Hi Nereid
I know that there were some loose ends left, particularly with the many questions you posed .(You know a lot and the issues are interconnected). If there are some that you feel are unresolved, please bring them up again.

I would appreciate it if you could pick just one or two at a time. It is almost impossible to respond to a list of 10 questions with one post, but if you have a list, tell me which ones you think are the most important to address first. Decide which issues to you think need clarification, those usually easiest to respond to. Decide which issues you think present a problem for the proposed model; they take me more time to respond to.

I think it is good to have a kind of summery post at this stage. Some of Celestial Mechanics concerns with two dimensions of time caused me to keep going back over stuff that was presented in posts that he was not aware of. Also, many assume that the model is just some idea, instead of a theoretical model that makes predictions or explanations that are different from the mainstream. By including some of them in this post it helps improve the validity of the model.

Snowflake

Hi Tensor,

Thanks for moving the post out of Gravs thread. It started off as a quick note, and it got diverted.

Also thanks for asking how I am doing. It has been awhile since I’ve made a post. Kind of busy. Life gets in the way of all this important stuff.

I think my tongue in cheek response was misunderstood. I wasn’t seriously proposing that there was a constant stream of matter going into the pair of neutron stars. I was just trying to propose a ludicrous example of a fix. I meant it to analogous to the methodology adopted by the mainstream. Things move too fast in orbit for the amount of matter seen, there must be dark matter there. Galaxies moved too far away from each other based on their recessional motion , there must dark energy. Why not consider looking at a different cosmological model instead?

You said the following
you are aware that there are other observations that indicate dark matter and that these observations are independent of gravity? It's just not the galactic rotational curves that indicate there is dark matter there. That there are several different observations they all arrive at approximately the same quantity of dark matter from different paths. .

There are three indications that I am aware of the need for dark matter.
1. The too fast motion for spiral galaxies and
2. The increasing magnitude of dark matter with scale of observation necessary for preserving structure in groups of galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, and super clusters of galaxies.
3. The necessity for additional matter to keep the rate of expansion flat, to avoid a “runaway” universe.
Did I miss something?

Is there any example requiring dark matter that does not also lend itself to an explanation in which the effect of gravity is temporally, or historically defined?

Thanks for the post

Snowflake

Yes, rather a great deal.

All of this summary is much too over-simplified; the observational data is much more extensive than this summary implies, and the details of what you have written are either oblique, or downright wrong.

1a. Rotation curves in spirals: if the average motions of tracers - whether they are stars, planetary nebulae, hydrogen clouds, globular clusters, satellite galaxies - is, according to Newtonian gravity (GR is just a computational headache, nothing of significance is different), then the mass inside {distance x, in the plane of the disk} is greater than the estimated baryonic mass, per standard astrophysics.

1b. Weak lensing of halos (not just spirals): the integrated weak (GR) lensing signal, for the mass in the halos of all galaxies so observed, is consistent with 1a.

2a. Virial theorem, hydrostatic equilibrium, the SZE, strong and weak lensing: all independent lines of investigation/observation yield consistent results, for rich clusters.

2b. Groups, and not-so-rich clusters: much the same as 2a, but the observational results are much noisier.

3a. Cosmology: it's a consistency gig, "what value/range for DM do I need to use, in my cosmology models, to get consistency with the data (CMB, Hubble relationship, distant SNe, etc)?" Wow²! I get consistency with the same value/range as is consistent with 1 through 2 above!!

3a must not be trivialised; consistent results in parameter space, when all relevant data are included, is far from given (and, if you substitute random inputs, you get no consistency whatsoever). This is one of the most neglected results, when ATMers think to bash BBTs, or dream up alternatives.I have no idea what this question means; would you be so kind as to clarify please?

Remember that once upon a time "the gospel" was steady state. Viewpoints eventually do change if the arguments are sufficiently persuasive.

Hi peter

Thanks for the post.

You said,
today’s academons were once impressionable young high-schoolers themselves.

That is why I teach to High School Kids with an interest in physics whenever I can. Eventually they will grow up and replace those that are there now.

You also mentioned the trouble with Big Bang cosmology.

My uniform expansion model has characteristics of a Steady state Universe, and it has characteristics of a Big Bang model. The mainstream will fault me for the parts of the model that do not look like the BB, and those against the BB will fault me for the properties of a Steady State universe. This makes it kind of hard to find support from either group.

Properties of model that are like a Steady State Model
1. Based on relative measures of time, the universe is infinitely aged and will never end.
2. Galaxies are where matter streamed into the universe, and matter may still be entering the universe in the cores of galaxies, providing a constant source of energy for a perpetual universe
3. There is no relative expansion, Galaxies keep their relative size and relative separation between every galaxy

Properties of model that are like the Big Bang model
1. The universe, when described in absolute measures, had a beginning
2. The beginning of the universe is incredibly hot filling the universe with energy and forming the initial make up of the elements in the universe. (Instead of one singularity, there are multiple singularities that form each galaxy)
3. When the expansion is described in absolute terms, (an Eye of God perspective) the expansion of the galaxies and the space between them, can be “seen”.

Snowflake

snowflakeuniverse:

Earlier I asked, "Why not go to a university and try to speak to professors and grad students?" You gave a reply which I will now attempt address. (The threat of endless recursion raises its ugly head! )

1. You pointed out that you presented your theory at a conference, several oral and poster board presentations at four different universities. While this is good, I don't think it is really a substitute for regular contact with professors and grad students at a college or university near you.

2. You wrote, "People who have spent a decade or more of their life teaching or learning general relativity are not ready to consider any model other than their own." The successes of Newtonian gravity and GR in the Solar System are manifest in our ability to predict positions of Solar System bodies years in advance with incredible accuracy. The usual ATM theory asks us not merely to amend our already successful theories but to abandon them and start over with--what? A theory presented as an incoherent mishmash of misunderstood concepts, mathematics too elementary to do the job, and an impenetrable presentation that makes it difficult to find the "fatal flaw" in their argument. BTW, I've found the fatal flaws in your work and I'll present them in another post.

3. You wrote, "Ninety percent of the time there was not even a question asked by the audience about the paper presented." Given the impenetrable, illucid presentation of many ATM ideas (remember Moshe Thezion and his drawings?) it is no wonder that questions aren't asked. And even if they were asked, would they do any good? You may want to look at some of threads covering Michael Mozina's "solid Sun", Stanley Kornowski's "eterions" and "higgsons", Zanket's "derivation" of a "replacement" metric for the Schwarzschild metric, and lyndonashmore's infamous "paradox". The fatal flaws of these theories have been pointed out to no avail.

BTW, I notice that you have tied yourself Manuel and Mozina's solid exploding Sun theory--a case of bad astronomy and bad physics at their worst.

4. You wrote, "The general response of a PhD level to the presentation has been, 'we are not ready for something so revolutionary', or 'it just isn't that way'". The first just isn't true; we can respond very quickly when revolution is thrust upon us. Consider the years immediately after the discovery of the J/psi resonances made it clear that there was a fourth quark flavor (charm) and how the discovery of Upsilon and tau a few years later showed that there was a third generation of fundamental particles. As for the second, I'm afraid that is the simplest explanation that can often be given; a technical one will take too long and will probably not be understood because of the low level of mathematical sophistication of the ATM "theorist".
5. Despite what you and nutant gene 71 might think, there is research going on into gravitation theories with variable G. If you peruse the papers at www.arxiv.org, you will find lots of these. (The key word to look for in the title is "Brans-Dicke".) I know because this is the direction of my research! Of course these theories are extensions, not replacements for GR, and most ATMers' minds are made up that GR must be abandoned before they even read a word of these papers.

Enough for now!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The Fatal Flaw

The fatal flaw in snowflakeuniverse's "Uniform Expansion Theory" is here in post #14:
First, what do you mean by "volume of spacetime"? Do you mean all of it? Even if it is infinite? How can you measure this derivative? How can you be sure that it equals T? Why not some other power of T or something else even more complicated?

The most serious objection has to do with the units. If S is space, it has dimensions of L³, if it is really spacetime then the dimensionality is L³*T. (Of course, if you're willing to multiply all times by c you can take the "volume" of spacetime to be L⁴.)

In any event, the time derivative of neither of these has dimension T. In the note after "S == T^2" that I did not quote, you indicate that you mean proportional. Your first equation is a straight, unqualified equality. Your second equation is a proportion. That is the problem that often occurs with ATM presentations: they are hobbled by sloppy, constantly shifting notation that makes it difficult to understand the argument being given.

So let's do this properly.

First, let's denote S(A) as the volume of some region of space at a given time. Let us postulate that dS(A)/dT=K(...), where K(...) is some function of S(A), the mass contained within A, the electric charge contained within A, anything else we may think of, and of course, the time T. Whatever K(...) may be it must have units of L³/T so that it matches the left-hand side.

Wow, how can we make any progress with this? Obviously we are going to have to simplify this a bit. Here's where we start: imagine two adjacent non-overlapping regions A and B and denote their union as A+B. We may write:

dS(A)/dT = K(S(A), ...)
dS(B)/dT = K(S(B), ...)
dS(A+B)/dT = K(S(A+B), ...)

But the volume of S(A+B) is S(A)+S(B), so the last equation becomes:

dS(A+B)/dT = dS(A)/dT + dS(B)/dT = K(S(A)+S(B), ...) so that

K(S(A)+S(B), ...) = K(S(A), ...) + K(S(B), ...).

In other words, K depends linearly on S and we may write K(S, ...) = S*K'(...) where K' is a function of everything but the volume and has units of T^-1. Let's ignore the contents and let K' be a function of T alone. This allows us to write:

(dS/dT)/S = K' or dS/S = K'dT.

The left-hand side can immediately be integrated to give ln(S₂/S₁), where S₁ is the volume of a region of space at T₁.

The right-hand side does not integrate easily. If we can prove that it has form k/T, where k is a dimensionless constant, then the right-hand side becomes k*ln(T₂/T₁). Exponentiating both sides gives:

(S₂/S₁)=(T₂/T₁)^k.

Finally, if we could somehow prove that k=2, then we would have snowflakeuniverse's "Uniform Expansion Theory". But look at how much has to be proved! First that K does not depend on the contents of the space, just the absolute time, then that this dependence is k/T out of all the many possible functions of T, and then that k must equal 2 out of all possible values. There is no compelling reason for any of this.

In the next post I will show how to do this right.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Hi Celestial Mechanic
Thanks for your response

1. I am glad you approve of the meetings that I have made presentations. You also mentioned your belief that contact at a local university is necessary. I have tried. I have had some success at the University of Connecticut, where I graduated. It is not as easy as you are implying. If you still have connections at a university, I would be glad to talk at a “lunch conference”. (In fact if there are any professors reading this that would like to have me present the theory to their associates, I would be glad for the opportunity to do so).
2. You said
“A theory presented as an incoherent mishmash of misunderstood concepts, mathematics too elementary to do the job, and an impenetrable presentation that makes it difficult to find the "fatal flaw" in their argument. BTW, I've found the fatal flaws in your work and I'll present them in another post.”

I look forward to your post. I am especially interested in knowing what part of the presentation was “impenetrable” I am trying to make my presentation as clear and simple as possible. It seems that most High School kids can follow the basic concepts involved. Also, what kind of criticism is “mathematics too elementary to do the job”?


3. When I stated that “90 percent of the there was never even a question asked” you seem to think I was at an ATM conference. This conference was primarily by graduates students and professors presenting papers on General Relativity.
4. When I said "The general response of a PhD level to the presentation has been, 'we are not ready for something so revolutionary', or 'it just isn't that way'". You responded with ”The first just isn't true” Are you calling me a liar? This is exactly what happened in the oral presentation I made at MIT.
5. I am glad you are also working on a variable gravity model. This may present a problem though. It is my experience that someone with time vested in one approach is rarely inclined to acknowledge that someone else has figured it out.

I especially look forward to your analysis that points to the “fatal flaws”.


Snowflake

Wow you are quick, in the time I spent writing one post you placed the next.

Thanks

Snowflake

I meant that the statement is not true, not the fact that you heard someone make that statement. Don't get paranoid, it's very unbecoming.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I wrote both of them off-line.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

First off, after reviewing you response, it is clear you have not found a Fatal Flaw.

You are obviously making criticisms without even reading through the posting. This is not fair.

Evidence that this is what your are doing is indicated by your first criticism of the units, the very next part of the post defined what == meant, which addressed the dimensional balance issue. Also if you follow the development of the formulas you see that the dimensions even balance out. Also just as the speed of light expresses a relationship between distance and time, which is often described as 1, which is technically dimensionally imbalanced, so too are the proposed relationships between measures of an absolute volume and absolute time.

You then go off in to some set of calculations that are of you own.

You conclude your post with

There is no compelling reason for any of this.
and
In the next post I will show how to do this right.

No compelling reason? This is the basis for a unified field theory. This predicts that the effect of gravity varies with the passage of time. Fundamental principals and laws become geometrically based. This is a major advancement in the field of theoretical physics.

You will show how to do this right? You have not shown that anything I have done is wrong.

Snowflake

Hi Celestial Mechanic

If I am coming off a bit rough, forgive me.

It is late and I am tired.

See you tomorrow, and thanks for spending you time with this. It means a lot to me. I have been working on this for decades.

Thanks
Snowflake

Celestial Mechanic Does it Right

In this post I will show how dimensional analysis can be used to arrive at a form of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmological equation, at least up to a dimensionless factor.

We start by suggesting that dS/dT=K(...), just as in my last post. The question that must be answered is, "What exactly does K depend on?" In the previous post I mentioned explicit time dependence, the volume of the region, the mass contained in the region, the charge contained in the region, etc. We will restrict ourselves to the mass contained in the region. What else, really, is there that can do the job?

So we write dS/dT=K(M). Now I can use the same argument before about contiguous non-overlapping regions in order to write:

dS/dT=M*K',

where now K' is constant. What can this constant be? Before we tackle that, let's make one more simplification: that the volume of space is not too clumpy, that we can treat it (to a first approximation of course!) as having uniform density rho. Then

dS/dT=rho*S*K',

(dS/dT)/S=rho*K'.

The left-hand side, being a logarithmic derivative, has dimensions of T^-1. rho has dimensions of M*L^-3. Let's try G, the Newtonian gravitational constant for K'. G has units of M^-1*L³*T^-2. The product of G*rho has dimensions of T^-2. Gee (no pun intended?), that's one power of inverse time too many. Is there something within the theory that we could divide by? Yes, there's H the Hubble Parameter (not constant!) that is defined by H=(da/dt)/a, where a is the proportional factor of the cosmic expansion. We thus have:

(dS/dT)/S=k*G*rho/H,

where k is a dimensionless constant. But wait! There's more! Let's look at S. For a concrete example we will take S to be a rectangular brick of dimensions x, y, and z at time T₀. Since the expansion is isotropic, that is the same in all directions, the volume of this brick at any other time will be x*y*z*(a/a0)³. Taking the logarithmic derivative of this gives (dS/dT)/S = 3*H. (Left as an exercise for the student! )

We thus have 3*H²=k*G*rho. Those of you that have taken and understood general relativity are allowed to smile at this point in the knowledge that k equals 8*pi. Compare this equation with field equation that MTW refers to as the "initial value equation" on p. 729:

(a,_t/a)² = -k/a² + Lambda/3 + (8*pi/3)*rho (MTW's notation),

H² = (8*pi/3)*G*rho (my equation).

MTW's k refers to the signature for the curvature, k=1 for closed, 0 for flat, and -1 for open spacetime. I have used Euclidean geometry, so no surprise that my equation doesn't have this term. MTW's Lambda refers to the cosmological constant, aka dark energy. And finally, MTW set G=c=1 in most places, I have written G explicitly.

So there you have it. Dimensional analysis, handled properly, gives us a portion of the FRW equation in cosmology. It is necessary to refer to general relativity in order to obtain the more general equation with the spatial curvature and cosmological constant terms and the proper constant for the matter term, but remember: there is no royal road.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I do not need to read any more after finding the fatal flaw. Everything else in your "theory" is based upon that one equation which you write as dS/dT = T the first time you express it. Where did you get this equation from? Did you pick it out of a hat? Did it come to you in a dream? You don't derive it from first principles, so maybe you meant to use it as a postulate? What evidence do you have for this as a postulate? How could this be tested in a laboratory? Remember, Einstein's postulate for the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum can be tested in a laboratory.
Then you need to write more carefully. You should have either stated that dS/dT is proportional to T or you should have written dS/dT=K*T with an explanation of what K is.
Are you proposing that there is some fundamental constant on a par with c and h-bar that can be used as a conversion between volume and time? What do we need such a constant for when we already have c? And again, if you are going to introduce a new fundamental constant and then set it to 1 throughout your computations, you should say so.
And mighty good calculations they are too. You ought to study them.
Strangely, a "unified" field theory that does not mention either the strong or the weak force, that makes no attempt to explain the various fundamental particles seen and their interactions with one another via these forces. All you deal with is electromagnetism and gravity in a cosmological context. And not very well.
Whoop-de-doo. So do a lot of other theories. Have you looked at some of the others?
No it is not. Most of it is pushing proportions about.
I have posted Celestial Mechanic Does it Right, which shows a proper application of dimensional analysis and other techniques to deduce a possible formula for the uniform expansion of space. Read it and learn from it.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Celestial Mechanic gets it wrong.

Hi Celestial Mechanic

What you present is not actually wrong; it is consistent with the limited expansion model. It is also a very good development of the relationships. However the limited expansion model fails because it requires dark energy and dark matter in order for the model to be consistent with the theory.

My model requires no dark energy and it significantly reduces the amount of dark matter necessary to maintain celestial stability.

Your fatal flaw
The error in your model, and all the calculations you posted, is that you are using the wrong dimension of time to describe the expansion of spacetime.

We have debated the use of two dimensions of time previously, but in this thread, the geometric reasoning for an “absolute” measure of time, in addition to a “relative” measure of time becomes clear. Using only relative measures of time it is extremely difficult to see the proper geometry by which the universe is conforming to. Using absolute measures of distance and time to describe the expansion of spacetime, fundamental principles, such as conservation of energy and momentum, and the inverse square laws observed between gravitational and electromagnetic effects, all result from a specific geometric expansion.

In the model proposed, all Laws and Kinetically based Principles are the result of the same geometry of expansion.

Snowflake

Hi Celestial Mechanic

Your post #45 has some specific questions that are pertinent.

The reason for dS/dT =T
You asked the reasoning for the dS/dT = T relationship.
I explained the process; I thought that if nothing changed there would be no measure of time. The equation is therefore metaphysically based, space changes, therefore time exists. Such metaphysical explanations are suspect, and need to be tested. The initial reason for searching for such a relationship was postied in my discussion on Dimensional Analysis

Dimensional Analysis
I also presented a dimensional analysis presentation in the paper posted. I do not think you read far enough into the paper to see it. I used dimensional analysis to establish what the dimensional form of a theoretical relationship should look like if the equivalence of inertial and gravitational forces was true. It was the discovery that the dimensional form of the above dS/dT = T corresponded to the same dimensional form necessary to have equivalence that excited me about the relationship. The discovery that celestial stability was preserved in such a model convinced me I was on the right track.

You asked the following
Are you proposing that there is some fundamental constant on a par with c and h-bar that can be used as a conversion between volume and time? What do we need such a constant for when we already have c?

This is an excellent question! It illustrates the necessity for relative and absolute measures of time.

If we imagine a cubically arranged matrix of points, like ions in a salt crystal, there is a specific spatial and temporal separation between every point in the matrix of points.

Based on relative measures of distance and time, the distance between every point stays the same in a uniformly expanded matrix. The time it takes for light to travel between every point will always stay the same and every measure of distance remains the same. The speed of light defines the relative spatial and temporal relationship between the points and is preserved as a constant, This direct relationship between relative measures of time and the spatial separation between points is one of the physical principles that special relativity is based on. It is why the speed of light is dimensionally represented as “1” even though it has dimensional unites of distance /time. The distance and time are equivalent by the relationship expressed by the speed of light between points.

Based on absolute measure of distance and time, the distance of every point in the matrix is increasing due to expansion. The interval of time it takes for time to pass between points is also increasing since the distance between all the points is increasing and the speed of light is also slowing down. (According to the proposed model)

Locally it is impossible to measure the slowing down of the speed of light, and the increased distance light must travel since all relative measures all change in the exact proportion that preserves the consistency of relative measures of distance and time. If you read more of my paper you will see that this is true.

Nuclear Forces
You also noted that there was no mention of Nuclear forces in the model, which is a necessary requirement for a Unified Field theory. Since gravity is the only force not conformant to an existing unification of forces, the uniting of gravity to electromagnetic forces completes the model.

However, there is more to this since a uniform expansion presents a problem in which it is necessary to describe where the expansion stops. It appears, based on the analysis of type 1a supernovas, that the expansion stops with the relationships found at the nuclear and “particle” level. (Although it appears that all particles are really structural arrangements of distance and time. The Pauli exclusion principle is not a just principle but a relationship described by the structure of reality).

Snowflake

There is one and only one dimension of time; there can be no "wrong" dimension of time. Now maybe you think I am using the wrong parametrization of time; that could be fixed if it is shown to be wrong. Can you show that the parametrization is wrong?
No it doesn't; you are still tripping over the different ways to parametrize time.
Strange, isn't it that generations of physicists have been able to describe conservation laws and inverse square laws without any reliance on your flawed theories? Indeed, you would not have anything to theorize without their work.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

"Metaphysically based"? "Metaphysical explanations are suspect"? You better believe it! If I receive a manuscript from a physics wannabe that relies on "metaphysically based" explanations and derivations, you better believe I consign it to File 13 right away. My time is too valuable to fritter on metaphysical nonsense. Now, what is the real derivation of this magical equation?
What I saw was poorly written
No, it does not. It illustrates your poor grasp of how dimensional analysis is conducted.
Nothing there that is not accounted for by reparametrization of the one and only time coordinate.
But have you really united gravity with the electromagnetic force? Just because both obey an inverse-square law (at certain scales!) does not automatically make them unified. The inverse-square law is a consequence of the geometry that the field acts in, not a property of the force itself.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Hi Celestial Mechanic

If all local or relative clocks all slow down at the same rate how would you describe how the clocks are slowing down?

Snowflake

Evidently you haven't been reading my commentary in other threads. There's nothing wrong with any of your clocks (as long as they are capable of recording proper time, that is). No proper-time clocks "slow down". If two different clocks record a different amount of time, it is because different amounts of proper time elapsed for the clocks.

Take for example, two drivers who set off from New York City to Los Angeles by two different routes. Their odometers will show that they traveled different distances. No one would suggest that their tires inflated or deflated along the way, or that rulers expanded or shrank. We understand that the distances really were different. It is the same with time, except that we do not have daily experience of differing proper times.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

HI Celestial Mechanic

I asked
If all local or relative clocks all slow down at the same rate how would you describe how the clocks are slowing down?

You said,
No proper-time clocks "slow down".
And
If two different clocks record a different amount of time, it is because different amounts of proper time elapsed for the clocks.

Despite the ambiguity of the response, from context I know what you mean.
So I ask this

If all Proper clocks (which is a relative or local clock) all slow down at the same rate, how would you describe how the clocks are slowing down?

Snowflake

Aren't you just asking the same question again, Snowflake?
Your reply added the question:
but CM had already replied with

__________________
Spike
:)

Couldn't have said it better myself!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Thank you Splke and Celestial Mechanic,

Just wanted to be absolutely sure we are on the same page.

So, what is your answer to my question?
If all Proper clocks (which is a relative or local clock) all slow down at the same rate, how would you describe how the clocks are slowing down?

Stating the question a different way.
Two clocks, in the same frame of reference, measure intervals of time that are identical. If both clocks are uniformly slowing down, how would you describe how the clocks are slowing down?

Is your answer,
A. You cannot describe how proper clocks proportionally slow down because they do not proportionally slow down.
B. It is irrelevant since physically it makes no difference.
C. Some other answer.

Snowflake

Proper time clocks do not "slow down", at the same rate, proportionally, or otherwise. They measure proper time. This is the third time you have asked the question. Please do not ask it again, differently worded or otherwise. It is becoming tedious.

And please note, gentle readers, I do NOT use the "evil" emoticon gratuitously.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Celestial Mechanic

I am going to assume your answer is at least A. You cannot describe how proper clocks proportionally slow down because they do not proportionally slow down.

If that is the case, my next question is.
“Why not? “

Philosophically such an idea is not that outrageous, almost all physicists recognize a proportional slowing down of physical processes for all objects in motion within the same inertial frame of reference.

I have established a model that allows all relative measures of time to keep their proportional measure, yet from an “absolute” perspective, using an “absolute” or fixed measure of time, it is possible to describe how all relative measures of time are slowing down.

In order to describe how all relative measures of time are slowing down, an “absolute clock” is necessary.

Snowflake

It is not a case of "cannot", it's a case of "don't have to".A lot of philosophical ideas are not very outrageous, but a lot of such ideas are not very physical either. Processes of objects appear to slow down only because less proper time has elapsed for these objects, not because proper time runs slower or faster. This is a very difficult concept to grasp, and it is no wonder that so many people have trouble with special relativity 100 years later.
If physical processes are controlled by proper time, as experimental evidence suggests, there is no need of any absolute time.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Relative and Absolute measures of time are different
It is required by my model that all relative measures of time all slow down with the expansion of spacetime. I gave an example in the posting of an expanding pendulum. In a uniformly expanded spacetime field the length of the pendulum increases and the distance between the centroids of the pendulum and the Earth increases. This requires that the period of the pendulum, or a measure of an interval of time to increase.

Before you repeat yourself that a logarithmic description of a variation in time does not equal a two dimensional system, lets at least allow me the use of the terms since it avoids ambiguity for the model proposed.

For example

An object observed 5 billion light years away in a 10 billion year old universe is observed how far back in time?

How much time has elapsed while the light from the 5 billion year old object has traveled to us?

Assume that there is no real or peculiar motion of the object or observer relative to the “fabric of spacetime” causing relativistic effects.

The answer to the above questions for the Limited Expansion model, (stopping the expansion at the boundary of galaxies), is the same, The object is observed 5 billion years ago and it took 5 billion years for the light to reach us.

The answer to the above questions for the uniform expansion model is different. It depends upon whether absolute or relative measures of time are being used.

An object observed 5 billion light years away in a 10 billion year old universe is observed 5 billion “absolute” years in the past.

In the time that it took for the light to reach us, 6.9 billion relative or experiential years have passed.

te = To ln(To/T1)

te = 10 ln (10/2) = 6.9 billion years

Absolute measures of time and relative measures of time are different in this model. Whether or not you want to allow me to say this is a two dimensional system is besides the point, It certainly is necessary to have the two descriptions of time to describe the proper temporal relationships.

Snowflake

You may want to think about what this bit means, i.e. why is gravity the "odd one out" in the standard model, and how does your model fix this problem?