E=MC2 -Time dilation: A physically expanding universe?

K

Kaiduorkhon

Registered Senior Member
In a proposed physically expanding universe, yesterday's square mile is smaller than today's, and today's square mile is smaller than tomorrow's, ad infinitum. Yesterday's sixty miles per hour is slower than today's sixty miles per hour, is slower than tomorrow's sixty miles per hour.

A diagrammatic model of constant physical expansion can be represented by a pie chart shape < with the intersection of the two lines representing the smaller past (moment A) , while physical reality moves - expands - from left to right (----->A--->,B--->,C) - the middle of the pie chart representing larger moment B, with the widest portion as moment C (ad infinitum). The same square mile (on earth, in a physically expanding universe) occuring ever more largely - maintaining its relative density - at different moments in time.

In this setting, yesterday's sixty miles per hour is slower than today's sixty miles per hour, and today's slower than tomorrow's. Accordingly, the speed of light at moment A (yesterday) is slower than today's, and today's is slower than tomorrows, while, the speed of light is constant, relative to the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated. The value of space determines the value of time and the C of E=MC2. Another way of perceiving this is, that the value of time is determined by the value of space it - time/motion - occurs in.

The continuum of change maintains the constant.

The earth and everything upon and within it at moment A is much smaller and more dense than the same relatively enlarged earth at moment B (when compared with itself at the earlier moment), just as moment B earth will be relatively much larger and less dense at moment C, when compared with itself at moment B. Inhabitants of this earth are in a uniform process of enlargement they remain unaware of, because their entire physical environment, along with themselves maintains a uniformly changing density and size.

There is no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass energy, because it's the same amount of energy distributing itself over an ever increasing volume of space. The relatively larger, slower moving people at moment C, are unaware of the constant change in their size and corresponding change of time standards, relative to the relatively smaller, correspondingly more dense, faster moving people (themselves) at earlier moments B and A.

Is this not - among other relativistic considerations - a reasonable scenario of time dilation. non absolute space-time, and the celeritas constant, and if not, why not?
 
Last edited:
Why in the world would you suspect that to be so?? What is the compelling fact that drives you to this speculation??

I am sincerely intersted in knowing.

Vern
 
Vern said:
Why in the world would you suspect that to be so?? What is the compelling fact that drives you to this speculation??

I am sincerely intersted in knowing.

Vern
Click to expand...

It's based on a book entitled Gravity (and time) Is The 4th Dimension, written, published and sold out in nine small press editions since 1959. A condensed - work in progress - edition of this book (presently entitled Total Field Theory) is at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
Thank you for your interest. Yes. I authored the books.
 
What is the compelling reason that this expansion model could be reality? I can imigine how an expanding earth might cause gravity phenomena. How would your model help me better understand the universe?
 
Dear Vern:
When the physical universe is recognized as expanding (ever faster; accelerating), we are advantaged with a Total Field Theory, enabling the non mathematical comprehension of what was previously known and understood only by way of mathematics.

The (spatially and physically) Expanding Universe

The reinstatement of the presently abandoned Steady State theory.

The unification of electromagnetism, matter and gravity

The reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field

The Lorentz contraction of physical matter in the direction of its motion at a rate proportional to its velocity (exclusive of field phenomena)

The 'twin paradox'.

Non absolute space

Non absolute time

Time dilation

The General Principle of Relativity

The (so called) 'universal rate of descent' (apparently 'falling' objects are not really falling, but rather, being overtaken and struck by the ever - 4-dimensionally - expanding earth).

The Celeritas Constant of Special Relativity.

The emission of quanta from 5-D matter (refer Pt VII http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie)

The identification of electricity as the 5th dimension (moving at right angles out of 4-D matter)

The identification of magnetism as the 6th dimension (moving at right angles to electricity; electromagnetism being the 5th & 6th dimensions respectively)

'Waveicles'

Why a discontinuous particle having a descrete surface has yet to be found, to the hour of this writing.

Why there are no gravitons.

Why the big bang 'theory' is wrong.
 
Well, I'm trying to understand your reasoning, but I can't see how an expanding universe explains any of those things. How does it show that the big-bang thoery is wrong, for example.
 
Vern said:
Well, I'm trying to understand your reasoning, but I can't see how an expanding universe explains any of those things. How does it show that the big-bang thoery is wrong, for example.
Click to expand...

There is no common center from which the expansion recedes. This is not the signature of an axial explosion.
It is the signature of a repelling force acting out of all material bodies in accordance wit Newton's laws, but, in the opposite direction (Re: Cosmological constant repelling force).
 
perplexity said:
In simple terms, please, everything expands relative to what?
Click to expand...

Obejcts released to 'free fall' above the earth's surface do not actually 'descend' - the entire - ever expanding - earthly frame of reference is rising up at all times including to overtake and strike apparently falling objects. This is why all objects, regardless of their mass values descend at the same rate of acceleration. Everything (physical and spatial) expands relative to space and time (space-time).

Astrophysical consensus determines that no matter where the expanding universe is observed from, the receding sources of light are moving away from the observer in direct line of sight, that is, 'the center' of the expanding universe doesn't exist, i.e., there was no 'big bang'.
 
perplexity said:
So if gravity is some kind or reluctance to expand, why the reluctance?

Begs the question doesn't it?

The answer that I would like (take it as a suggestion if you like) is that it expands relative to our perception, consciousness being the constant updating of the perception.

This comes from an ordinary intuition, the heaviness of unconsciousness, and my persistant dissatisfaction with the reluctance of meta-theory to explain the observer.

--- Ron.
Click to expand...

Dear Ron:
Not sure what you mean by 'reluctance to expand'. The reason objects on the earth's surface have *weight (heavy mass value) is due to the *resistance they oppose to the non uniform motion (acceleration) against them by the earth's surface - *inert mass value.
When a weighed pound of butter is accelerated against (in deep outer space where gravitation is negligible) when it is accelerated at less than the rate of descent of objects in free fall on earth, it weighs less than a pound. When it is accelerated at more than the rate at which ojects descend on earth (32' per " Per ") it weighs more than a pound.
But, when it is accelerated at exactly the rate that objects descend on earth, then it opposes an inertial resistance of exactly one pound of weight. Einstein called this 'an astonishing coincidence' and based his entire GR Principle on it (the inability to distinguish the difference between inertial and gravitational mass, which 'aren't supposed' to have anything to do with one another - Heavy Mass having to do with inertia, and Gravitational Mass having to do with weight). From 1916 onward, 'gravity' and 'acceleration', began to be used alternatively as meaning the same thing.

Inertia, in this case, is the resistance that a test object opposes to non uniform motion. It isn't supposed to have anything to do with whatever gravity is, or 'weight'. (Re. Inertial and Gravitational Mass Values).

Is inertial resistance to acceleration what you mean by 'reluctance'?
 
The problem with this scenerio is expanding space. If everything expands uniformly, the space between the falling apple and the ground expands as well. So the apple doesn't fall and we still need gravity. If space does not expand, then we will come crashing into the sun before long, since it will be coming closer to us. So I think there are inconsistencies within the concept.
 
If he's read it he isn't talking. It contradicts the big bang. It's a Steady State condition, a reinstatement of Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field Theory (Cosmological Constant - Lambda /\ )
Objects on or near the major gravitational mass (in this case earth) are overtaken and struck by the major coordinate system. That's about the GR.
On the other hand, at greater distances test objects orbit, as per Newtonian predictions and Classical Mechanics. There's not much new here except perspective (as you have already quasi hyperbolically observed).
The space seperating the moon from the earth, for example, is expanding, along with the space between the planets and the sun. The orbits aren't circular or elliptical therefore, but, rather, accelerating spirals (refer Golden Rectangle, aka Golden Spiral - google either or both of those please.

Aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric tides are electromagnetic action at a distance under the SR.
 
For the past few months it's required several swipes at it through pop ups that first emerge. You X out the pop ups and go at it a few times and you get through. As for why this is so, only t he management knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top