another, new, effect. As the concept developed I was pleasantly surprised to see that it fit in with other basic concepts in my primary theory of gravity. Very elegant, really. As soon as the revised version appears on Vixra, I will let you know and you can then see the full reasoning. Might want to have a glass of wine first..... Thanks again

These are my results. Mind you, the distances are based on a nearly static, eternal universe. At infinity Z is infinite. The following distances have the following Z's. Distances are in Gly and for the most part vary about 15 - 17.9 percent beyond light travel times obtained using an online cosmological calculator that only refines the travel time to 3 places and uses Ho, Omega m and Omegas v as variables. These factors do not apply in these derivations. Sorry about the large font size below, apparently there is a glitch when I copy and past from Word. I don't mean to shout. Distance Z 15.835 11.088 - Gn-z11 8.582 1 4.291 0.3333333334485241342 2.145 0.1428571429558778293 1.0728 0.0666666666205903463 .5364 0.0322580644771127933 .2682 0.0158730159607802927 .110 0.0078740157902076554 .067 0.0039215685840850318 .0335 0.00195694714247674 .01676 0.0009775171996140732 .00838 0.0004885198092768147 .00419 0.0002442002933989526 The Earth lies halfway between this frame and the next as the dilation gradient of the Milky Way is used and this is our distance from the center. From here the dRt keeps reducing and z = 0 at the center of the Milky Way and in our own inertial frame in the solar, Earth and personal dilation fields. .0021 0.0001220852006930622 I'd say this works

I definitely have it. Friggin' beautiful! What a beautiful, elegant, universe! I'm amending my paper and should update it shortly.

Thanks again, but I've got it. Been working on it tonight and it is so beautiful and elegant...... It is all about perspectives in time.... I'll begin working complete derivations for the other relevant frames tomorrow, but I already checked a few at a range of distances and it works.

Thank you, Stephane. I think I actually have it now, but have been too busy to do the math. My other projects are now done, so I will be back on this tomorrow. There is a "mirror" effect, but not as you describe. The effect is due to how time changes.