Gravity is a result of buoyancy and density of space affects time.

[jiveabillion]

For instance, gravity does not make space 'more dense' . It warps space so that the geometry in non-Euclidian.

I think you are wrong about this. It does make space more dense.

From this article about metric expansion of space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself is changed. That is, a metric expansion is defined by an increase in distance between parts of the universe even without those parts "moving" anywhere.

That is the same as making space more dense. If it is not the same, explain why you think that.

Edit:

Imagine the fabric of space as a chess board and there is a black rook in the center of the board. Instead of being able to move as many spaces horizontally or vertically on the board per turn, you can only move 1. You cannot move diagonally. Your rook has a clock on top of it. This clock can tick once per turn, but you can't move the rook and tick the clock in the same turn.

Now imagine a second, white, rook on the same board near the black rook. This white rook is light and it has no clock. The two players don't have to take turns moving, but they have to take their turns simultaneously. The black rook cannot take a turn unless the white rook takes a turn and vice versa.

The white rook, being light, will always move in the same direction 1 space every turn.

If the black rook were to do the same, the clock would never have a chance to tick, thus time would appear to stand still. The black rook would also be moving at the speed of light.

If the black rook were to alternate a move and a clock tick during every turn, it would be traveling at half the speed of light and the time reading on the clock would increase by 1 second per every 149,896,229 meters it moves.

If we add a red rook to the table that decides to spend 3/4 of its turns ticking its clock and 1/4 moving in the same direction as the white rook, then it would be moving at 1/3 the speed of light and the time reading on the clock would increase by 1 second per every 74948114.5 meters it moves.

This is how everything in the universe works. Nothing can move in more than one direction in space at one time. With no other force acting upon it, light spends all of its turns moving in the same direction and doing nothing else, so it is the fastest moving thing in the universe.

Now, lets apply gravity to the mix. Now each rook has to spend 1/2 of its turns moving towards the source of the gravity leaving the black rook only 1/4 of its turns to tick its clock and 1/4 moving, the red rook only 1/8 ticking it's clock, and 3/8 moving, and the white rook 1/2 of it's turns moving. Now it appears that gravity has slowed down time according to the clocks on the black and red rooks.

Since the distance between the two points doesn't physically change, in order to get those extra squares devoted to the force of gravity into the same "space", the squares must be compressed to allow room for these new ones, thus increasing the density of space.

Edit: I actually just thought of this "Nothing can move in more than one direction at a time" concept today, but I believe it to be 100% true and the reason we observe the things in General Relativity.

 

[AlexG]

That is the same as making space more dense. If it is not the same, explain why you think that.

How does the expansion of space result in any change in density? How does an increase in the distance between two point make anything denser? And given that there's no medium to measure the density of, how is the concept of dense space even relevant?

.

 

[jiveabillion]

How does the expansion of space result in any change in density? How does an increase in the distance between two point make anything denser? And given that there's no medium to measure the density of, how is the concept of dense space even relevant?

.

I answered this in an edit to my initial response to you.

 

[origin]

From this article about metric expansion of space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself is changed. That is, a metric expansion is defined by an increase in distance between parts of the universe even without those parts "moving" anywhere..

What this means is that as the universe expands the galaxies do not move through space, they move with space, so the distance between the galaxies increases. That means the density of the universe is decreasing.

 

[jiveabillion]

What this means is that as the universe expands the galaxies do not move through space, they move with space, so the distance between the galaxies increases. That means the density of the universe is decreasing.

No, it means that the density is increasing towards the center of the universe and both galaxies are moving towards the center. In the amount of time the light takes to get from point A in the distant galaxies to point B on Earth, the density of space has increased. So, by the time the light reaches earth, it displays evidence of redshift. The only other way it could cause redshift is if it were actually moving further away through space and not with space.

The only way to fit more stuff into the same space is to make it more dense.

 

[AlexG]

I answered this in an edit to my initial response to you.

This edit?

Imagine the fabric of space as a chess board and there is a black rook in the center of the board. Instead of being able to move as many spaces horizontally or vertically on the board per turn, you can only move 1. You cannot move diagonally. Your rook has a clock on top of it. This clock can tick once per turn, but you can't move the rook and tick the clock in the same turn.

Now imagine a second, white, rook on the same board near the black rook. This white rook is light and it has no clock. The two players don't have to take turns moving, but they have to take their turns simultaneously. The black rook cannot take a turn unless the white rook takes a turn and vice versa.

The white rook, being light, will always move in the same direction 1 space every turn.

If the black rook were to do the same, the clock would never have a chance to tick, thus time would appear to stand still. The black rook would also be moving at the speed of light.

If the black rook were to alternate a move and a clock tick during every turn, it would be traveling at half the speed of light and the time reading on the clock would increase by 1 second per every 149,896,229 meters it moves.

If we add a red rook to the table that decides to spend 3/4 of its turns ticking its clock and 1/4 moving in the same direction as the white rook, then it would be moving at 1/3 the speed of light and the time reading on the clock would increase by 1 second per every 74948114.5 meters it moves.

This is how everything in the universe works. Nothing can move in more than one direction in space at one time. With no other force acting upon it, light spends all of its turns moving in the same direction and doing nothing else, so it is the fastest moving thing in the universe.

Now, lets apply gravity to the mix. Now each rook has to spend 1/2 of its turns moving towards the source of the gravity leaving the black rook only 1/4 of its turns to tick its clock and 1/4 moving, the red rook only 1/8 ticking it's clock, and 3/8 moving, and the white rook 1/2 of it's turns moving. Now it appears that gravity has slowed down time according to the clocks on the black and red rooks.

Since the distance between the two points doesn't physically change, in order to get those extra squares devoted to the force of gravity into the same "space", the squares must be compressed to allow room for these new ones, thus increasing the density of space.

Edit: I actually just thought of this "Nothing can move in more than one direction at a time" concept today, but I believe it to be 100% true and the reason we observe the things in General Relativity.

The one which you simply made up? The one which doesn't really demonstrate anything, except that you don't know any physics? The one you 'believe' with no basis other than you made it up? The one which has nothing at all to do with General Relativity? That edit?

BTW, don't edit old posts to add new points. They don't get read. Just make another post.

 

[AlexG]

No, it means that the density is increasing towards the center of the universe and both galaxies are moving towards the center.

There is no center. And it's not 'both' galaxies, it's ALL galaxies (outside of our gravitationally bound local super galactic group)

No matter what direction in the universe we look, we see all galaxies moving away from us, with recession speeds which increase with their distance. They all move in different directions, but all away from us. The only way that could happen, if there was a center of the universe, would be if we occupied that center. That's not very likely, is it?

EVERYTHING, (outside of gravitationally bound entities) is moving away from everything else.

The only other way it could cause redshift is if it were actually moving further away through space and not with space.

That would be a doppler redshift, not a cosmological redshift. As light moves through the expanding space, it's wavelength expands along with space, in direct proportion to the distance it's traveled.

 

[jiveabillion]

The one which you simply made up? The one which doesn't really demonstrate anything, except that you don't know any physics? The one you 'believe' with no basis other than you made it up? The one which has nothing at all to do with General Relativity? That edit?

How does it demonstrate that I don't know physics? Can you explain a way that a particle can move in more than one direction at a time?

 

[jiveabillion]

There is no center. And it's not 'both' galaxies, it's ALL galaxies (outside of our gravitationally bound local super galactic group)

By center I mean center of the torus like in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKtevjrZOGs

No matter what direction in the universe we look, we see all galaxies moving away from us, with recession speeds which increase with their distance. They all move in different directions, but all away from us. The only way that could happen, if there was a center of the universe, would be if we occupied that center. That's not very likely, is it?

I fail to see how this disproves increased density. To us, the observer, the result would appear the same.

That would be a doppler redshift, not a cosmological redshift. As light moves through the expanding space, it's wavelength expands along with space, in direct proportion to the distance it's traveled.

Exactly. Which, since the galaxies aren't moving through space, is why it isn't the cause of the redshift we observe. Sorry I threw that distraction in there.

 

[AlexG]

A particle moving in one direction at a time has nothing at all to do with either General Relativity or the cosmological expansion of space. Your analogy doesn't address any observation, and is simply lousy. It explains nothing and has nothing to do with the observed physical laws of the universe.

BTW, of course a particle can move at a diagonal.

How does it demonstrate that I don't know physics?

Firstly, I am no physicist. I am just a web application programmer who has been contemplating the universe for about a week. I may be wrong about a lot of things here, but please try to look at the theory as a whole and fill in the science and physics that you know and see if they fit

Well, you stated it in your first post. You've been thinking about this for a WHOLE WEEK! Wow.

You don't make shit up and then try to 'fill in the science and physics'. You start with what's known and work from there.

 

[AlexG]

By center I mean center of the torus like in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKtevjrZOGs

Nice pretty colored dots. But it doesn't in any way explain what's actually observed, nor is the purported physics involved correct.. It's just a crank video, there are thousands of them.

Which, since the galaxies aren't moving through space, is why it isn't the cause of the redshift we observe

The galaxies are moving through space, for instance Andromeda is moving toward us at about 140 km / sec. The proper motion of galaxies must be, and is, taken into account when calculating the cosmological red-shift.

 

[origin]

No, it means that the density is increasing towards the center of the universe and both galaxies are moving towards the center. In the amount of time the light takes to get from point A in the distant galaxies to point B on Earth, the density of space has increased. So, by the time the light reaches earth, it displays evidence of redshift.

This idea is deeply flawed, but, if this were somehow true then we would see different redshifts depending on if we were looking towards your 'center' of the universe or not. We do not see a difference the redshift in different parts of the sky, therefore your idea is refuted by actual observations, ergo your idea is wrong, ergo you should do some studying of real physics prior to attempting to explain something in the relm of physics.

 

[jiveabillion]

Nice pretty colored dots. But it doesn't in any way explain what's actually observed, nor is the purported physics involved correct.. It's just a crank video, there are thousands of them.

Show me a correct video.

 

[AlexG]

Show me a correct video.

OK.

[video=youtube_share;9N6l1E-X5jQ]http://youtu.be/9N6l1E-X5jQ[/video]

 

[AlexG]

Here's another.

[video=youtube;71WJsIuFmPM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71WJsIuFmPM[/video]

 

[AlexG]

Another excellent video.
[video=youtube;6i1uWV4mfTc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i1uWV4mfTc[/video]

 

[jiveabillion]

Thanks AlexG. These are really long, so I'll have to watch them after work.

 

[AlexG]

You'll notice that none of these try to explain the universe and cosmology in 2 minutes and 23 seconds.

 

[quantum_wave]

This is exactly what I mean. I've been spending the past few days trying to explain that observation to people with a lot of resistance.

I've tried to explain it from the viewpoint of an extra-universal observer named Joe. All time and motion is relevant to Joe, so all time in the universe appears to move more slowly from Joe's perspective. Light where Joe is moves faster than any light in the universe. Joe has a clock. Joe's clock runs faster than any clock in the universe, so we can measure real "time" by his clock.

"Time" inside the universe is affected by the density of space around it. Meaning that the more dense space is around objects the slower everything about that object moves, including electrons, photons, atoms, everything. Since a clock is included in everything, its movement relative to Joe's clock appears to be slower to Joe. However, since everything near the clock is subject to the same density, the clock would seem to move at a normal pace to an observer standing next to it. In fact, if two clocks were at opposite ends of the universe, but were subject to the exact amount of density since they started, they would appear to be in sync to Joe, even if they were running slower than Joe's clock.

I think they should stop saying that "time" slows down because it is very confusing. They should instead say that the "frequency of change" is decreased. Now, since the frequency of change in a light wave can be decreased when traveling through space with increased density, what do we call what slows it down? Dynamical friction? Light could have friction and even lose energy that we can't detect because we can't be an observer like Joe.

I don't know how you came to your current perspective on time and energy density, unless you were introduced to the concept of gravitational time dilation. Maybe you realized that the closer you get to the surface of the Earth, the stronger the gravitational attraction. Maybe you surmised from that that gravity and energy density are related, and formed the idea of energy density slowing the rate that clocks measure time.

What ever your sequence of logic, you have developed a common alternative understanding of energy density and its effect of the progress of light.

Having been at your contemplations for only a week or so, not having a good foundation in mainstream physics and cosmology will cause you some learning pains. I can tell you don't feel obligated to accept what others say is known science and for that you deserve credit, because they often forget to qualify their claims by saying "according to" one theory or another. Even the generally accepted theories can be shown to be incompatible, or at least inconsistent, and so they can't all be right at the same time.

And you deserve credit for posting your theory here in the Alternative Theories sub forum. It is here for the purpose of giving people who want to discuss alternative ideas a forum where it is acceptable.

 

[jiveabillion]

This edit?



The one which you simply made up? The one which doesn't really demonstrate anything, except that you don't know any physics? The one you 'believe' with no basis other than you made it up? The one which has nothing at all to do with General Relativity? That edit?

BTW, don't edit old posts to add new points. They don't get read. Just make another post.

Another user (on reddit) understood what I was trying to say better and here is a wikipedia article that sums it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity