Time acceleration hypothesis (Galaxies)

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Just on the fence learning.

 

Thank you for both comments.

[Jay-qu]

It sounds like I just violated Ockham's razor ;).

 

like you yourself said, you cant violate it in the situation where one theory provides extra insight and a better explanation to whats going on.

 

Im still not satisfied that your theory does just that. Are you saying that the galaxies shrink, or just whats in them shrinks?

[kmarinas86]

like you yourself said, you cant violate it in the situation where one theory provides extra insight and a better explanation to whats going on.

 

Im still not satisfied that your theory does just that. Are you saying that the galaxies shrink, or just whats in them shrinks?

 

Both.

[freeztar]

So what you are saying is that if I travel to the Sun, then I would shrink, relative to my size on Earth?

[kmarinas86]

So what you are saying is that if I travel to the Sun, then I would shrink, relative to my size on Earth?

 

That's the complete opposite of what I am saying.

 

Whenever approaching a deeper gravitational well, there would be growth proportional the "blue shift" you would expect of incoming radiation.

 

In fact, what you claim I said is what the mainstream theorists say. It's known as gravitational length contraction.

 

What I said is plain and simple, galaxies escaping gravitational fields shrink, so what do you think of smaller objects within the galaxy that do the same thing?

[Jay-qu]

So when an object shrinks, does its mass change?

[kmarinas86]

So when an object shrinks, does its mass change?

 

Depends on what kind of shrinking your talking about.

 

The proposal of shrinking of the constituents of galaxies is not attached with any proposal to alter their mass. At least not yet.

[kmarinas86]

It is simple to derive the expected deflection of light around objects without invoking curved space. The time acceleration hypothesis with shrinking galaxies is not enough.

 

Variables:

[math]dr[/math] is the rate of change in the radial distance.

[math]\theta[/math] is the angle of the light with respect to the radial line.

[math]dr*sin(theta)[/math] is the rate of change in the lateral distance.

[math]ds[/math] is the rate of change of the distance traveled by light.

 

Pythagorean Theorem

[math]dr^2 + (drsin(theta))^2 = ds^2[/math]

 

Momentum of light

[math]p=\frac{E}{c}=h\frac{f}{c}=\frac{h}{\lambda}[/math]

 

Angular momentum (massive)

[math]L_{massive}=mvrsin(\theta)[/math]

 

Angular momentum (light)

[math]L_{light}=prsin(\theta)[/math]

 

We assume that light:

• Is massless
  
• Cannot transfer angular momentum to an object at a distance
  
• Will maintain its angular momentum throughout the course of the trajectory
  

 

We assume that [math]L_{light}[/math] and [math]h[/math] are constant.

 

[math]\lambda[/math] is the wavelength.

 

[math]L_{light}=\frac{h}{\lambda}rsin(\theta)[/math]

 

[math]L_{light}/h=\frac{rsin(\theta)}{\lambda}[/math]

 

We can now determine a proportionality:

 

[math]rsin(\theta) \propto \lambda[/math]

 

The wavelength according to a local observer is proportional to [math]sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)[/math]:

 

[math]lambda \propto sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)[/math]

 

For simplicity, we will let the [math]2GM/c^2=1[/math], since [math]G[/math], [math]M[/math], and [math]c[/math], are constant. We then also let [math]r[/math] equal a multiple of [math]2GM/c^2[/math].

 

Therefore:

 

[math]\theta \propto asin(sqrt(1-1/r)/r)[/math]

 

Solving for this, we get approximately:

 

[math]\theta \propto 1/r[/math]

 

Bringing back the [math]2GM/c^2[/math] from [math]1[/math], we get:

 

[math]2GM/rc^2[/math], which becomes the change in angle as light makes its closest approach. But when leaving, this angle will be doubled, becoming approximately [math]4GM/rc^2[/math]. Curved space was not even necessary.

[kmarinas86]

Precession of objects within our solarsystem:

 

[math]shrink_{object}=sqrt{1-2GM_{sun}/r_{object}c^2}[/math] is the object's shrinkage relative to the sun.

 

Where [math]r_{object}[/math] is the same as the "semi-latus rectum".

 

[math](1-shrink_{object}) * 6 * pi[/math] is the precession in arcseconds per revolution.

 

I'm not sure how to explain the 6 yet. I thought it would have been 2.

[freeztar]

The time acceleration hypothesis with shrinking galaxies is not enough.

 

ok...reading on...

 

Variables:

[math]dr[/math] is the rate of change in the radial distance.

[math]theta[/math] is the angle of the light with respect to the radial line.

[math]dr*sin(theta)[/math] is the rate of change in the lateral distance.

[math]ds[/math] is the rate of change of the distance traveled by light.

 

Pythagorean Theorem

[math]dr^2 + (drsin(theta))^2 = ds^2[/math]

 

This caused me to stop reading and scratch my head. What is the purpose of this? I read on to try to find it's application, but I did not see this used. What is the purpose of stating a Pythagorean Theorem derivation of your variables first? Perhaps I'm missing something?

[kmarinas86]

ok...reading on...

 

 

 

This caused me to stop reading and scratch my head. What is the purpose of this? I read on to try to find it's application, but I did not see this used. What is the purpose of stating a Pythagorean Theorem derivation of your variables first? Perhaps I'm missing something?

 

It's good practice to stop when you don't understand something.

 

Variables:

[math]dr[/math] is the rate of change in the radial distance.

[math]theta[/math] is the angle of the light with respect to the radial line.

[math]dr*sin(theta)[/math] is the rate of change in the lateral distance.

[math]ds[/math] is the rate of change of the distance traveled by light.

 

Pythagorean Theorem

[math]dr^2 + (drsin(theta))^2 = ds^2[/math]

 

Pythagorean Theorem is used because the radial distance is perpendicular to the lateral distance. Therefore the derivative changes of each distance (or, in worse terms, velocity) are squared and summed to the square of the derivative change of position. In polar coordinates, you can think of the radial distance as [math]r[/math] variable and the angle, which changes along [math]\theta[/math].

[freeztar]

It's good practice to stop when you don't understand something.

 

By stop, I mean 'Pause'. ;)

 

Pythagorean Theorem is used because the radial distance is perpendicular to the lateral distance. Therefore the derivative changes of each distance (or, in worse terms, velocity) are squared and summed to the square of the derivative change of position. In polar coordinates, you can think of the radial distance as [math]r[/math] variable and the angle, which changes along [math]theta[/math].

 

I'll have to sit and think on this one....:hyper:

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Still sitting on the fence,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,interesting stuff.

 

If I may ask that an explanation in simple english for simple people be made.

 

Please.

[kmarinas86]

These same phenomenon predicted by "Albert's Einsteins theory of curved space" can be explained without a theory of curved space. The following are the concluding formulas:

• The factor by which wavelengths of light increase when escaping a planet or star=[math]1/sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)[/math], where [math]G[/math]=Gravitational Constant; [math]M[/math]=Mass of planet or star; [math]r[/math]=the radiation source's distance from the center of mass [math]M[/math]; [math]c^2[/math]=the speed of light squared.
  
  • This was derived from replacing two assumptions with one assumption: That objects and observers shrink as they escape a gravitational field while light waves do not.
    
  • The two assumptions replaced were gravitational length contraction and a varying coordinate speed of light.
    

  [*]The anomaly in the rotation of the orbits of planets (per revolution)=[math](1-sqrt{1-2GM/rc^2})* 6 * pi[/math], where G=Gravitational Constant; [math]M[/math]=Central mass (star); [math]r[/math]=a distance measure of the orbital ellipse known as the semi-latus rectum; [math]c^2[/math]=the speed of light squared

  • This was derived from one assumption replacing two assumptions: That objects shrink when retreating from a gravitational field.
    
  • The two assumptions replaced were gravitational length contraction and a varying coordinate speed of light.
    
  • The only thing I could not explain is that the equation has 6 pi, which is three times the angle per revolution. My guess is that they correspond to three simulateneous precessions around three points with respect to [math]M[/math], the center of the first mass, the center of the second mass, and the center of their combined gravity.

  [*]The deflection of passing light due to gravity=[math]\theta = asin(sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)(2GM/rc^2))*2[/math], where [math]G[/math]=Gravitational Constant; [math]M[/math]=Deflecting mass; [math]r[/math]=is the minimum distance light has from the object; [math]c^2[/math]=the speed of light squared

  • This was derived by several assumptions: 1) Photons do not transfer torque on massive objects at a distance, because they lack a center of mass, and therefore a center of gravity; 2) The conservation of angular momentum applies to photons in transit; 3) The momentum of a photon, given as variable [math]p=\frac{Energy}{Speed\ of\ light}=\frac{Planck's\ constant}{Wavelength}[/math] can be inputed into the formula for angular momentum by replacing [math]mvrsin(\theta)[/math] with [math]prsin(\theta)[/math]. The result is that [math]Wavelength[/math] is proportional to [math]rsin(\theta)[/math].
    

[Jay-qu]

So this can explain all the phenomenon to do with curved space, to the same capacity as the tensors used in GR ?

[kmarinas86]

So this can explain all the phenomenon to do with curved space, to the same capacity as the tensors used in GR ?

 

More phenomenon are yet to be discovered, and many of those aren't even known to be predicted by General Relativity. Therefore, I am not anywhere near proving that in any sort of sense.

 

As I am writing this, I think there may be more classic tests then what I found through Google so far. I haven't search through the fancy stuff, yet.

 

Text I colored lime include any demonstrated or theoretical predictions of both GR and the Time acceleration hypothesis, "Tach".

 

Text I colored sandy brown means that I think the word "appears" would need to be added, because in Tach, changes in observations at different places are induced by a modified observer, not by changes in the shape of space.

 

Some of the text that I strongly believe are facts, and are premises which support any cosmology which takes them into account. I kept that text black and it made bigger (some browsers might hide it, yada yada...). The enlarged text which I believe is strongly factual I try to incorporate into "Tach" as premises, not as predictions.

 

Whatever predictions that are not currently covered by Tach are highlighted in big red text.

_____________________

Wikipedia

 

* 4 Predictions

o 4.1 Gravitational effects

+ 4.1.1 Gravitational redshifting

+ 4.1.2 Gravitational time dilation

+ 4.1.3 Gravitational lensing

+ 4.1.4 Orbital effects

+ 4.1.5 Frame dragging

+ 4.1.6 Black holes

 

Gravitational effects

 

[edit] Gravitational redshifting

 

The first of these effects is the gravitational redshifting of light. Under this effect, the frequency of light will decrease (shifting visible light towards the red end of the spectrum) as it moves to higher gravitational potentials (out of a gravity well).

 

Assume that there are two observers, both of them at rest relative to a massive body. When the observer closer to the massive object sends some light to a second observer that is at rest higher up, the light will be red-shifted; the second observer will measure a lower frequency for the light than the first. Conversely, light sent from the second observer to the first will be blue-shifted (shifted towards higher frequencies).[11] This is caused by an observer at a higher gravitational potential being accelerated (with respect to the local inertial frames of reference) away from the source of a beam of light as that light is moving towards that observer. Gravitational redshifting has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment.[12][13][14]

 

[edit] Gravitational time dilation

 

A related effect is gravitational time dilation, under which clocks will run slower at lower gravitational potentials (deeper within a gravity well). For the same light wave, the second observer measures a lower frequency than the first; evidently, the second observer's clocks are running faster than those of the first observer. The same effect can also be derived in other ways (notably by transporting clocks back and forth and reconstructing the effect of location on their tick rate). Generally, clocks that are further down in a gravitational field tick more slowly than those that are higher up.[15] This effect has been directly confirmed by the Hafele-Keating experiment[16][17] and GPS.

 

Gravitational time dilation has as a consequence another effect called the Shapiro effect (also known as gravitational time delay). Shapiro delay occurs when signals take longer to move through a gravitational field than they would in the absence of the gravitational field. This effect was discovered through the observations of signals from spacecraft and pulsars passing behind the Sun as seen from the Earth.[18][19]

 

[edit] Gravitational lensing

 

Gravitational lensing occurs when one distant object is in front of or close to being in front of another much more distant object. In that case, the bending of light by the nearer object can change how the more distant object is seen. The first example of gravitational lensing was the discovery of a case of two nearby images of the same pulsar. Since then many other examples of distant galaxies and quasars being affected by gravitational lensing have been found.

 

In a similar way, Einstein also derived another effect, the gravitational deflection of light where light rays are bent downward in a gravitational field. An important example of this is starlight being deflected as it passes the Sun; in consequence, the positions of stars observed in the Sun's vicinity during a solar eclipse appear shifted by up to 1.75 arc seconds. This effect was first measured by a British expedition directed by Arthur Eddington. Subsequent observations of the deflection of the light of distant quasars by the Sun, which utilize highly accurate techniques of radio astronomy, have confirmed Eddington's results with significantly higher accuracy.[20][21]

 

A special type of gravitational lensing occurs in Einstein rings and arcs. The Einstein ring is created when an object is directly behind another object with a uniform gravitational field. In that case, the light from the more distant object becomes a ring around the closer object. If the more distant object is slightly offset to one side and/or the gravitational field is not uniform, partial rings (called arcs) will appear instead.

 

Finally, in our own galaxy a star can appear to be brightened when compact massive foreground object is sufficiently aligned with it. In that case, the magnified and distorted images of the background star due to the gravitational bending of light cannot be resolved. This effect is called microlensing, and such events are now regularly observed.

 

Gravitational lensing has developed into a tool of observational astronomy, where it is used (among other things) to determine the masses of certain objects, detect the presence of dark matter, and provide an independent estimate of the Hubble constant.[22]

 

[edit] Orbital effects

 

General relativity differs from classical mechanics in its predictions for orbiting bodies. The first difference is in the prediction that apsides of orbits will precess on their own. This is not called for by Newton's theory of gravity. Because of this, an early successful test of general relativity was its correctly predicting the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury. More recently, perihelion precession has been confirmed in the large precessions observed in binary pulsar systems.

 

A related effect is geodetic precession. This is a precession of the poles of a spinning object due to the effects of parallel transport in a curved space-time. This effect is not expected in Newtonian gravity. The prediction of geodetic precession was tested and verified by the Gravity Probe B experiment to a precision of better than 1 percent[23].

 

Another effect is that of orbital decay due to the emission of gravitational radiation by a co-rotating system. It is observable in closely orbiting stars as an ongoing decrease in their orbital period. This effect has been observed in binary pulsar systems.

 

[edit] Frame dragging

 

Frame dragging is where a rotating massive object "drags" space-time along with its rotation. In essence, an observer who is distant from a rotating massive object and at rest with respect to its center of mass will find that the fastest clocks at a given distance from the object are not those which are at rest (as is the case for a non-rotating massive object). Instead, the fastest clocks will be found to have component of motion around the rotating object in the direction of the rotation. Similarly, it will be found by the distant observer that light moves faster in the direction of the rotation of the object than against it. Frame dragging will also cause the orientation of a gyroscope to change over time. For a spacecraft in a polar orbit, the direction of this effect is perpendicular to the geodetic precession mentioned above. Gravity Probe B is using this feature to test both frame dragging and the geodetic precession predictions.

 

[edit] Black holes

 

When mass is concentrated into a sufficiently compact region of space, general relativity predicts the formation of a black hole – a region of space with a gravitational attraction so strong that not even light can escape.

 

The disappearance of light and matter within a black hole may be thought of as their entering a region where all possible world lines point inwards. Stephen Hawking has predicted that black holes can "leak" mass,[24] a phenomenon called Hawking radiation, a quantum effect not in violation of general relativity. Certain types of black holes are thought to be the final state in the evolution of massive stars. Supermassive black holes are thought to be present in the cores of most galaxies, and are thought to play a key role in galactic evolution. Numerous black hole candidates are known. These include the supermassive object associated with Sagittarius A* at the center of our galaxy[25]

 

Matter falling onto a compact object is one of the most efficient mechanisms for releasing energy in the form of radiation, and matter falling onto black holes is thought to be responsible for some of the brightest astronomical phenomena imaginable, such as quasars and other types of active galactic nuclei.[26]

 

There is more, but there is enough red to "pause" here :).

 

For orbital decay, notice that this occurs more strongly in dense gravitational masses. In Tach, orbital decay is actually the growing of objects. Observers on one those objects would see a "reduced" distance to the other object. The period is increased, and so is time dilation. Entry into orbital decay is strongly dependent on trajectories.

[Pluto]

Hello Kmarinas

 

Well done.

 

At last we have someone with a brain.

 

What does this tell us about.

 

The distance to galaxies using the current methods.

 

also what does this tells us about the so called expanding universe.

 

and finally does this support the Big Bang theory.