Gravitational Time Dilation

So my prediction then that your totally hypothetical paper will languish and die a natural death is wrong?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course they support my claims and just as obviously invalidate yours.
That was shown with Professors mathematical validity of the "spacetime river"model. And of course the general consensus that Newtonian mechanics is not wrong when applied within its applicable zones of references.

No not at all. That "summary" is just your own agenda driven misinterpretation of what I said. Mainstream models, science and opinions are mainstream, because in the opinion of the majority, they make the most sense. Now you can dress that up, [or undress it] as much as you like, but that is fact.
I have read the book, "The Big Bang Never Happened" and had it properly critiqued by a GR theorist expert. It all made perfect sense to me after that critique, while your hypothesis remains just that...an unsupported hypothesis, highly theoretical.

Science is a refinement of everyday living, logic and common sense. You can misinterpret that all you like, it will remain so
Here's a little quote from a very humble great man......Take note.
Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.
Albert Einstein

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well when are you going to present some real science of substance, instead of empty claims and long winded rants.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lot of issues are up there on this thread, Dr. Schmelzer has taken the discussion off from the OP but nonetheless quite thought provoking, one member as usual very much in his bellicose mode, without understanding the nitty gritty of what Dr. Schmelzer proposed, he has only understood that Dr. is talking about some ether, which is not in the schemes of his relativity....so object, till Dr. backs off or leaves the forum in utter frustration.

OnlyMe,

raised a point in some other locked thread, that there is a severe not so civil exchange between me and one prolific member, true.....but my request to OnlyMe is to start a thread with some original idea which is slightly off from the present mainstream thinking......then he would realize the truth and understand the cause behind extreme provocation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On earlier question still remains unanswered about the OP topic...

Earth is a spinning....from r = o to r = Re (Earth Surface), the gravity is variable, so if the gravitational time dilation exists, then we should see variable passage of time from r = Re to r = 0. That is dt = 1 second at Earth surface will not be 1 sec inside a depth of 2000 Kms from surface.

Now since Earth is spinning, so due to differential rate of passage of time, there should be differential tangential force between the various layers and it should manifest somehow ?

1. So either we should find evidence of such inter layer tangential force.
2. Or Time Dilation is just observer specific maths.
3. Or this time dilation is not what we know about absolute time, it is something else, a misnomer.

[If we can find such small GP-B evidence up there, we can always find some evidence down there to support our beloved time dilation.]

[Muon decay proves relativity, by assuming another relativity point as fact !!]

 

So as per the poster who quoted this in whatever context Albort Inseteen had no intellect.

 

Doctor Schmelzer?? I don't see any Doctor in any of his links Rajesh....you having delusions again?
And really I wouldn't be shouting too much about anyone making Schemlzer leave.
His putting alternative stuff forward and it will be critiqued and reasons given why it is just a theoretical paper with no evidence, although a rung or two up the ladder from your own totally discredited paper.
That's the opposite to you driving away Professor Link due to your refusal to accept logic...two totally different scenarios.

I have disagreed with OnlyMe in the recent past.... But he accepts logic as I do. You hide from any logical outcome that doesn't agree with your BNS nonsense.
And he certainly does not present any "off mainstream" hypothesis just for the sake of it. See? This is your greatest failing. You want to rewrite that which you just are not professional enough, or smart enough to do.

 

Now you are just getting desperate, by creating and assuming silly outcomes to align with your discredited paper.
All your questions have been answered Rajesh..time to pack up, put the books away, come down to Earth and stop pretending.

The time dilation effect occurs, 100% certainty on that fact, except with the examples you gave the effects are infinitesimal small.... as they were with the atomic clocks experiments many many times.
This paranoia with you about time dilation, seems to validate a point I made elsewhere about opposing mainstream accepted science just for the sake of it. Not very smart.

 

Albert was a humble man.He admitted he was in error when called for.
You lack the humility, the knowledge and the intellect for cosmology and astrophysics.

 

Pl post some link or reference for this infinitesimal small tangential force between multiple layers of Earth due to time dilation !! Or you just got swayed ??

 

If one ignores your polemic choice of words ("totally hypothetical", as if not all physical theories are hypothetical), then the prediction that it will be ignored is in full agreement with my economic considerations. As long as scientists have less job security as almost everybody else on the planet (for the typical worker there exists some insecurity related with the danger of the firm going down or a personal conflict with the chef or so, but no permanent necessity to find a new job every two years or so) scientists have to follow the actual mainstream fashion to survive in science. As long as the ether is not fashion, the probability is quite high that any ether paper will be ignored.

Again, this is not a conspiracy, but an objective economic problem. Nobody has to conspire to lead to the result that there will be more conferences, journals, working places in fashionable directions - this is what defines fashion. If every scientist would have a safe working place (even if miserably paid), this would be much less problematic - he could decide that he does not care about this, but tries to develop an own new direction, alone if nobody else participates, and may be for 10 or 20 years. This is impossible in modern science, because after two years he will not get a new grant and would be out of science.

This is what you think. But you are unable to show this. Because this requires a level of understanding which seems beyond your education.

Its fine if something makes proper sense to you. And I have no problem if you would recognize that you are unable to evaluate the scientific value of my claims, and decide that in this case you remain on the safe side if you prefer GR.

But you behave like if you would be able to evaluate the scientific value of my theories yourself. But if you really would be able to do this, you would have to behave differently - you would question the particular arguments I propose, propose own counterarguments. This would be a scientific discussion - something which would be possible even for a layman (even if a layman necessarily has to accept some more complex results).

Nice quote, but I would guess wrong. I was never very interested in such stories, but even I have heard very unfavourable claims about the character of such great scientist like Newton.

 

Character is important because it seeks truth and not just glory. Character is a way to calibrate the mind. There is plenty of mercenary science, that is not motivated by truth or character, but about maintaining funding, publishing and winning awards.

Truth should be simple and not complicated because simple reaches more people and complicated means only a few will get to Lord over the rest. E=MC2 is simple and can be understood by people of all ages and backgrounds. This allows this relationship to tap into a wide range of human potential. If Einstein had come up with a more elaborate design, that only 1% of scientists could follow, this would have been more for prestige. Only the overlords could follow and only they get to tell the masses what they need to believe. Other people will work to sit at the big table, and someday be an overlord. The truth is lost.

 

So far in this thread we have shown that length cont

At this time I don't need to post a link. Light/photons certainly have no mass, but just as certainly they do have momentum......that momentum means that light does cause an infinitesamal amount of spacetime curvature of its own....check out solar sails for the same reason......and also the aspect of the non-linearity of gravity/spacetime...or gravity makes gravity.
Glad to be of assistance.

 

My question may be confronting for you, but it is brutally frank and factual, evidenced by you avoiding answering it, and the continued conspiracy nonsense you go into..
So my prediction then that your totally hypothetical paper will languish and die a natural death is wrong?

 

Learn to read, I have already answered it.

You have been unable to show that I have made any "empty claims and long winded rants". So, this was just an example of a personal attack, as usual unsupported by any evidence.

It seems already quite obvious that you are unable to distinguish real science of substance from unsupported claims.

The way I have shown that your claim that space and time are not absolute is not supported by scientific evidence is, by the way, real science of substance. To show this, one has to present, as a counterexample, a viable theory with absolute space and time. Which is what I have done. If evidence would really prove that space and time are not absolute, this would be logically impossible.

 

No that's totally wrong......An hypothesis is just a guess to explain some scenario or observation.
The hypothesis can then be tested, or experiments conducted to judge if predictions are generally met.
After analysing the data, the hypothesis is either discarded or accepted as a legitimate logical scientific theory.
Theories of course are continually being tested all the time, and realistically grow in stature and certainty, the more they continue to match observations and make verified predictions. The BB, SR, GR and Evolution all fit that near certainty top rung of the ladder of scientific theories.
That's called the scientific method.

The rest of your post is just more conspiracy nonsense to add credibility to your hypothesis.

 

Did you? I see it as a long winded rant to justify your hypothesis.

Your paper and some of your claims are not accepted science. So they remain highly theoretical. Personal attack? I see your continued claims on this site, in the science sections instead of alternative theories, as an attack on mainstream science.

Except you most certainly have not shown that space and time are absolute and to say you have is to handle the truth rather loosely.
In fact the opposite is true and time has been shown to be non absolute most certainly, and just as obviously, if you had any evidence to show otherwise, you would be clammering at the doors of academia and not fart arsing around on a forum such as this.

 

In a scientific forum, nobody cares as what you see it, once you do not support your visions with arguments.

In fact I support all the leading theories of modern physics - the GR equations appear as a limit in my own theory, the Einstein Equivalence Principle holds in my theory, the SM of particle physics is explained in my theory, thus, also supported, the SM of cosmology also nicely fits.

Yes, I reject a lot of theories which are today fashionable mainstream - string theories, GUTs, supersymmetry, inflation scenarios, all the nonsense about Hawking radiation and holography principles. But all this is in no way supported by observation, thus, I'm in no way obliged to accept them. (But, just to note, I do not reject the general idea that such speculative ideas should be studied.)

So, what you see as "attacks on mainstream science" is, in fact, an attack on a particular interpretation of GR - the spacetime interpretation - which is in itself also not established science, but only an interpretation.

And I have never claimed that I have shown that space and time are absolute. This is another of your problems - your inaccurate reading. I have proposed a theory which contains absolute space and time, and claim to have shown that it is viable, that means, that there are actually no observations which are in contradiction with this theory.

This shows that claims that space and time have been shown to be not absolute are wrong. But it does not prove that space and time are absolute. It proves that this remains a possibility, and that modern physics appears yet unable to exclude this possibility.

This is, as usual, something you appear unable to evaluate.

 

So it proves that you have none and you are, as usual babbling.........

 

No. This is called your phantasies about the scientific method. Read Popper, who represents is the established mainstream methodology of science.

This, as usual, shows your incompetence. You remain unable (probably simply unwilling, but this would be even worse) to distinguish between economic explanations and conspiracy theories. And, as usual, you do not even discuss this difference, say, by presenting an own point of view what distinguishs conspiracy theories from economic explanations, such that my arguments would qualify as conspiracy theories. No, you simply continue your refuted claim, completely ignoring what has been said.

 

Do you really understand the theories you're so quick to reject?