Mordred

Great we can all run around in circles yelling " My Frame,My Frame.."

You use latex commands. Google latex symbols for a decent list. Then type [l@tex]\frac{1}{2}[/latex] I intentionally replaced a with @ in the first command so you can see the structure Another hint hit quote on posts that have latex done. You can see the command structure that way. [latex]\frac{1}{2}[/latex]

While your at it. Think on this problem. You wish to model a stable universe that is eternal neither contracting nor expanding. Very well lets do just that... Line element of a static homogeneous and isotropic Uniform universe. [latex]ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dl^2[/latex] uh oh we have a problem Houston.... How can you have gravitational redshift or cosmological redshift in a static and uniform universe. That line element only uses proper time. There is no coordinate time needed as the average density of the universe WOULD NOT EVOLVE>>>> So how can you possibly get time dilation if the observer is in the same frame as the global metric (fundamental observer) Quite simply you can't. This is the impossibility aspect of your proposed model. Time dilation requires mass density change, or velocity difference. If you have neither then you have no time dilation. Not to repeat that the FLRW metric is time independent where the Schwartzchild solution is time dependant. So answer this question. In your model you have a static universe....no density change How can you possibly have time dilation to an observer sitting in free space away from any localized anistropy? (fundamental observer). The very minute you tried to model the cosmological redshift as gravitational redshift. You induce an evolving background metric. As the metric we require is a fundamental observer, the only valid solution is an expanding volume. The spatial components evolve over proper time. (time independent)

Don't confuse recessive velocity as a real velocity. Its a consequence of the formula used. The rate of expansion is roughly 70 km/s/Mpc. So depending on how many times you multiply 70 km by Mpc will be exponential. Try this. Take a ruler each unit 1 for one. draw 1 unit line. Now next second double the ratio so one unit is 2 of the previous. Then for the third second you will have 4 to 1 previous. You now have accelerating seperation distance. However the rate of expansion was constant per Mpc. This is funny because the "Rate of Expansion is currently getting lower per Mpc." however the seperation distance is accelerating... POP media articles never truly detail that. This is probably one of the better papers, the Author is a Ph.d philosophies of Cosmology. He specializes in inflation studies. Numerous arxiv articles. http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell He wrote this targetting forums and typical forum questions. think of it this way. 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.... 👹

Your confusing conditions then as opposed to conditions now. Expansion is time independent. Meaning it doesn't involve time dilation. Your trying to apply a time dependancy into it. This becomes apparent when you compare the changes to the ds^2 line elements. The FLRW metric is a history of change over a period of proper times. The Scwartzchild child metric compares proper time vs coordinate time at a particular moment in proper time. Not a history of proper times. Anyways expansion follows ideal gas laws. We don't need relativity to describe how a gas can expand or contract over time by density changes. I already provided the related formulas and resources to learn cosmology thermodynamics. However those same ideal gas laws also dictate how time dilation works via the stress tensor. The problem is the Schwartzchild metric assumes the background density is zero... Its not precisely zero just close to it... more importantly though it only models Localized anistropy, its not designed for a homogeneous and isotropic background. It specifically models a preferred direction and location. The Centre of the BH... one with an extreme curvature locally... The Newton approximation is closer to a homogeneous and isotropic background. but the time dilation is still gravitational potential vs background metric mass density. Essentially one observers frame of reference is the global background at a moment in time, while the other is time deviation from the previous frame of reference due to localized density change. NOT GLOBAL the FLRW metric is density change over proper time. (at rest observer...called a fundamental observer. A fundamental observer is essentailly at rest to the global density)

what in the world is a mirror gradient ? Were dealing with the basic math issues here...atm let alone the rest of your paper

Hopefully you will catch what we are really stating when you read it again... You seem to have a major problem understanding one major concept... If you want to make datasets that use an expanding volume and model such with a non expanding volume. You simply cannot arbitrarily choose to ignore those datasets. You must be able to precisely reproduce those datasets. now you don't need actual datasets. You can generate them via the formulas. If you cannot replicate the same graph results that current well tested formulas have shown. Tested in many ways other than redshift. Then your formulas DO NOT WORK So far you have used formulas that lead to an inverted bell curve. To try and replace a linear relation. and then claim falsely that your formulas work. Impossible wrong ratios of change. ( man I wish our schooling spent more time teaching Laplace transforms grrr....) It would be so much easier to teach physics if a student can look at a formula and without a single calculation. Know what type of graph it will lead to...

side note on Hubbles law. The formula v=Hd is a linear formula. It can only be used below Hubble horizon. Once you get beyond Hubble horizon the redshift scale is no longer linear with distance. It now follows an inverted curve. same problem with the cosmological redshift. Gravitational redshift formula is also limited in allowable range determined by the corresponding recessive velocity values. To put it into perspective. This is the equation he needs to compare against beyond Hubble horizon. [latex]z=\frac {H_0l^2}{c+\frac {1}{2}(1+q_0)H^2_0l^2/c^2+O (H^3_0l^3)}[/latex] but he needs to match this below Hubble horizon. [latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}[/latex] Not easy when equation 1 uses an expanding volume and you have a limit of v less than c for the gravitational redshift formula. Quite frankly without an increasing volume its most likely impossible... How can you get a signal beyond Hubble limit without a volume change? Using the basic formulas in Either the Schwartzchild metric or Newton approximation won't cut it. This formula for example won't cut it. It has an inherent limit. v less than c for accuracy. [latex]\acute{t}=\frac {t}{\sqrt {1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] This includes the ones captcass is using. They can at best have a limit to range. v less than c... The curve ratio is completely different from the first equation to the last equation. The last equation doesn't even match the ratio of change for recessive velocity. Curved vs linear...

No he should be using the Newton approximation for observers on Earth. Though that won't help him solve beyond Hubble limit without including an expanding volume. The Newton solution and cosmological redshift corrections are previously shown on this thread. Lol very few people are aware the cosmological redshift formula isn't accurate beyond Hubble horizon. Here is the workup starting with the FLRW ds^2 line element. The last equation is the corrected redshift formula when recessive velocity exceeds c The FLRW metric derives from the Newton approximation then adds volume change.

Neither do I lol br doesn't work lol

The other problem is neither the OPs equation. Nor the Schwartzchild equation can be used when the recessive velocities are greater than c. One should be able to calculate velocity of said object with the time dilation formulas. the limit is the Hubble horizon for those formulas. Yet we measure recessive velocity up to 3.2 c at redshift 1100. You can't derive that redshift via the Schwartzchild metric. Even the cosmological redshift formula which includes an expanding volume requires corrections above Hubble horizon.

Don't feel bad Robin. Lots of people have difficulty with what is termed Spacetime curvature. In GR space is your x,z,z coordinates. Nothing more... time is just an added coordinate. It is simply geometric relations between events that is curved. Though if you add a multiparticle distribution the density distribution will also be curved in density values. At no point does GR require some spacetime "fabric" to curve. The curvature is geometric relations. The stress tensor in GR tells space how to curve. That stress tensor includes changes in density/pressure,temperature etc.

if there is no time. The BB couldn't happen in the first place. You need time to have a change... The singularity problem of the BB can be solved by avoiding the infinite values with a Planck length cutoff point. Or on temperature the Planck temperature ( which is often suggested as the maximum temperature.) Numerous BB models in particular LQC use this cutoff to deal with the singularity problem.

No I'm discussing basic math. Which you evidentally got wrong on the time dilation formula. Unfortunately you wrote the entire 88 page article based on this math error....

Your obviously using the time dilation formula incorrect if you have this conclusion... "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." The formula does not give 1 second/second compared by the at rest clock at infinity. This is where you are wrong. See the graph I posted. When v equals c time essentailly stops. This is what the formula shows. [latex]\acute{t}=\frac {t}{\sqrt {1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] set v=c. You will get 1-1 under the denominator. Which is equal to zero. This will give a divide by zero. Time becomes infinitely slowed down. Divide any number by zero. You won't get a value of one. Secondly where do you see distance in that formula???? Distance doesn't affect time. Yes the gravitational potential decreases with distance but you only account for the difference in gravitational potential between observers. If we place two observers onto a uniform homogeneous and isotropic mass distribution. It doesn't matter how close or far those two observers are. There is no time dilation in this case. If one of the observers is in a stronger gravitational potential. While the other is in the GP of the background space. You only calculate the change between the two reference frames. The GP from the mass source will become essentially identical to the background GP at a certain distance. This background gravitational potential will stay constant as distance increases or until it hits another anistropy. I think you better study the basic formulas again. Your making serious math errors.

good point on required precision. A 10 km sample would be extremely difficult to measure the amount of curvature.

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]

"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]

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????

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.)

Some interesting work on examining the data presented. I got curious on your comment "Gaussian beam divergence". Atmospheric optics isn't my strong suit. However I do recall collimation correlations with atmospheric turbulance via Gaussian Schell model beam. Though never really studied it in detail.

Yes I'm familiar with some of Wolframs work. Though certainly not in great detail. Ok so you are simulating Newton gravity along x axis distance. Judging from above. This shows x axis, but what about the y and z axis? I look through your links I'm unclear which is your work or others. you may find these articles helpful. Cell Automata and Physics. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi0js7IrpzPAhUGy2MKHefsA-8QFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F9907013&usg=AFQjCNHja_3J6NFDSGI3PzKbHvDALS-3mQ&sig2=ymSvYw3QO-umfbRFt5yLKA And "What are the hidden Quantum laws behind Newtons laws" http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi0js7IrpzPAhUGy2MKHefsA-8QFgggMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F9904036&usg=AFQjCNGiDpIcBEmWePTYr-qmDmD_O8qx-g&sig2=n2oIRg0Qj90JeDaINLgbKw both articles gives some excellent examples in Newton gravity. particularly in the 3d regime with CA having 26 neighbors. 2D only 8 ( see second article)

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.

Probably because as posted its too difficult to follow accurately. You need to find a more detailed way to explain the above. That is easily readable. People lose patience with difficult to read posts. "this post takes too much effort to translate. Let someone else worry about it" The quoted section is probably the typical response...

Understood GR is tricky to learn. I caught the cross post aspect. However just learning the tensor usages without knowing how to use tensors can give clues. ie anytime you see [latex]\eta [/latex] just remember Minkowskii geometry.