Is the Hubble Shift due to time dilation?

[captcass]

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.

 

 

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, captcass said:

Slower time results in lower frequency and the Hubble shift.

Both the time dilation and the red-shift are caused by the changing scale factor.

[captcass]

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.

[Strange]

35 minutes ago, captcass said:

We also say mass creates time dilation, but we cannot say why.

Yes we can. 

36 minutes ago, captcass said:

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.

That's not a bad description of how gravity works.

However, it isn't relevant to the expansion of the universe.

[captcass]

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?

Edited February 14, 2018 by captcass
Add information

[captcass]

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

[Strange]

9 hours ago, captcass said:

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". 

Well, it certainly isn't acceleration because acceleration doesn't cause time dilation!

But I am surprised you ask because you have explained it yourself. Gravity is caused by the curvature of space time and, more specifically, by the curvature in the time dimension. Therefore the time dimension is a different "size" for people at different gravitational potential and so their measures of the passage of time will be different.

If the question is "why does mass curve space-time" then that is not really something that can be answered. That is what mass is: "the thing that curves space time." That is just he way the world is, is the best we can say. I'm not even sure that a "deeper" theory of gravity (e.g. quantum gravity) will explain why, it can just provide a better explanation of the how.

In this context, "why" is not really a scientific question.

10 hours ago, captcass said:

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.

There is no invariant rate if time experienced by all. And GR is not just about our perception.

[captcass]

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.

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, captcass said:

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.

Which is odd, because that isn't really what I said. But if you mean, more generally, that we don't know why space-time exists, why mass and energy affect it then that is true.

However, if that is what you think then we don't know why electrons and atoms exist, why like charges attract, why heat moves from hotter things to cooler, why prime numbers exist, why the sky is blue, or why anything at all.

"Why" is not a question that science answers. Try philosophy or religion.

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, captcass said:

I am hearing you say you don't know why mass dilates time

Physics doesn't know what a lot of things happen, just that they do, and in a predictable way. So this should not be surprising (to the extent that the statement "mass dilates time" is accurate)

Quote

and that we do not experience the same rate of time in each inertial frame as per SR.

We don't? 

 

18 hours ago, captcass said:

There is an invariant rate of time experienced by all observers,

Um, what? Whose theory is this, and what evidence is there to support it?

Quote

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.

No, it's not perception. Moving clocks actually do run slow, and clocks deeper in potential wells run slow. It's not an illusion.

20 hours ago, captcass said:

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.

I'd say this is backwards. Time dilation is an effect, not an interaction. Time dilation is a result of GR, rather than being its cause. I can have time dilation without causing any gravity to exist.

[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.

[Endy0816]

By dimension, science means a measurable span. You can measure a span of time, therefore, it is a dimension.

The equations/results are also hyperbolic. You can't claim to agree with GR and disagree with that.

Theory also has different definition in Science, meaning something backed by loads of evidence, rigorous testing and a model. You have a hypothesis.

 

Acceleration is like an angle. I can give you all three angles of a triangle, but you will not be able to tell me how long a side(span of time/distance) is based on that alone.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, captcass said:

Although acceleration mimics gravity, it is not the same thing, by this theory.

In that case you should be able to propose an experiment that shows they are different.

[captcass]

The trouble with the term dimension is it makes it seem as though we can't see it. We can see it. Look up. I agree the equations are hyperbolic. I have no quarrel with GR. I am taliking about what GR actually describes considering the quantum continuum, not from the point of view of objects moving through spaces.

Consider the planets. Mercury has an apparent velocity of ~48 km/s if viewed as an orbit around the Sun. But if we consider the Sun's forward evolution (relative to the CMB) of 368 km/s, we have an spiral and a velocity of 368.08 km/s. Venus has velocities of ~35 km/s and 368.04 km/s, almost identical to Mercury. When viewed from that perspective, events appear to be evolving forward at nearly the same rate. The planetary velocites continue to decrease the farther out they go, approaching the original velocity of the Sun of 368 km/s.

If we look at the local cluster, it is evolving towards a point of reference relative to the CMB at ~680 km/s and the differences between the Sun and planets becomes nearly indiscernible. The point her being that the universe when viewed as a whole approaches a uniform rate of evolution.

I really don't need an experiment to show they are different. We treat them as different mathematically and add and subtract them. One is just a part of the evolution of the continuum and the other is achieved through the external application of force to achieve accelerated movement through the continuum. When we fire off a rocket, we are forcing it against the direction of evolution. That creates additional drag beyond what the evolution down gradient (gravity) is creating within us. Forced evolution. 

[Strange]

56 minutes ago, captcass said:

The trouble with the term dimension is it makes it seem as though we can't see it.

Does it? Can you see length?

57 minutes ago, captcass said:

I really don't need an experiment to show they are different.

You do if you are claiming they are different. So far, there is no way of telling them apart. So, either existing experiments prove your idea wrong, or you need to come up with an alternative experiment that shows you are right.

[captcass]

The way you tell them apart is through their origin. All I am is saying  is that things make much more sense from the time is causative point of view. It is a different way of viewing the data. Chicken or egg - dilation or mass? What I clearly see is dilation accreting mass. You cannot have mass creating dilation that accretes mass. That is circular reasoning. As we can clearly see that dilation accretes mass, dilation is laying the egg.

As for theory vs hypothesis, the evidence is there. I am just interpreting it differently, from a different perspective based upon how I see events evolving forward.

Without dilation, there is a placid spacetime...Einstein's Fundamental Metric.

 

With dilation, there is discernible evolutionary direction and acceleration.

[Strange]

6 hours ago, captcass said:

The way you tell them apart is through their origin.

That isn’t telling them apart. Imagine you are in a room with no windows or access to the outside. How do you tell if you are on the surface of the Earth or accelerating through space at 1g?

6 hours ago, captcass said:

All I am is saying  is that things make much more sense from the time is causative point of view.

This is a subjective opinion. Unless you can show that mathematically it gives better results, your opinion is worthless. 

[swansont]

15 hours ago, captcass said:

 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.

What is the evidence for this being true? At what rate does time dilation accrete mass?

 

[captcass]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

How do you tell if you are on the surface of the Earth or accelerating through space at 1g?

You can't because one mimics the other. The effect is the same, the cause is different. I am trying to think of a natural process (other than gravitational dilation) where there is a constant acceleration of an event through the external application of force and can't come up with one. Can anyone think of one?

7 hours ago, Strange said:

This is a subjective opinion. Unless you can show that mathematically it gives better results, your opinion is worthless. 

It is a different point of view, but the results are far more convincing. Does mass create dilation that accretes mass or is that circular reasoning? On the other hand time dilation can be considered causative without any circular reasoning. I am not talking about "opinion", I am simply talking about different perspectives and conclusions drawn from the same data.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

What is the evidence for this being true? At what rate does time dilation accrete mass?

Gravity. General Relativity.

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, captcass said:

You can't because one mimics the other. The effect is the same, the cause is different.

That is not exactly an insight. We know the cause is different. The point is that the effects are indistinguishable.

42 minutes ago, captcass said:

It is a different point of view, but the results are far more convincing.

Is it? Please produce some data to support this. (Opinions are not science.)

42 minutes ago, captcass said:

Does mass create dilation that accretes mass or is that circular reasoning?

It is usually expressed as "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve" (John Archibald Wheeler). So, no it is not circular.

Quote

I am not talking about "opinion", I am simply talking about different perspectives and conclusions drawn from the same data.

Your opinion is that this confused and not very useful interpretation is better. As it is a matter of opinion, it can be refuted thus: no it isn't.

[captcass]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is usually expressed as "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve" (John Archibald Wheeler). So, no it is not circular.

As you can tell, I am not interested in "usually". He is separating matter (mass) from spacetime, I am not, and the reasoning is still circular.

Consider this, you can alter the length of a meter through manipulating the rate of time, but you cannot change the rate of time by altering the length of a meter, which can only be accomplished by altering the rate of time.

Is dilation accreting mass or not?

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, captcass said:

Consider this, you can alter the length of a meter through manipulating the rate of time,

Can you? How?

6 minutes ago, captcass said:

the reasoning is still circular

The fact you don’t think understand why it isn’t is part of the problem 

7 minutes ago, captcass said:

Is dilation accreting mass or not?

Not. 

Moving relative to something else does not cause mass to accrete around you. 

[captcass]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

The fact you don’t think understand why it isn’t is part of the problem

lol. Exactly! I think the same about you. Spacetime has 2 aspects. I am looking at it catawonkers from the time side, since GR is based on time.

When time slows, a meter lengthens to maintain c. Changing velocity alters the rate of time.

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Moving relative to something else does not cause mass to accrete around you. 

Gravitational dilation accretes mass. Motion also accretes mass, but in a different way in that mass increases with velocity. E =Mc^2. Note that velocity is always relative.

I am doing a lot of thinking about c these days. I am working on the relationships between velocity and the rate of evolution within the continuum. The fact that c is constant for all observers regardless of the velocity of the source or observer is an affirmation of the invariant universal "base" rate of time.

But each observer sees something different dependent on relative velocity because the frequency of the light changes with velocity and relative motion. In other words, where an item thrown ahead of a moving car has an additive velocity, light has an additive frequency......I think there is something there that we are missing.......

Off to work

 

I believe I mis-spoke. Acceleration accretes mass, not simple velocity. With simple velocity the evolution isn't forced and there is no drag, just a normalized rate of time and evolution..

[swansont]

2 hours ago, captcass said:

 Gravity. General Relativity.

You are proposing an alternative to GR, so this can't be the answer, even if it actually addressed the question.

[captcass]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

You are proposing an alternative to GR, so this can't be the answer, even if it actually addressed the question.

I am not proposing an alternative to GR. I am trying to provide a different perspective on what GR is actually describing as regards the evolution of events. It is being misapplied to spiral galaxies wheich is why they don't understand the rotation velocities and are looking for dark matter.

GR is all about rates (and direction) of evolution based upon relative rates of time. It therefore makes sense to look at it from the point of view of the spacetime continuum and the effects of changing rates of time instead of objects moving through a pre-exisitng space. Nothing precedes the evolution of the continuum. The continuum has no empty spaces. What we perceive to be empty space is part of the spacetime continuum.

To be more specific in answering your question, time dilation determines the forward evolution of events, which is down gradient in a gravitational dilation field, and this accretes mass at the center of the dilation pit. The rate of accretion is determined by the depth of the pit, as per GR.