Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic illusion?

[Mordred]

Reading through this post, you have either drank too much vodka lol or gone astray down the wrong garden path.

 

tell me are you applying both length contraction and time dilation?

...primarily distance in time, not space. .

This line tells me the answer may be no.

[captcass]

I have tried it using just length contraction (the original derivation for Gn-z11 in my paper), just time dilation, both combined, and 3 elements, 2 in time and length. The effect is there in all cases. The problem is in dropping the farthest frames. The effect is so slight there from the point of view of the observer that moving in a frame doesn't alter the effect enough between frames at that distance.

 

Reversing the gradient and working it in from the farthest frame gives the most accurate results, but it is then not possible to drop the farthest frame as it is now the source.

 

I have another approach using infinity that I am considering and will probably stat on it tomorrow.

 

Gotta love this stuff.

[Mordred]

well let me know when you discover that the Lorentz formulas your using uses the following Minkowskii line element. (time dilation/length contraction) which I assume your using

[latex]ds^2=c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 [/latex]

as opposed to the FLRW metric.

[latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex]

[latex]S\kappa,r= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex]

I already supplied you with the cosmological redshift corrections past Hubble horizon.

PS geodesics and worldlines do not follow the same path in those two line elements

Of course if your dealing with infinite redshift you may want to look at the differences under the Schwartzchild metric in terms of worldlines. Which is also different.

[latex]ds^2=(1-\frac{2Gm}{c^2r})dr^2+r^2(d\theta^2+sin^2\theta d \phi^2)-c^2(1-\frac{2Gm}{c^2r})dt^2[/latex]

Just a suggestion...

Edited September 6, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

Thank you. I am already familiar with those formulas and what they mean. It was the time factor in Einstein's 4 factor that I was working on and considering when I stumbled across the concept behind the Gravitational Equivalency Constant. I am looking for a different kind of effect.

 

There is also the matter of a Cosmological Constant. I am probably looking at that as a final solution. I see the CMB as most likely being the potential energy of space/time being released, as in my postulates, and as being indicative of the substance of space/time that would account for the constant. Space/time crackles with potential energy created by fluctuations in time and the effects in space. This is why I like some aspects of the VLS theories. They allow for a non-conservation of energy and the release and absorption of energy by space/time itself, which is what I see happening. It also seems to solve the horizon problem, but I don't believe that part is correct.

 

I see a strong possibility that if the universe were a flat sheet, with all objects lying on that sheet, that the most distant galaxies would be interspersed within what we see to be closer galaxies in a fairly isotropic manner. The perception of them being farther away in space being due to them being farther back in time.

 

I believe the universe is most likely eternal and nearly static, though some form of VLS would allow it "pant", and that once we have surveyed it more thoroughly we will find that the energy being absorbed by black holes is being released back into the fabric of space time from their cores, such as Hawking suggests, though I believe it is rather more like the already existent potential energy in the space/time fabric, sub-CMB,

 

At an event horizon, according to what I said above, there is a dRt of 1 s/s. In this I see the closest external frames materializing 1 second before I am. As per my paper, the update in time shifting into the gravity well is updating up gradient frames before it is updating me (my quanta). My frame's update is a superposition of the update and local frame's temporal time. Within our quanta the difference in time, dRt, between the two reduces down to 10^-65 s/s.

 

Thank you again,

I appreciate the response, feedback, and suggestions.

I am still open to a creation event for the mass in the universe, but know Space/time is perceptually eternal and infinite. Mass events occur within that fabric.If there was a creation event that included high density energy throughout the universe, then time would have been slowed by the energy density. This would have lengthened the length of a meter and frequencies within those lengthened meters would be attenuated (stretched out), giving a red shift to that light. If there was a period of higher density, that would partially explain the Hubble shift we see at great look back times.

[Mordred]

I think you may have missed the point of posting those particular line elements.

 

I had already posted you an example of how to derive the spacetime geodesics in one those line elements.

I recommend you look at the geodesics of each line element.

 

If you wish to show expansion as a static universe your paper will require those details. Among others already mentioned.

[captcass]

Infinite z is easy enough. At infinity, the dRt = 1 s/s. Therefore:

New Frequency = (Original Frequency)*(1 - dRt) = 0

[captcass]

I think I have it. Too tired tonight to finish it tonight, but I really think I have it this time. Beautiful.....

[stephaneww]

hello

 

a bit in support of the thesis' captcass, I suggest this first approach:

What do you think about this loupe and mirror image in relation to the increasing distance of the straight line (save and larger image) that resemble a growing distancing of things that might (?) be seen in a telescope like in the Hubble telescope?

 

 

 

 

 

and this second approch :

 

"Linear density of Planck"= Mp/Lp=c²/G =

 

mass (including dark energy) per unit length to the radius of Hubble (at the critical density) * 2 = 2*M_H0/R_H0

same goes for the mass flow rates ...

 

have a good day

Edited September 16, 2016 by stephaneww

[captcass]

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.

[stephaneww]

There is a "mirror" effect, but not as you describe. The effect is due to how time changes.

 

for the time t_h0 have a look on the mass flow rates. (it's the same relation than linear density but * c)

 

it's also perharps can be due in reason a problem of projection 2D/3D or 3D/4Dimension.

 

 

In addition it is also possible that the factor 2 is related to antimatter (hidden or missing)

 

the problem for me is that we have only one possibility to observe the distant universe : it's the light and its speed. we can't confirm with another mesure.

to illustrate my problem 2D projection / 3D or 3D / 4D, I was inspired by the image of the earth in this post #7:

 

imagine you want to measure a distance on the surface of the earth with a laser beam (either the light at c for unique instrument of measure).

 

If you have a theory that the earth is flat ie that you are in a 2D/3D space, your measurement in 3D real space will you need to find theoretical artifices to keep your 2D theory valid.

 

It could be the same for the measurement of 3D in dimension 4 of relativity theory.

Edited September 16, 2016 by stephaneww

[captcass]

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.

[captcass]

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

[captcass]

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

[Mordred]

I wouldn't know,its too tricky to try and read your last post. You don't need every decimal place. That why we invented scientific notation.

 

Secondly the above is pointless, it doesn't tell us the formula you used. Coincidence on a few numbers isn't substantial proof your formulas is correct.

 

Particularly since you still ignore the thermodynamics in the FLRW. (you completely missed the details of what changes and why.. in the different line elements I posted earlier. (the volume changes, not the time aspects, in terms of dilation. In the FLRW metric)

 

 

You claim to understand these line elements but keep chasing a garden path...

 

Rather amusing actually, considering I showed the departures of redshift formulas beyond the Hubble limit...

 

The other aspect you ignored is in those three line elements. Geodesic light paths follow completely different relations.

 

These deviations alone should tell you the difference between gravitational redshift and cosmological redshift. The two formulas are not direct matches as they are derived from two seperate line elements. The first is time dilation relations. The second volume change.

 

Again you chose to ignore this to chase your garden path...

 

most importantly the standard time dilation formula does not work, beyond Hubble limit due to apparent velocity greater than c. I gave you those corrections. You assume the numbers above are correct as you do not accept current distance values. However you can't simply compare numbers. We must compare the formulas and see if those formulas match known physics. Derivable with known physics.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

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

[Mordred]

Ok look forward to seeing to it. At least you understand the importance of the math apects in your modelling.

 

Even wrong directions teach (generality, not aimed at you).

 

You may have manipulated the variant quantities. (observer aspects) but will also need to include your invariant quantites. Ideally by using a ds^2 line element, to show the departures.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

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.

[captcass]

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

[Mordred]

oh my... This paper is so full of errors I don't even know where to begin....

 

Why would you publish something before having it looked over first?

Anyways still going through it, but its clearly not a paper anyone would take seriously as written.( not trying to be offending, but you are making grandiose claims with simplistic formulas)

 

(guess I placed my expectations too high, considering the discussions we had on this thread.)

Edited September 20, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

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.

[Mordred]

Seriously 4 extremely basic formulas support this claim...

 

"This is a grand unification theory"

 

or the claim that mass emerges from time.

 

"We see time dilation as a result of mass, but when we look at the processes in time, we see that mass is the result of time dilation"

 

How about this claim?

 

"where time dilation fields are irregular in shape and where Relativity fails to accurately describe gravity,"

 

Thats only the first page....

 

Do you honestly believe your 4 extremely simplistic formulas define the above????

[captcass]

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......

[Mordred]

"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......"

 

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

 

Nor do I understand why you ignored the length contraction that goes hand in hand with gamma.

 

You seem to have missed the difference between the spatial seperation components and the time component.

 

Precisely why I asked you to work with the ds^2 line elements.

 

Here is the problem with the above quoted line.

 

Which observer? If I'm an observer time is not dilated in my own reference frame. T_0=T_1.

 

I will always see my own time as the fastest. I will also see my own length as the longest. As gamma approaches infinity you get infinite redshift. This is true but infinite gamma isn't a valid reference frame.

 

All of our math regarding motion in space uses units of time, m/s, for instance, to describe the forward evolution in space over so many seconds.

 

m/s is a unit of velocity. Not a unit of time. Unit for time is seconds. Page 2...

 

the opposite, s/m: so many seconds evolution in time for each meter of evolution of space into the future.

 

this statement makes absolutely no sense...4d coordinates is (t,x,y,z) assign each event (observer/emitter) to those coordinates. The difference between the two events transforms as

 

[latex]t=\acute{t}\gamma,x=\acute{x}/\gamma,y=\acute{y},z=\acute{z}[/latex]

Edited September 21, 2016 by Mordred

[captcass]

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.................

[Mordred]

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.

 

 

That is 100% incorrect....

 

a massless particle essentially doesn't experience time nor have a length. This tells us this isn't a valid reference frame. Using the time dilation formulas...

 

That formula certainly doesn't give the same reference frame as your (at rest observer)...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Time_dilation.svg

 

from wiki. Try and draw your graph in the same axis assignment. You will end up with a completely different curve in your graph with [latex]\gamma=\infty=1 second [/latex]

Edited September 21, 2016 by Mordred