Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic illusion?

[Mordred]

Its not about knowing what time is.

Its about how we use time as defined by rate of change of events that is important. How measurements are influenced by other factors that affect measurements involving change of rate.

It isn't about identifying time, that is simply a property of rate of change or duration.

The correct definitions matter in my previous post, because one must understand how time is being described under relativity to understand the mathematics of SR and GR (as well as the FRW).

Not to understand what time is but to understand how measurement data etc is affected by time as per changes in rate measurements.

The easiest way to understand time dilation is literally no different than understanding propogation delays in electromagnetic field interactions in everyday circuits.

 It involves different fields but other than that essentially identical process 

 

Just as the FRW metric does not describe how the universe began, prior to 10^-43 seconds its equations are no longer applicable. It describes how the universe evolves since then. Not how the universe is created...

GR is all about how different field interactions affect all information exchange rates in any signals we receive and rates of exchange between interactions and how multi particle systems self interfere with those exchange rates.

It is not about identification. Nor stating time is some fundamental entity. 

It is a property 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Mordred

[captcass]

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

 

[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.

 

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, captcass said:

. 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.

I don't believe I'm being pedantic, but it is "c" in actual fact. On the rest I really have no idea now of what you are trying to claim. [actually I do  ]

[Strange]

40 minutes ago, captcass said:

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.

There is no point repeating this claim as  it is only supported by vague and incoherent hand waving. Until you can produce a model that matches observation, you are just wasting everyone's time. Including your own. 

And, yes, it is c not C.

And "the rate of time, space, and C" is meaningless. 

 

[captcass]

Sorry, thought I'd give it a last try. Different thread, anyway.

E = MC^2

 

[captcass]

5 hours ago, beecee said:

I don't believe I'm being pedantic, but it is "c" in actual fact. On the rest I really have no idea now of what you are trying to claim. [actually I do  ]

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.

[captcass]

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.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, captcass said:

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.  

That's nice. 

Quote

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.

Whatever you see in another frame is real though...all frames of references are valid. Time and space are both flexible..there is no universal now.

Quote

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.

E=Mc2 ... Energy equals mass times the speed of light. C is the symbol for Carbon. 

c for celeritas latin for speed and symbol for light..

Edited September 26, 2017 by beecee

[Strange]

4 hours ago, captcass said:

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.

Then you should be able to use GR to confirm your claims about the orbital velocities in galaxies.

But you keep saying "the math hasn't been invented yet" which implies GR cannot explain it. Although you seem to base your handwaving on GR.

[captcass]

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.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, captcass said:

I C. and stand corrected. 

 It may seem a pedantic pickup or correction, but I did make the same mistake myself many years ago and was "reprimanded"by a professional astronomer.

Quote

 

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.

That's not correct...space and time are actually non absolute or variant and there is absolutely no universal "NOW" GR describes the geometry of spacetime and the effect that mass has on that geometry.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, captcass said:

The trouble is that GR describes the spherical system.

Really? While there are some solutions for a spherical body (e.g. the Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions) there is nothing special about spherical systems. There are planar solutions as well.

[captcass]

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..

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, captcass said:

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..

As you can't do the maths, this is just bullshit.

14 minutes ago, captcass said:

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.

And this is just BS, period.

[captcass]

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!

 

[Strange]

I thought you wanted to stick to physics instead of introducing more of your woo.

[beecee]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

I thought you wanted to stick to physics instead of introducing more of your woo.

Funny, I was about to say the same thing.   

[captcass]

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.

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

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

Wrong: GR has limitations, and that is why scientists are trying to formulate a validated QGT.  But it does most certainly work a treat within its zones of applicability. And of course as usual you seem to have ignored the evidence for DM...Here is one aspect of that.....http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html

Quote

 

I have found a concept, but cannot develop the math.....yet.... 

 

And until you do, you have only a concept just as valid as any other concept including a magical spaghetti monster.

Quote

You guys need a good strong materialization to open your eyes. To make you say, "Wow!".

Speaking personally, all I need is an empirically based model that matches my observations and makes validated predictions. eg: GR and spacetime curvature in the presence of mass.

As you have openly admitted, you do have a mythical agenda that appears to be blinkering you from this reality you pretend to seek.

[captcass]

yawn...

[beecee]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

yawn...

I would really be more concerned in obtaining any empirical evidence, and/or mathematical support for any of your mythical ideas/explanations to satisfy this mission/lust you seem to have and have admitted to.

[captcass]

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......

[Mordred]

That requires the math, not random statements valid or invalid. All statements in physics correspond to a mathematical definition within its range of applicability.

 That math requires following precision in adherence to the axioms set for any value or methodology. Including precision in terminology 

[captcass]

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?