Gravitational Time Dilation

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote in context?

Not expecting that, in the mean time...

Since the time of Einstien's introduction of both SR and GR, the observational evidence of the universe has grown exponentially, when compared to physics, astronomy and cosmology of his day. In a sense when comparing science now with science then, there is a great deal more depth that must be accounted for and dealt with, now... Given that and the fact that there has been a 100 year timeframe within which new observations and experience has been interpreted from the context of GR.., and GR has generally held up very well.., an advantage of time no new theory has.., any new theory is more likely to describe current observational knowledge equally well as GR and differ functionally in conceptual interpretation and/or proposed fundamental mechanisms. (This would be the same for any proposed QTG, as well as any proposed reinvented ether theory.)

If a new theory is to replace GR or any other existing and substantially supported theory entirely, the burden is overwhelming, owing to the shear volume of observational evidence that it must account for, all at once.., that GR had 100 years for theorists to think through... And thus is an unlikely thing to happen in the short term. (This last, short term qualification, a philosophical fail safe position, since none of us can know what 100-200 years from now will look like.)

When you began your response with, "Hm, I don't think this is the way science works.", it suggests to me that you either, did not take the time to try and understand what I was attempting to say, I did not communicate my intent well and you did not think it necessary to ask for clarification, or you just responded from some personal underlying interpretation of what you think my intent was.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I usually react to what I see in the particular post, without remembering too much of the context of previous discussions. Rereading the posting in question, I cannot identify any missing context.

My point is that this difference is not that big as it looks. GR had also to win against NT, and there was a lot of observational evidence in favour of NT.

The question how difficult it is to meet all the restrictions caused by previous observations is how difficult it is to obtain the old equations as some limit of the new theory. If this is possible, it does not matter at all how much successful evidence the old theory has collected - it can all be covered by the limit of the new theory too. This difficulty does not increase if the number of experimental papers of the past supporting the old theory doubles or whatever - the problem remains the same, to obtain the old theory in a limit.

Here we more or less agree. But if the modification which the new theory gives changes something which is observable or not is highly accidental. Here, my ether theory is a nice example. I have the case Y<0, where I have no idea at all about any observational difference (except that the theory has a clear advantage for a flat universe, and forbids nontrivial topologies and causal loops - but these are thing which anyway nobody expects to observe.) And we have the case Y>0, with stable frozen stars and inflation, thus, with clear differences, which, if Y would be great enough, would be observable.

The formulation seems to have been misleading. The point is that the problem one has to solve if one creates a new theory seems quite different from what you describe. I do not have to read all the experimental papers, all the information I need about them is that they are in agreement with GR - and, therefore, it is sufficient to have GR in the limit to be able to obtain them in my theory too. Once I have the GR limit, this part is mostly done. It remains to find out the differences where the limit does not work. But this is also not part of old experimental papers, but part of the limit of my new theory, which works in some domains but not in others. Only after I have identified the part where the two theories have important differences, it becomes interesting to look for observational evidence about these critical domains.

This way to handle observational evidence during the creation of new theories is, by the way, a reason why creating new theories is important for experimental science too. Because in this way one identifies critical regions, where it may be interesting to make observations.

Take, for example, the dying pulse train. From point of view of pure GR, this seems like good evidence for black holes, because from this point of view one would expect alternative theories where some other force stops the collapse, which would lead to something similar to usual or neutron stars - stars with sizes which have no connection to the Schwarzschild radius. One would not expect stable stars with a size of, say, the Schwarzschild radius plus 0.0001 Planck lengths, because such a length would be complete conspiracy. But in GLET this is not conspiracy at all, but the result one obtains for a sufficiently small value of Y>0.

To be honest, I do not think much about intentions when I answer. I answer if I see something where I have a different opinion, and explain the different opinion and my arguments for this different position. If other people behave similarly, I would be quite comfortable with this. Therefore I don't think there is anything wrong with this. (I'm much less comfortable with those who speculate about my intentions for writing what I write. Of course, mainly because they are usually wrong, but even if not, this would not be an anwer I'm interested in, even if only because I already know my intentions.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You really don't seem to get it! I was not responding to anything you posted, nor commenting on your theory. Go back and re-read the original post and see that it was in response to a specific statement paddoboy made. Though the specific reference in that post was aside from my direct response to his comment, the context of my post was inline with the post as a whole.

To make it simple....... If what your are suggesting is that a theory is valid even if it has not been subjected to comparison with real observations..., that it is enough that mathematically is seems to retain an earlier theory as an approximation, it is valid as a description of reality, you are wrong. It is not enough to just be mathematically correct unless that math also holds up to real world tests......... Which then means you do have to take all experimental observational proofs of the earlier theory and test them with the new alternative.

That is.., a case where the new theory mirrors the results of the old theory, step for step. If on the other hand the new or alternate theory makes different predictions where past observations have not been decisively in favor of either the old or new theory.., the old theory in this case GR will remain the description of choice until such time as some new observation or experimental results are obtained that favor one or the other.

SR and the LET stood side by side right up to the introduction of GR, the edge given to SR primarily based on interpretations of the null effects of the M&M experiments. But the LET did have to jump through additional hoops to keep up with the predictions even of SR... SR had set a new standard.

So again I was not initially responding to anything you posted, and was not and am not commenting on your theory. I was commenting on a comment by paddoboy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I totally agree OnlyMe. And I have had this point debated more than once with Schmelzer. The differences of course between SR/GR and Schmelzer's hypothesis is that SR/GR have had experiments and observations, validate and justify both, coupled with aligning with predictions to an ever increasing precision.
The same cannot be said for the other.

 

More misunderstandings...more cop outs?
NT was known before GR, to have unexplainable observations at the limit of its zones of applicability. That was realised with the precession of the perihelion of Mercury anomaly, which was correctly accounted for by GR.
GR does not in any case make NT wrong. NT within its zone of applicability is still used and will still be used in 10,000 years, as of course will GR within its zone of applicability.

 

No, you are wrong. The problem being discussed is whether your hypothesis is more correctly predictive then GR, or that it can even be compared with the predictive nature of GR.

All I need to show is that I am right in what I have said.
Which is why I give reputable links to support my claims.
Obviously you, Rajesh and others are totally adverse to these reputable links.

I make claims based on what I have learnt as a non professional and lay a person.
When I can I support all my claims with reputable links. That will continue.
I certainly do not accept alternative hypothesis that claim different sceanrios based on the unsupported, unevidenced claims of some independent non professional researcher.

 

MY rambling post? He he he. So anyway, since you supposedly have an inside running (Cosmic level clearance job is it?), YOU tell us all about
"element115-Dubna Russsia
what does that mean after 115 ?"
Only don't pollute a 'decent' sub-forum here - open a new thread in Cesspool - I promise to look for it.

 

Confusion is all yours. Maybe someone with the looks of a nightmare-invading gargoyle cannot figure my quoted comments were intended to give someone a lesson in forum etiquette. And btw reason I even took you on was to make it clear to your target in e.g. #318, just why he is justified in continuing to totally ignore your incoherent and vindictive prattle. But now - off you go, and give us all the inside on 'element 115' and the REAL PHYSICS BEHIND SUPER-SECRET UFO PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY!!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think it was Prof Hamilton response........But he put this in big hurry.......he is right that causality cannot be violated (sound speed getting more than c), but he did not understand the point made by me that condition of causality violation will not reach for BNS.

The NDP calculations for standard NS of core size around 10-12 Kms, do not make Neutrons fully relativistic ( for them dx is still non zero and thus speed is not near c), but inside EH as they are compacted further the dx approaches zero, and their speed moves up giving rise to a higher counter pressure, but still the causality violation as indicated by Prof Hamilton has not reached......

PS : You approached Prof Hamilton for my paper, why not approach him for a very simple question. This question was evaded by prof......it is very simple when a large core collapses from r >> Rs to r = 0, on the way it got to encounter a stage (core size) when causality violation condition appears, what happens then ?? Prof Hamilton would know that for a large core collapsing towards BH singularity, it will transiently pass through a BNS kind of structure inside EH, would the causality not get violated then in transit ? Or that is allowed ? Or boom ??

 

No its Professor Begalman.
He did not understand??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But you do??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah sure Rajesh we all believe you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I prefer Professor Begalman's opinion totally...afterall, he is qualified and an expert, being co-author with Sir Martin Rees [Astronomer Royal] of "Gravity's Fatal Attraction"
You are not held in the same esteem, nor are you qualified at all.

Why don't you approach him. I don't need to, as I do realise that any unstable entity that you are imagining is not real.....and again, it's Professor Mitch Begalman.

 

So what? I have permission only to anwer comments on my theory or so? If I disagree with something in your post, I comment.

What I'm suggesting is that if you have a limit where you can recover the predictions of the old theory, then it may be very easy to "test them with the new alternative". It will be sufficient to show that these experiments are in the domain where the old theory is valid approximation of the new one.

 

It's a pity though you are not qualified to add any credibility to what you disagree with.

 

And my argument is that GR cannot be quantized, because of the conceptual conflicts between GR and quantum theory, while GLET can be easily quantized, because there are no such conceptual conflicts.

You seem to think that they support your claims. But the points where you are in error are usually not covered in such popular descriptions. To find for example a good popular description of the problems of GR with quantization would be something close to impossible.

This is, at least, a clear statement. In other words, you do not care about the content of the various arguments at all. You have made your choice, and this choice is in favour of the established mainstream, independent of the content, independent of any arguments - you are, as a layman, anyway incompetent to judge them. So you simply support the mainstream, posting irrelevant links, supporting them by naming them "reputable" (as if you were able to distinguish their reputability - so your "reputable" will be simply another word for "established mainstream"), and claim that any alternatives are simply wrong.

This is an emotional decision to support the scientific establishment, and no scientific arguments will have any power to change this decision.

In the past, there has been a sufficient level of scientific education that most people have at least realized that such an emotional, uneducated support means nothing in science. Today, the education seems to have reached such lows that some people tend to think that science is something similar to democracy, and that pure emotional opinions are of some value.

 

There was nothing unexplainable. Instead, simple dark matter could have done the job. There have been proposals for such dark matter, in form of a new planet named Vulcano or so. So, even normal, baryonic matter would have to be sufficient to explain the Mercury perihelion. I this sense, the problem of GR is much more serious - dark matter has to be be of a new type of matter, unknown in the standard model of particle physics, and the material which gives dark energy/inflation has to be even a qualitatively different type of matter.

 

Your considerations on what adds credibility to what are completely irrelevant for a scientific discussion. If somebody writes nonsense about theories I do not support, say GR or whatever, I will nonetheless correct this nonsense, and not care even a little bit about what you think about this.

 

The question I asked myself is, why quanta in the first place? We know we live in a quantum universe but why, and what does this bring to the table? If you can't answer this, how can you make a proper connection to GR?

If we assume a random universe, quantum saves time by loading the dice, so things falls into place more frequency, for the next stage of change. If you have a 100 sided dice and need the #3 to fall, to flip a switch, then this will happen 1 in 100 throws. Quantum essentially reduces the number of sides on the dice, to say six, now the switch is flipped 1 in 6. This speeds up the process thereby saving time for evolution. Quantum is connected to time and time potential.

As another analogy that can address the question, consider a movie film, composed of many distinct frames. We take snap shots of unique points of time, separated by gaps in time. The film will quantum step between frames, appearing to jump in time and space. This approach makes the length of the film smaller, compared to taking frames every instant. The smaller film size, allows us not to have to run the film at the speed of light so see even slow action. Instead the film can run slower and still appear to be continuous. Quantum appears to be an artifact needed for finite reference, below C.

Next, consider motion blur. Motion blur allows the frames of the movie, which are quantum separated in time, to overlap in distance, due to the overlap of the blur in each frame. The motion blur or the uncertainty in distance is due to the difference in shutter speed to action speed. With time stopped in the still frame, the difference is speed is conserved, with time converted to uncertainty in distance. This preserves the action in each still frame, and allows the film appears to be continuous even at slow film speeds; references. This makes space-time appear integrated.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is really a philosophical question.

One answer is that we and all of our clocks and rulers are composed or made up of quantifiable parts, atoms and molecules, which interact with their environments in quantifiable steps.

If you are using a ruler that measures inches it is difficult to measure any length in less than some fraction of an inch. Everything that we can observe or measure depends on a quantifiable (observable) change.

Only in hypotheticals and some mathematics can we even imagine the universe and any aspect of physics without quantification.

 

ahh i see you have no clue so you decide to pull a backpedaling, attempted manipulating comment.(shrugs) i see.
hilarious " 'decent' "..... (shakes head) typical clueless, uneducated, lack of any actual experience internet piss-ant science hero.

the only cesspool place you need to look in, which i'm 100% sure you know of, is your own mentality.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

carry on.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hilarious.. uh huh.(shrugs)

ahh you mean the reality[ my incoherent and vindictive prattle] that is perceived by individuals who are not mentally disabled ?
also, you'll notice they only started to ignore me when i mentioned farsight.

and yet you never answered that question as you attempt a backpedaling manipulating comment(shrugs)
also, you don't understand how ridiculous you are. you ridicule me as a security clearance individual then asked me to talk all about it.
(shrugs) you think i'll risk myself for an mentally disabled internet science hero piss-ant ?
but if you actually read some of my posting histories on the many sites i'm on, you'll see how i have mention stuff and yet all the supposed intellects and want to be scientist could not grasp an inkling of it. let alone the basic science they're trying to reestablish. again, shrugs

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

stuff up