Dark Energy as a Consequence of Chronometric Scaling.

[AbnormallyHonest]

If we see the Universe’s rate of expansion as accelerating, it’s probably due to relativistic dilation due to apparent velocity.

If we were able to approach lightspeed, time would “slow” down. So for every second that passes from that perspective, more time would pass for everyone else.So say we were moving at ~86% the speed of light, the relativistic dilation of time at that velocity would be ~50% of what others would experience. One second from both perspectives would be one second, but our seconds would be two seconds for everyone else. From our view, things would appear to be in fast forward … like people would move faster, the days would be half as long, as would the year, as would the progressive evolution of the entire Universe, (as well as the apparent age). Lightspeed would also be twice as fast as well, because from our perspective, it would move twice as far in one second than it did before. (This is why it is not achievable.)

The further objects are, the faster their apparent velocity to us, so they would appear to be in slow motion. On a scale of the age of the Universe, those objects, and the space that they exist, would actually be younger than us. This can easily be verified by any observation of distant objects in space. The farther out we look, the younger the Universe appears.

So what of our view of the Earth being in fast forward? Well, from a relativistic perspective, would we be moving at ~86% the speed of light, or would Earth and the entire Solar System be moving at ~86% the speed of light in relation to us? We would then see the Earth progressing slower, there is no fast forward unless we could orbit the Earth at those velocities (so Earth would be relatively static from our perspective).

So what is “Dark Energy”? Well, the farther out we look, the younger things look, but also anything that has a relative rate of displacement that approaches “c”  would appear to have chronometric scaling, causing them to age “slower”.

Relativity dictates that relative motion causes a dilation in the flow of time, but the dilation relationship to velocity is not proportionately linear. Nor is the progressive age of the Universe as we look farther into space, and further in time.

So, from our perception of time as compared to distant objects perception of time progresses at an accelerated rate. So, from their perception of light, how much space would be covered by one of their seconds? How much in one of ours? How would that be translated by the light that we see?*

*(Assuming that the light itself must experience the same relativistic dilation, which is why we only see the moment the light leaves. They are simultaneous, so one second at the origin is the same second here.)

Edited September 14, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[beecee]

I wish I was smart enough to understand what you are asking/claiming/suggesting.

You you like to reword all that again?

Just now, beecee said:

I wish I was smart enough to understand what you are asking/claiming/suggesting.

Would you like to reword all that again?

 

[AbnormallyHonest]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

I wish I was smart enough to understand what you are asking/claiming/suggesting.

You you like to reword all that again?

 

Chronometry is the science of the measurement of time. What is the difference between a second for you and second for me? Nothing, yet that doesn't seem to always be true.

If we're standing next to one another, yes it is true, but the greater our displacement in space, the greater the chronometric displacement. It's a scaling effect, so the measurement only changes if measured from a spatial displacement. This is a direct relationship. The expansion of space is actually just chronometric displacement, because science tells us that space and time are connected, so spatial displacement must be synonymous with a displacement in time.

We experience time the same, because gravity causes us all to experience the same spatial displacement from one another, for the most part. Even in orbit, the range of our displacement is farther, but not that far. I believe relativistic effects are just our experience of displacement, not velocity. If we were very far apart, the only way we would be able to maintain stasis in relation to one another would be to travel in a direction toward one another, and if we were traveling toward one another from very displaced locations, say on scales of the most distant objects we see, we would have to move toward one another at close to the speed of light.

A those velocities, we wouldn't actually remain static, we would absolutely decrease the displacement between us, even if we tried to balance it perfectly because the measurement of your time from me would be scaled, as would your perception of my time from your clock. We would essentially be narrowing the displacement much faster than we thought possible, (but our rate of displacement would decelerate as we approached one another as our clocks began to normalize).

Dark energy is exactly the same thing in reverse. Everything is moving away from us because of its spacial displacement, which is technically increasing all the time while our clocks measure time from within our gravity well.

If I look in one direction and see the farthest objects moving away from us, and simultaneously have a telescope pointed in the opposite direction and see the same thing, then technically aren't those two points moving apart, with respect to one another, in a way that is theoretically impossible? How could that be possible? Because spacetime are one. Spacial displacement is also chronometric displacement.

(Think of Einstein's problem with the clocks. It wasn't resolved until the transfer of information was fast enough to measure time on Earth from one clock.)

Sorry for all the words, but you're one of the smartest members I've seen, so I thought it would be worth the effort.

Edited September 14, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[beecee]

6 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Chronometry is the science of the measurement of time. What is the difference between a second for you and second for me? Nothing, yet that doesn't seem to always be true.

I know what chronometry is. I was referring to your confusing style [at least to me] fabricating of unfamiliar phrases, and unsupported claims. But let me help you out once again as it appears as with your apparent ignorance of "c" being the symbol for light speed, you have confused chronometry with chronology.

 

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChronometryChronometry applies to electronic devices, while Horology refers to mechanical devices.It should not to be confused with chronology, the science of locating events in time, which often relies upon it.

Quote

Sorry for all the words, but you're one of the smartest members I've seen, so I thought it would be worth the effort.

Not really, and as I have indicated many times in stating that like you, I am a lay person and amateur at this game, but unlike you, I'm not attempting to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology, or do I have any delusions with regard to the fact that science will never be rewritten on any science forum.

Quote

If we see the Universe’s rate of expansion as accelerating, it’s probably due to relativistic dilation due to apparent velocity.

The accelerating expansion of the universe is certainly observed although the impetus  behind it, is unknown, hence the term DE. Many physicists though interpret it as the CC of Einstein fame. This accelerating phase appears to have started around 5 billion years ago. From what I understand the explanation of why is that while the DE component apparently acts over all of spacetime at a constant rate, the mass/energy density of the universe is obviously getting less with the expansion...same amount of mass/energy, more spacetime, hence acceleration. 

I hope that helps.

Edited September 14, 2017 by beecee

[Mordred]

If you ever truly studied both GR and the LCDM model under the FLRW metric. One of the first thing one notices is that the FLRW metric employs a fundamental observer. Ie an observer in the same frame of reference as the background metric in the observer frame.

The emitter frame is also a fundamental observer being at the same frame as its moment in time/background metric.

In Cosmology we use these observers as we are comparing the geometry changes (Specifically). We are not concerned with observers on gravitational bodies nor accelerated observers.

We are setting the geometry of each moment as the observer. 

This however does not mean that it does not examine the affects of time dilation, indeed it does but that is a different redshift formula.

Gravitational redshift, this uses the SR metric everyone is familiar 

Cosmological redshift however is a different formula (For good reason, different cause).

While both are involved, cosmology with its fundamental observers are interested in the latter formula, as stated it is the changes in geometry we are specifically modelling. (comparing global change, not local)

We include the former only when required for localized effects.  and only for localized effects.

Now here is an advanced tip:

Anyone reading a dataset, such as from Planck , WMAP etc.

The majority of those papers are calibrations ( removal of unwanted data influence such as those due to localized influences). This includes dipole anistrophy due to the Earths and satellite movement.

It is the comparison of global change we are interested in Cosmology.....

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Mordred