Gravitational Time Dilation

So what, if there was no reason to mention it? What I mention in the discussion I can support, if necessary, with additional arguments.

Sorry, but from our "frame of reference" the CMB radiation does not look homogeneous at all. It becomes homogeneous only if we look at it from the CMBR frame. This is how it is defined, essentially.

Of course, it can be tested - and could easily seen to be false. There is an interesting difference to Newtonian theory that there is no Galilean symmetry.

As usual in a discussion, I inform about what is fact in the particular situation, and, if there appears doubt, I provide more.

Once there is no absolute center, a simple translation in space and time gives, of course, another set of preferred coordinates, or another absolute frame. And it is completely meaningful to recognize that an absolute frame will be also a relative frame relative to everything what is at absolute rest.

This is how theories with absolute space are defined. Take Newtonian theory as an example.

Who has the burden of proof depends always on the particular situation. If somebody makes a claim "it is not!", he creates such a burden for himself by this claim.

The axioms of my ether theory are in no way hidden, but written down and published, in a peer-reviewed journal BTW.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I should let OnlyMe answer you, but just two points......

The Burden of Proof:
The reversed responsibility response – switching the burden of proof:
This tactic is usually used by someone who’s made a claim and then been asked for evidence to support it. Their response is to demand that you show that the claim is wrong and if you can’t, to insist that this means their claim is true.
http://scienceornot.net/2012/12/04/...ility-response-switching-the-burden-of-proof/

So, the burden of proof is on you.

You have written highly theoretical speculative papers, that can not be validated one way or the other.
On the other hand, SR/GR are both validated many times, and time dilation as normally inferred has been observationally shown to be correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/CosmologyEssays/The_Cosmic_Microwave_Background.html

The Cosmic Microwave Background
The Basic Idea
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is an almost-uniform background of radio waves that fill the universe. The CMB is, in effect, the leftover heat of the Big Bang itself - it was released when the universe became cool enough to become transparent to light and other electromagnetic radiation, 100,000 years after its birth. At this time, the universe was filled with a hot, ionized gas. This gas was almost completely uniform, but did have slight deviations - spots that were slightly (1 part in 100,000) more or less dense. The slight changes in the intensity of the CMB across the sky (deviations of only than 1 part in 100,000) give us a map of the early universe. The picture below such a map, measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), a space-based microwave telescope for studying the CMB. By studying this map, astrophysicists have learned an enormous amount about the evolution and composition of the universe.

A Bit More Detail
The study of the CMB is an extremely rich subject which has revolutionized the study of cosmology. It's impossible to do it justice here - for more detail, see cosmology texts and the web references at the bottom of this page.

Why microwaves?
When the CMB was initially emitted it was not in the form of microwaves at all, but mostly visible and ultraviolet light. Over the past few billion years, the expansion of the universe has redshifted this radiation toward longer and longer wavelengths, until today it appears in the microwave band.

Why is it lumpy?
In its early days, the universe was extremely smooth and homogenous... but not quite perfectly so. At the time the CMB was released, for example, its density was constant to about 1 part in 100,000. It is believed this smoothness comes about because of inflation, a time of extremely rapid expansion in the first 10-34 seconds of so of the universe's existence. This rapid expansion smoothed out any lumpiness the universe may have initially had, but quantum mechanical fluctuations introduced new ones - tiny fluctuations of density at all length scales. These tiny fluctuations have grown with time due to gravity (slightly denser regions attract more stuff to become denser yet), eventually providing the seeds for the galaxies and galaxy clusters we see today.

This lumpiness affects the CMB largely because of gravitational redshifting. Radiation emitted from a dense spot in the sky has to fight against a bit of extra gravity as it heads toward our detectors. When it leaves that gravity well, the radiation will be a little less energetic than radiation emitted from a less-dense region, so that spot of the sky will appear to be a little colder. A map of the apparent temperature of the CMB across the sky thus gives you a map of the density of matter in the early universe.

How do we learn about dark matter from the CMB?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Most of the cosmological information we get from the CMB is found by studying itspower spectrum, a plot of the amount of fluctuation in the CMB temperature spectrum at different angular scales on the sky. The upper plot at right shows measurements of the power spectrum as of 2003 - large angular scales are at the left of the plot, while smaller sky features contribute to the right of the plot.

The shape of this power spectrum is determined by oscillations in the hot gas of the early universe, and the resonant frequencies and amplitudes of these oscillations (which "notes" the universe likes to play!) are determined by its composition. Since we know the physics of hot gases very well, we can compute the properties of the oscillating gas by studying the positions and relative sizes of these peaks. The position of the first peak, for example, tells us about the curvature of the universe (and hence how much total stuff there is in it), while the ratio of heights between the first and second peaks tells us how much of the matter is baryonic (ordinary matter). In practice, there are many variables that affect all parts of the power spectrum, and detailed computer simulations (the red curve in the plot) are used to sort it all out.

Is there more to do with the CMB?
In the next decade or so, many new CMB experiments are planned. The Planck satellite is expected to study the CMB in even greater detail than WMAP was capable of. The main focus will be on measuring the polarization of the CMB, an early measurement of which is described in the lower part of the plot at right. Studying the polarization (particularly the "B-mode" portion) will give us new windows onto the physics of the early universe, perhaps even letting us learn about some of the details of inflation itself.

For more details, see pages by Wayne Hu and Martin White, particularly their recent Scientific American article.

I see that as meaning the CMBR is homogeneous from our frame of reference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The difference is that "time slowing" is acceptable only as sloppy language. Whenever we meet each other, we will meet at the same time. It will be the same time at a first meeting, it will be the same time at a second meeting. And if we have experienced some very different histories of "time dilation" between our meetings will not change these facts.

That all clocks are influenced in the same way is a consequence of universality of gravity. Which in my ether theory is a consequence of the fact that everything, all fields, describe only properties of the same ether.

 

No. In the particular situation somebody else has made the claim "It is not", and I have asked for evidence to support it. And now you demand that I have to show that this claim is wrong.

Given that my theory of gravity gives in almost all situation the same predictions as GR, all the "validations" of GR are also "validations" of my theory. This includes what is confusingly named "time dilation", which would better be named clock time dilation.

 

Because it is quite trivial that one has to correct the data to get rid of the Doppler effect caused by the motion of Earth relative to the CMBR, this may be not mentioned in every presentation.

But even Standard Wikipedia contains this information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Primary_anisotropy

 

Schmelzer,

I saw the link below, without vouching for the work carried out by you (as I have not gone through it fully), the same looks impressive prima facie....

http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au: Schmelzer_I/0/1/0/all/0/1


Now the point is, with whom you are arguing on this forum ??



.................Let’s now define general ether theory. We have a Newtonian framework – absolute Euclidean space with orthonormal coordinates Xi and absolute time T. We have also classical causality – causal influence A → B between events A and B is possible only if T(A) ≤ T(B). The ether is described by steps of freedom which are usual in condensed matter theory:..............

You talk of ether, absolute Euclidean space and absolute time........all three are antithesis to GR. You think there is any one on this forum who not only understands relativity but understands the problems with relativity. In my opinion none...In fact there are only two categories of people here, those who do not understand Relativity at all will oppose whatever you say without attempting to understand either theories, and second category is those who understand the problems associated with the theory of relativity. The second category of people are ultimately completely trolled out of forum in due course......

So cool down in your response, let the people digest your basics....

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0001101.pdf

 

I argue with everybody who wants to participate in such a discussion. I do not care if it is a boy or a professor - I give answers to questions to everybody, and correct errors, if I see them, made by everybody.

I do not have any hope that this will change much, anyway everybody who wants to live doing science has to do fashionable mainstream science, and minority directions are dead simply because they do not have own journals, conferences, and grants. There is nothing I can do to change this, such is life.

But this does not change the fact that my ether theory can do easily what non of the other approaches - GUTs, Supersymmetries, strings and so on, have been able to do, namely to predict the particle content of the SM. This will in the long run become decisive. All I have to do is from time to time distribute information about this, so that those few, who are sufficiently open to alternatives themself and sufficiently independent that they do not depend on grant money, have a chance to find that this alternative exists.

 

Despite the fact that you are on arXiv, still it is unlikely that these papers will be peer reviewed and confirmed. As on date its all the way Dingle way !! Your next paper may not be on arXiv, watch out your endorsement may go away.

........All I have to do is from time to time distribute information about this, so that those few, who are sufficiently open to alternatives themself and sufficiently independent that they do not depend on grant money, have a chance to find that this alternative exists...

Thats great optimism and let me tell you not even a decade, things will be sorted out. I am not against relativity in toto, but as Einstein himself said we should be able to explain a theory to a layman easily...his own theory fails on this criterion.

 

Sorry, but a lot of my papers are peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals. Not all of those which deserve, but the most important ones are.
In particular my ether theory of gravity is published, and, even more important, my ether model for the standard model of particle physics.

He has not failed, but his attempts to explain it to laymen have done more harm than many wrong things told to young people.

 

You have totally missed the point re time dilation.
And of course the ether does not exist.

You mean like yourself? Someone who claims the figures/maths for NS categories as your own, someone who started on this forum under false pretenses asking questions like why does our galaxy not collapse into a BH, someone who has been rebuked and derided by at least 8 expert Professors from tashja and myself, someone who still claims he is right despite contravening known laws and facts.
Keep trying Rajesh, but I don't believe even Schmelzer, as wrong as he is, would want anything to do with joining forces with you, knowing of course your history here.

 

Please don't go down that conspiracy, victim path Schmelzer.
It just doesn't hold water.
I'm 100% certain, that even if a lay person like myself through some great insight, could come up with a theory backed by evidence, then I would in time be accepted and my theory peer reviewed and encompassed by mainstream.

Scientific theories, as you probably would know, are not what the general non scientific populace may entail with the meaning of "theory"
Scientific theories over time and further and clearer observations do though grow in certainty.
Evolution is classed as totally certain by some...Others such as the BB, SR, GR are near certain. Universal abiogenesis is also in that group even though we have no evidence as yet, simply because it is really the only scientific explanation that is available.
It will take far more than any independant researcher with no access to the state of the art equipment and the myriad of space probes like Spitzer, WMAP, COBE, Planck,WISE etc etc etc to do better than the models and theories I have mentioned.
I certainly do though respect you for your papers and the reputable publishers you have used, but as I have said, as far as I know, they all appear totally speculative and theoretical.

 

If you think I have missed some important point re time dilation, explain. I think, all what it named "time" in GR is described by the formula \(\tau=\int_\gamma\sqrt{g_{mn}\frac{dx^m}{dt}\frac{dx^m}{dt}}dt[\tex]. This formula describes "proper time" in GR language, and I prefer to name it clock time, which is unproblematic because there is full agreement that this formula describes the showings of clocks. Then, I hope you know (because it is elementary Popperian methodology) that one cannot prove scientific theories to be true, thus, I also cannot prove that the ether exists. All what I can do is to present ether theories which are compatible with existing observational evidence. Which I have. And which have advantages in comparison with the competitors, which I have too, even if not discussed yet here (the explanation of the particle content of the SM of particle physics is a result no competing theory has reached yet), it is a published result of ether theory, see [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591[/url] or Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009) for the published version. But, even if I have already reached what would be the wet dream of string theory, I would never make claims that I have proved the ether exists. But I have presented some viable ether theories. You, instead, make a radical claim: The ether does not exist. It is quite clear that you have to justify this radical claim. I'm waiting.\)

 

If you think I have missed some important point re time dilation, explain. I think, all what it named "time" in GR is described by the formula \(\tau=\int_\gamma\sqrt{g_{mn}\frac{dx^m}{dt}\frac{dx^m}{dt}}dt\). This formula describes "proper time" in GR language, and I prefer to name it clock time, which is unproblematic because there is full agreement that this formula describes the showings of clocks.

Then, I hope you know (because it is elementary Popperian methodology) that one cannot prove scientific theories to be true, thus, I also cannot prove that the ether exists. All what I can do is to present ether theories which are compatible with existing observational evidence. Which I have. And which have advantages in comparison with the competitors, which I have too, even if not discussed yet here (the explanation of the particle content of the SM of particle physics is a result no competing theory has reached yet), it is a published result of ether theory, see http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591 or Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009) for the published version.

But, even if I have already reached what would be the wet dream of string theory, I would never make claims that I have proved the ether exists. But I have presented some viable ether theories.

You, instead, make a radical claim: The ether does not exist. It is quite clear that you have to justify this radical claim. I'm waiting.[/tex]

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Science has lead us out of the dark ages and into enlightenment through the scientific methodology and peer review...Things which sort the wheat from the chaff, and will certainly continue to do so.
Your thoughts and methods would take us right back there if we did not have it.
We still have heaps to learn as a species and through science, but by the same token, since the beginnings of the 20th century, what we have achieved by those at the coal face [not on science forums] is nothing short of spectacular.

 

Time dilation is proven and validated and I have listed 4 proofs in this or the other thread.

Evolution is fact: The BB, SR, GR and Abiogenisis are near certain.
The Catholic church even recognises the BB and Evolution.
Theories do grow in certainty and stature over time.

Since the ether is superflous and not what is accepted by mainstream incumbent theories, the onus is on you to show it exists.

My claim is not radical...my claim is accepted mainstream cosmology.
You are the one trying to invalidate mainstream accepted cosmology...the onus is on you to supply evidence.

 

You behave like a young, naive person, sorry, but there has been a time when I have thought similarly. I have seen, instead, not only a lot of unfair rejections, but also complete ignorance of the nonetheless published papers. This has certainly decreased my optimism. I'm nonetheless optimistic, but on a time scale more close to 50 years. Comparable to the fate of de Broglie-Bohm theory.

But the point I have made is in no way "victim" (I'm quite comfortable with this situation, even if I do not get Nobel prices, I have reached much more than I have dreamed about when I was young and started to do science). And even less conspiracy. I have given an economic explanation: As long, as young scientists have to care about getting a new grant every two years, they have to care to get fast publications, many citations, many conference talks (with conference proceedings) and all this in short time. This is an objective economic problem of young scientists. And there are, of course, much more conferences, journals to publish articles, readers of these journals, and grants offered in fashionable mainstream directions. This is also a simple fact of life, and is even quite unpreventable. And the combination of these two things - the stupid idea to let scientists look for new positions after two years, together with the natural consequences of fashion - force young scientists to follow fashion. This is something worth to distinguish: An economic explanation requires no bad people conspiring against my theory, it works even with a lot of enthusiastic young people open to every new idea - but they, unfortunately, have to care about their next grant. And the professors also do not have to be bad or hateful of ether theories - they simply continue to do what they have successfully done their whole life, and, of course, they think it would be good that in their direction there would be more research.

It seems that you do not understand that what you defend as "near certain" is not even questioned by my ether theories. What is changed radically is only the interpretation. But interpretations are mainly metaphysical concepts. (This does not make them unimportant or even unscientific, but much less supported by empirical evidence).

This depends on what this independent researcher tries. Of course, I do not build an alternative CERN at home or send an alternative telescope into the orbit. But I can look at the theories, look at what is established by observation and what is not, and try modifications of the existing theories. As long as these modifications remain close enough to the existing established theories, I can simply reuse the existing evidence.

I have never wanted to be an experimentalist. My aim was always to understand how this world works. And it has always been the most fundamental problems which were attractive to me. And in this most fundamental domain I'm on almost equal foot - because there is GR and the standard model of particle physics, above well supported by evidence, and essentially nothing more. All the GUT researchers, LQG people, string theorists have much larger communities behind them, but no experiments, no observational evidence.

 

The experimental facts you have listed are in no way in contradiction with my ether theory - even if this ether theory has an absolute time. Simply because in my ether theory all the usual clocks do not measure time, because their showings are influenced (distorted) by gravity and velocity.

The Catholic Church is no authority for me. Physical theories, which, like GR or Newtonian mechanics, make exact numerical predictions, can never be proven true. Whatever their success, it may appear one day that they are not true, but only approximations. If you are not ready to accept this, you would better leave science and look for a job in the Catholic Church.

No. Science is, fortunately, not democracy, but anarchy. So majority opinion does not count. Your "opinion" is irrelevant.

In scientific discussion you have to follow the rules of a scientific discussion. In particular: Each participant has to defend his own claims himself. A reference to the mainstream opinion is in such discussions a quite weak argument (comparable with "I have not cared, but this is what I have heard"). There is no obligation to prove something one has not claimed. You are, just to clarify this, free to ignore my ether theory, as well as I'm free to ignore string theory. But, similarly, I'm not obliged to prove it, because proving theories is known to be impossible. I'm quite comfortable with a result of type "there are no valid scientific arguments against my ether theory proposed here", which is the result if you do simply choose to ignore.

Again, science is not a democracy. Take a job in some social democratic or green party if the fashions of the mainstream are something you care of. In science this is dangerous. You can easily spend your whole life studying string theory, which, then, at the end of your scientific career, will be finally thrown away. If your claim is accepted mainstream nonsense is nothing participants of a discussion have to bother about - you have made the claim, you have to defend it.

If you tell us "this is what papa and mama told me", this does not count too. The natural answer is "ask mama and papa why they think so and come back". The same answer here: Find out what are the best arguments proposed by the mainstream against ether theories like those I propose and come back - to defend them yourself, at your own risc.

I don't. All the things accepted in mainstream cosmology - in particular the standard model of cosmology - are unproblematic and compatible with my ether theory.

 

But that is not what you have been doing. Until that last post you did not even provide a reference. You just keep saying my theory explains that.., without the explanation.

Yes, but anyone capable of detecting the CMBR, would also know that they have to subtract their own know motion from the data to u derstand the what part of the data applied to the background radiation.

But you have not proposed an experiment that would do what you claim.

Waiting for the more....

The point I was attempting to make is that if you derive your absolute coordinates for two different inertial frames, which would make them relative to the frame they are derived from, you have not demonstrated that they would then be absolute relative to oneanother. Without, proving the derived coordinate system as absolute and stationary with respect to all other frames, you just have another inertial frame. You assume that the CMBR is not just uniform from all inertial frames, you assume it is identical. We have no evidence that is true. Only assumptions...

Newton began with the assumption of a stationary empty space.., and an absolute background coordinate system. His conceptual model was was replaced by Einstein's relativistic model. Your burden is to, as Einstein did for his model, provide a conclusive argument for a return to an absolute and fixed background coordinate system. It is not good enough to just say at this point assume it to be true. Provide a reasonable argument why we should.

You are playing a shell game. You make an unsupported claim and when it is questioned you ask for proof it is not accurate. Your claim is counter to the majority mainstream view. It is thus your burden to provide proof or reasonable argument when challenged. Saying prove me wrong, comes off as a weakness in your argument. The burden of proof or reasonable argument is yours. (Reasonable argument because no theory can be entirely proven.)

You keep saying this and have provide a link to one paper, but you have not presented those axioms in this discussion, except by reference to the paper. Present your case. You don't have to present the whole paper but so,etching more than my theory says.... Provide some reason that persons here might want to look closer at your paper. You cannot expect that just because you say something everyone will jump at the chance to jump down the rabbit hole of a minorty interpretation of physics and cosmology.

Most of the time discussions on forums like this are about the majority mainstream interpretation. Touching on minority interpretations only when cause is provided. A my theory claim is just not sufficient cause.

 

Schmelzer, the problem here is that you have not presented a theory. You have only said you have a theory and referred to your theory as argument. You cannot expect that just because you say you have a theory, published somewhere, others are obligated to go she arch it out and examine it, without you first presenting you argument in words other than my theory says or does or predicts.

Some of your objections to the responses you get here might have merit, if you were actually presenting anything of your theory here, in this discussion.