captcass

Or perhaps just quantum possibilities and probabilities in the spacetime continuum. This is my choice. Sorry, it is a fact. See how many multiple body solutions for GR you can find and correct me if I am wrong. I couldn't find any. Even Einsein's Mercury solution is rare bird and most don't know how he cut the final 12 equations to 10. I admit, I have not yet worked a solution to try to determine that or the significance, if any, of the other two equations. Time, time, time, it is all about time, and I am running out of time, and just don't have enough time to work on all these things regarding time! This is the old fart blues. Do I really have enough time left to spend thinking about this time stuff? Whatever happened to cheerleaders?! Getting stupid. Guess that's it for me tonight. Thank you for your time.

It is the interplay of the dilation gradients that make even 2 body solutions to GR so difficult that everyone uses Newton's formulas instead. Now remove the light. How and why are things evolving? Without light, there are no relativistic effects based on the characteristics of light to observe. What is the relative motion then? Or are we down to true motion?

I dealt with this above. It is about perspective. You just don't understand I am looking t it from a different perspective. Google light anomalies. Remove all considerations of mass since GR does not utilize mass, only time dilation. Visualize the continuum with no mass, just the gravitational time dilation fields. How and why are events then evolving?

I didn't say it is wrong. It is perfectly correct and works perfectly in a spherical dilation pit. I am saying that what it is describing is being misunderstood. It is not the movement "through" a "distorted" spacetime. It is the evolution of events down time dilation gradients in the continuum as the continuum evolves forward. The apparent curvature of motion "through" space is what GR describes and is the reality we are stuck in. But nothing moves "through" anywhere. In stellar systems, I am thinking events in slower time frames appear to have higher velocities because more of those seconds have to pass for those frames to keep up with the evolution of the faster frames, maintaining the integrity of the continuum. Please do not say that this is not GR. GR uses the differences in rates of time to derive velocities... GR is not the phenomenon, it describes the phenomenon, which is the relativistic evolution of events in the time dilated continuum. Not objects in spaces, an energy field with densities. Really, Strange? "What anomalies of light?" AND...I know I could very well be wrong. This is what I am THINKING about these days. AND I know the curvature manifestation is due to the visual effects of SR. This does not exclude the time element from being a significant factor in other ways. What is your problem? You ask me and I tell you what I am thinking. What drives you to make this personal? Again, I don' t know why the moderator tolerates it......

Where there is relative motion there is true motion. We just haven't found a way to map it out so are stuck in the relativistic reality. I think the answer is in the GR field equations somewhere and involves the anomalies of light, but can't get it together yet. That is why I am working on light's anomalies and the relationships of the rate of time to the rate of evolution in a diltion gradient. Yes, but they are just theories and if the wrong conclusions are reached from the evidence, the theory goes astray. I do understand why they are accepted. The evidence certainly seems to point that way. I used to sort of accept them. I thought Guth might have the answer when I read his book. But when they become illogical, they leave the scientific realm for me. Just the gibberish of frustrated minds. The one thing we have learned is that it is a logical universe. Even when the logic is wrong, like Newton's "laws", we find it again in GR. I find GR to be perfectly logical. A lot of people were horrified by the implications when it first took hold, but it is perfectly logical. The other theories being espoused are not. Sorry folks. I am afraid you cannot save me from myself. I am too far gone. The relative aspect is each other's clock is slower and meter shorter. I agree this forms the basis of our reality. The true aspect is the clocks and meter sticks are identical. We know this because we stipulated it.

Sorry, I see it differently. The moderator will probably shut this thread down and give me another point off for this, but this thread is going nowhere anyway. One day a man came into my museum. Yes, I also established a museum I own. I won't say of what as it is unique and that would reveal my identity and location. Very popular, though. I get about 20,000 visitors a year and it is the most popular privately owned attraction in my area. Anyway, a man came in and stood at the counter, never looking at me, with eyes cast down, and didn't say a word. For some reason I was moved to tell him about my idea on the origin of spacetime and our status as observers....it only takes a minute. Well, he looked up, put out his hand to shake mine and looked me n the eye and said, "It is a true pleasure to meet you, sir. You are a very rare man. Among my people (he was a Huron) when we thank someone for something, we look them in the eye and thank them with what we call 'two minds'. We thank them as the individual they are, and we thank the one within them that ties us together and brought that person to us." As uncomfortable as this makes you folks feel. This is also an aspect of the continuum pretty much recognized in one form or another in most cultures. Science ignores this for the most part. Jung tried to make it scientific but that is way outside physics. The closest we are getting to it is in quantum physics, but the Copenhagen Interpretation pretty much took it out of the mainstream conversation. So, expecting a shutdown for being mathless, I say "BiBi", again. (BiBi is the old telegrapher sign off. Yes, I can do that, too, but was not a telegrapher. BiBi I didn't say that. I love the science. I don't like some of the theories being promulgated from it. I have always loved the science, the math, all of it. I love the logic of it all. That is why I cannot accept illogical theories.

When we do a plot on a radar screen (yes, I can do that, too ), we use relative motion to determine true motion. Well, we know the relative motion thanks to GR. am looking for the true motion.....

Thanks, but I'll stick with Einstein, "Realty is merely an illusion, albeit a darned persistent one." Remember, it all begins with two observers with equal properties. Then what was Einstein looking for, and Newton? I agree science works to a certain extent. Indeed, a great extent. But it is still the science of the illusion. I would think real scientists would like to know what is really going on. Not the topic for discussion here, though. I'll end up with a -5. BiBi

One can not find ultimate truths with a science that is describing the relativistic illusion and not the underlying reality.

Thank you. Sorry I rose to the bait.....I thought I started this thread in speculations??? Yup -4 Go figure...... Let me ask this.... Do you know what a synchronicity is and why quantum entanglement is the ultimate example? If not, I can wait while you Google it as it is my day off....... If so, do you see them often in your day to day life? If so, what does that tell you? If not, you have eyes that do not see..... Also If so, what does that say about cosmic expansion? How about this? When we first study QM we are taught about an electron. What is an electron? We are shown how it can behave like a particle, but how it cannot be a particle, and how it can act like a wave, but how it cannot be a wave. (in fact, we are told, the planet Earth is the same kind of non-thing) That doesn't make any sense, but we say, "OK, that makes sense.", accept it and move on. Above I mentioned the anomalies of how light behaves, and we say, "OK, that makes sense.", and move on. We accept GR as reality, and are forced to use it as reality (so far), even though we begin in SR with "2 observers with identical clocks and meter sticks" and then show how THAT reality, becomes distorted into the reality we are stuck with because of light's stupid anomalies! Then folk say the science built upon all this is logical and makes sense! I really think if we are honest about it, none of really "makes sense" even though we can apply so much of it to the reality we are stuck in through our science. Our science you folk, and I, love so much, describes the reality we are stuck in, not the reality that begins with "2 observers with identical clocks and meter sticks". So.....I imagine this will now get shut down as speculization and heresy, and I will now become a "-5", but so be it. You folk aren't interested in all this anyway. Thansk to the folk who tried to save me from myself. BiBi

BiBi, little man..... oh, what the heck, you can use a little name calling... 'Tis you who are ignorant, my friend. As I said above, I know all the mainstream stuff you keep trying to "teach" me. But I also learned to wash my hands in acid without harm over 40 years ago and have only grown since. You cannot even accept such a thing is possible. You have eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. You live in a universe those in the know know shouldn't even exist but you are blinded to the wonder of it by your own sense of self importance....and dumb theories. Singularity, Big Bang, .......totally illogical concepts...preposterous THEORIES you accept as fact that are certainly wrong. You are lost in physicality in a world of light. The saddest thing is that you don't even know who, or what, you are. You totally fail to understand the meaning of quantum physics. You do not understand GR or the continuum. You can't even see the continuum you live in. You do not even know what the life animating you is or realize that reality is based solely on relativisitic illusions that have no meaning without an observer....that it is the observer at the center of the perceived reality.....that it is all manifested FOR the observer. And all you have is the preposterous theories you cling to so the world seems to be logical to you. The theories are your security blanket. They provide logic (not really) for you that makes you feel secure no matter how preposterous they get. Sad, really. And of course we cannot discuss any of that here....... Well. I guess that will make me a "-4". I imagine you will insist on the last word. I will try not to answer. This is a total waste of time. One last time, consider the anomalies of light that GR is built upon. Totally illogical. It is a world of light.......manifested through effects in time. The evolution of time is the primary energy of the universe. Time evolves space and alters its characteristics, etc...... If you have eyes, see... BiBi

Nope, you just don't get it.......Researchers all over the world are looking at alternate theories and concepts to work on. And you have no idea what I know. You assume that because I look at different concepts that I don't know the mainstream. Ass-u-me. I'm surprised the moderator allows you to be so rude all the time. Sad, really.....Anyway, I won't get into your name calling BS here. That is also not the purpose of this forum. It is just trolling and cyber bullying. Face to face you wouldn't have the gumption. I am also not going to get into what is ridiculous and what is not, BeeCee. You folks just can't see it. You also lack a proper foundation for a proper understanding because you do not understand what "life" is. That is, again, a discussion you folks don't want to have. I wouldn't want to get another "-" for "specualtion". So, sorry folks, that is it for me here. If anyone who has followed any of this and would like to continue in a private fornat, please feel free to email me. Don't let me give you and ulcer, Strange, it isn't worth it. Lighten up and learn to play again. BiBi

As per the other thread. Done here. Thanks folks I'm sorry Strange...you just don't get me. I understand everything you are telling me. I know what the mainstream science is. I know the "regular" science. I am just playing around with other concepts because the regular science has, to me, too many unanswered questions and, frankly, idiotic premises. I'm not saying my concepts are correct. I'm just playing with ideas. The Hubble shift derivation I posted is just that, a simple derivation. It is not meant to prove the concept but to say that if the concept is correct, this could be a possible derivation of the acceleration constant. I get it you guys don't like playing with concepts so I won't try that with you folks here again. I understand that. If I get anything I think is in your balliwick, I'll ask.

OK. Thanks for the opinions. Of course you are perfectly correct in the expansion model. The shift would be there in a static universe if there was an acceleration factor to the evolution of time. We see everything being accelerated down time dilation gradients, so I am thinking about the relationship of acceleration to the evolution of time. Thanks for the answers, though.

I agree. This is why Einstein thought you could drive car through a black hole. I disagree. Apparent velocity is relative velocity. If we perceive it as receding at c, for whatever reason, time will appear to stop. The Hubble constant gives us this at 13.9 Gly. We my just have to disagree on that as I am viewing a stationary universe, and you an inflationary one. Anyone else want to state their opinion on this? Is inflationary recessional velocity also relative velocity?

We experience a 1 s/s rate of time in our inertial frame. The rate of time approaches 0 at an event horizon, hence a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time. If we see an apparent recessional velocity of c, should we not also see time appear to stop? We also see this as we go beyond 13.9 Gly. Einstein thought you could probably drive your car through a black hole with no ill effects.

In view of the fact that an apparent relative velocity of c requires time to appear to stop, do the effects we see at ~13.9 Gly simple lookback time, of recessional V → c, and lateral V → 0, just as it does near the event horizon of a black hole, indicate a difference in the rate of time of 1 s/s between the observer and ~13.9 Gly, just as it does at the event horizon of a black hole, where time appears to stop, creating a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time between the observer and the event horizon? -3? C'mon guys, I know something!

Correct. The answer is "no". As I said very early on here, I am not saying this is correct. Call it a hypothesis or theory, or whatever you will. I began this thread about the Hubble shift, I just like talking and debating about the other stuff with those who are willing as it helps clarify my thoughts. No one need take it that I am stating fact. This is a speculation thread, and I am speculating.

I am proposing mutually complimentary alternatives to the Big Bang and cosmic expansion, and am visually picturing the evolving energy field of QM, not objects moving through space. GR works no matter how it is looked at that way. GR just works. Consider the unanswered questions surrounding the Copenhagen Interpretation. The bottom line was they agreed to disagree and to just avoid talking about certain aspects. "Don't ask, just do the math because it works." Those aspects have to be addressed if we are to tie gravity to the quantum field. This is why I say the quantum field is spacetime and it all simply originates with slight variations in the rate of time that create a change in spatial density and an evolution of those densities down the time dilation gradient as per GR. Not only does it evolve densities down gradient, it accelerates them down gradient, increasing their mass. I am thinking the densities once generated do increase the dilation gradient due to their increased resistance to evolve and this could possibly explain the accelerating nature of the gravitational gradients.

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.

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. 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..

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?

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? 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. Gravity. General Relativity.

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.

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.