wrote in message
...
On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is
an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
A result of this is it becomes a purely relative thing if its the
space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

So that means that the space around me is expanded and I am contracted
because I am on earth.. and if I go up to a high altitude, I will expand and
the space around me will contract.

WTH does that mean?

Needs work.

I think so

On Mar 1, 11:05 am, bz wrote:
wrote :



Yes, but that is a start. Now, you need to specify, preferably
mathematically, what 'in such a way' means and exactly how it 'expands
the surrounding space'.

Thats getting beyond my abilities as I am just a hobbyist but I do
have some ideas.Modeling with light and a co traveler so he can see
no change in the length of the light pulse suggest that time dilation
of say 1000 times would also contract our ruler by 1000 times its
length but remember thats for a rod.A cube would be 1000 times along 1
side but cubes have more side so you end up with 1 billion times less
volume.

I would not be investing so much on this theory if it did not explain
so much so well.Mainly the one where it gives the same predictions as
inflation theory but this theory gives a predicted mechanism for it,
what were the chances of that.

A theory without math is useless. No one else is going to 'be inspired by
your idea so much that THEY do the math for you'. Those that might be able
to do that have their own ideas that they are trying to describe in math.

I can see your point.


IF Newton had just said 'all things fall because of something called
gravity', he would have never been famous. But, he described HOW things
fall, with math.


I can see that is true and especially obvious here.The main part of
the discovery was both the measurements and the math.Otherwise what
was the point.

In fact, he 'invented' calculus in order to describe how things fall.


But in this alternative theory the basic math appears so very simple
that it might not require that much. Really its to simple to require
much math if its just to support the main theory itself.Other theories
leading off of this one is a different mater and I don't know where
they could end.

I did see where a lot of math could be useful here it involves
figuring out if the space expansion can give the same predictions as
those given for gravitational binding energy.And if an extra amount of
gravitational space expansion might occur just from the time dilating
effects by themselves.Most likely at least 1/2 of the expansion would
result from the extra mass or energy created with a collapse adding
its gravity but if the slower time causes the same matter to also have
more gravity due to its time being slower then you got both effects
working together.I might try a post to see if anyone has any ideas.Its
a big part of the problem of figuring out how black holes become new
universes.
Its probably worth pointing out that assuming others that the theory
is right and that others can see where the theory is right that any
extra work they add is their own.Put another way those that work from
a valid theory will make progress at a fantastic rate.

I suggest that you take a couple of years off from writing and talking
about your theory and study math and physics.


Not now, all I really want is for someone to point out where the
theory can be dead wrong otherwise its all fair game.Like I said as
long as I cant say that the stuff I put up on my site is wrong I got
nothing to feel guilty or embarrassed about, thats good enough for me
now.Let others get the credit for their work if they want to.I am sure
that if I post this question elsewhere I will have to be honest and
give credit to the answers given if they are decent and I am happy
with that.
This stuff does go pretty much public domain so whatever anyone adds
is their own work so its likely that by the time I learn to do decent
math it could be to late unless the theory is really ignored no mater
how correct it actually is.That makes me wonder is science always that
slow assuming this theory is right and its easy to figure out.I know
plate tectonics took something like 50 years to catch on when the math
and all had been done so what does this tell us, I just don't know.

A point of interest is I have always seamed to be in advance of time.
I even knew about the possibilities of nanotechnology's even before I
ever heard about Dexler.He was probably ahead of me but I did come to
the same ideas independently.
Bunch of other similar stuff but its off topic and it will all be
reviewed on the site.Lots of stuff about alternative power
sources ,robotics,alternate manufacturing methods, etc.

Come back when you can tell people exactly how your theory works.

Or take up a different hobby.

Good luck.

I don't want to bother you much anymore as I can see that now you are
only doing this to help me out but I would like to know where you
think the theory might be wrong and we can ignore the problems of
getting it accepted.Just point out what you think is clearly wrong
would help.But if your not sure well that would be helpful to know
too.

I noticed not many replied to this post with the exception of the
black sheep thing thats not very helpful and some others that were not
even to this subject.Liked the one by sue about other posters being
shy.I did note a profound silence wherever I post unless you note the
brief insults but even they are usually short.The other cranks get
nice long and detailed flames. Not sure what to make of it all.

I have learnt some ideas here on how I should explain it better and
that showing at least something like a postulate early on is probably
a good idea.And the pole in barn experiment probably should point out
ways of doing this experiment where the arguments that everything
getting pulled into a black hole or other distracting points can be
avoided.
Getting to work on it soon.
Dale

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Mar 1, 5:05 pm, "Artful" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is
an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
A result of this is it becomes a purely relative thing if its the
space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

So that means that the space around me is expanded and I am contracted
because I am on earth.. and if I go up to a high altitude, I will expand and
the space around me will contract.

WTH does that mean?

Needs work.

I think so

I never noticed you post till now, how odd.
Yes if the theory is right thats what is says.
How about some fun speculating.
One of the more interesting aspects of this theory is how it suggests
the possibility's for something like worm holes and how those worm
holes would actually work.
For example if you were to put a ruler into one end it would also come
out the other end because the matter in the ruler expanded and its
prospective of the surrounding space had become less but this theory
is different in that the time on the ruler is also much faster.Go in
one end and you may come out much older at the other end.
But if warp drives have any chance of existing at all in the real it
would most probably be the same as putting our space craft inside of a
worm hole and then moving the worm hole around with the ship
inside.The problem is that time on the ship becomes much faster and I
had to wonder what good would a warp drive be if you had to spend just
as much time traveling to distant parts of the universe as you would
without it.You would still dye of old age befor you got anywhere with
the only advantage being that time in the rest of the universe slowed
down to wait for you.Such a warp drive would only be useful for
sending probes that don't have a problem with aging.
But then again remember that inside the space ship the distances in
space actually appear less,objects end up physically closer in the
same way as observers outside of a black hole would observe objects
near the black hole as physically closer.This means that while the
time is vastly faster you may still end up using less of your time
traveling.

Actual worm holes if they can actually be created would behave as
white holes and be spherical.Best speculation I have on how to create
one involves the idea that negative energy will have a reverse
centrifugal force.The more they are spun the more fiercely they cling
together.But later parts of this theory but thats where it gets to be
more like other independent theories where I really tell if or where
it leaves the original theory and goes into looking something else but
it looks at the idea of an anti quantum vacuum and or anti ZPE as a
way of explaining the absence of antimatter in our universe.If it
exist there will be an anti anti gravity that would make the repulsive
gravity of a white hole act as it it was not there.Might be essential
to actually creating one.
I cant think of any experiments to support these ideas at this time so
this is really just speculating big time.Without experimental
approaches one only has speculation.
Dale

wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 5:05 pm, "Artful" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might
be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know
is
an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
A result of this is it becomes a purely relative thing if its the
space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

So that means that the space around me is expanded and I am contracted
because I am on earth.. and if I go up to a high altitude, I will expand
and
the space around me will contract.

WTH does that mean?

Needs work.

I think so

I never noticed you post till now, how odd.
Yes if the theory is right thats what is says.

But what does that mean. Why don't I notice this change in the space around
me. If it is not something I can possibly measure, then as far as physics
is concerned it is irrelevant.

Do you have a link to where this odd proposal of yours is explained more
clearly .. or is this the best we can hope to get at this stage?

On Mar 1, 5:05 pm, "Artful" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is
an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
A result of this is it becomes a purely relative thing if its the
space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

So that means that the space around me is expanded and I am contracted
because I am on earth.. and if I go up to a high altitude, I will expand and
the space around me will contract.

WTH does that mean?

Needs work.

I think so

Got a tiny bit of the argument on the web site but I only managed just
to get the uploading to work ago never mind decent content so don't
expect much. Now that I am up and going I will be adding more content
and fixing all those errors etc. Its got main part of the basic
gedanken to get you started thinking about how this works, if you
haven't seen it already that is.
www.alttheories.com

Yes if the theory is right thats what is says.
How about some fun speculating.
One of the more interesting aspects of this theory is how it suggests
the possibility's for something like worm holes and how those worm
holes would actually work.
For example if you were to put a ruler into one end it would also come
out the other end because the matter in the ruler expanded and its
prospective of the surrounding space had become less but this theory
is different in that the time on the ruler is also much faster.Go in
one end and you may come out much older at the other end.
But if warp drives have any chance of existing at all in the real it
would most probably be the same as putting our space craft inside of a
worm hole and then moving the worm hole around with the ship
inside.The problem is that time on the ship becomes much faster and I
had to wonder what good would a warp drive be if you had to spend just
as much time traveling to distant parts of the universe as you would
without it.You would still dye of old age befor you got anywhere with
the only advantage being that time in the rest of the universe slowed
down to wait for you.Such a warp drive would only be useful for
sending probes that don't have a problem with aging.
But then again remember that inside the space ship the distances in
space actually appear less,objects end up physically closer in the
same way as observers outside of a black hole would observe objects
near the black hole as physically closer.This means that while the
time is vastly faster you may still end up using less of your time
traveling.


Actual worm holes if they can actually be created would behave as
white holes and be spherical.Here it gets to be
more like another independent theory where I really cant tell if or
where it leaves the original theory and goes into looking something
like another independent theory.
Best speculation I have on how to create
one involves the idea that negative energy if it exists will have a
reverse centrifugal force, the more it is spun the more fiercely it
will cling together.
This extra hypothesis looks at the idea of an anti quantum vacuum and
or anti ZPE as a
way of explaining the absence of antimatter in our universe.Argues
that there must be such a thing because of how it leads to more
reasonable explanations of why our universe is not 1/2 antimatter
without resorting to the more mystical CP violations now required.If
it
exist there will be an anti anti gravity that would make the repulsive
gravity of a white hole act as it it was neutral.Thats kind of useful
to get our space ship into a white hole as otherwise they have really
intense repulsive gravity.Might prove to be essential to actually
creating one at all.
I cant think of any experiments to support these ideas at this time so
this is really just speculating big time.Without experimental
approaches one only has speculation.
Dale

On Mar 1, 9:58 pm, "Artful" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Mar 1, 5:05 pm, "Artful" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might
be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know
is
an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
A result of this is it becomes a purely relative thing if its the
space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

So that means that the space around me is expanded and I am contracted
because I am on earth.. and if I go up to a high altitude, I will expand
and
the space around me will contract.

WTH does that mean?

Needs work.

I think so

I never noticed you post till now, how odd.
Yes if the theory is right thats what is says.

But what does that mean. Why don't I notice this change in the space around
me.

Its tinny.You need time to be slower by some really large amount
before you could measure it easily.

If it is not something I can possibly measure, then as far as physics

since this is not emphasized on the site or mentioned here I
probably should point out that even our planet should give us
something we can measure but with the tiny gravity and therefor tiny
time dilation of our planet its going to be tiny but it will add up if
you were to measure from orbit.Still wont be much but it will be
measurable.You will get really big predictions for neutron stars and
even bigger predictions for black holes.Assuming the theory is right
that is.
Dale

is concerned it is irrelevant.

Do you have a link to where this odd proposal of yours is explained more
clearly .. or is this the best we can hope to get at this stage?

wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 5:05 pm, "Artful" wrote:
So that means that the space around me is expanded and I am contracted
because I am on earth.. and if I go up to a high altitude, I will expand
and
the space around me will contract.
WTH does that mean?
Needs work.
I think so

Yes if the theory is right thats what is says.

But what the hell does that mean And that fact the we've not observed
anything like what that sounds would immediately refute the theory. We
have, however, seem gravitational time dilation happening.

[snip crap about worm holes from a theory that has no apparent basis in
experiment and no model to even begin making such wild conclusions]

wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 9:58 pm, "Artful" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Mar 1, 5:05 pm, "Artful" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in
news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them
might
be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of
special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the
set-of-things-I-do-not-know
is
an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in
such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
A result of this is it becomes a purely relative thing if its the
space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

So that means that the space around me is expanded and I am contracted
because I am on earth.. and if I go up to a high altitude, I will
expand
and
the space around me will contract.

WTH does that mean?

Needs work.

I think so

I never noticed you post till now, how odd.
Yes if the theory is right thats what is says.

But what does that mean. Why don't I notice this change in the space
around
me.

Its tinny.You need time to be slower by some really large amount
before you could measure it easily.

How do you know .. do you have any figures to back this up? Have you any
predictions that can be tested for experimentally?

wrote in message
...
www.alttheories.com

==
This theory started with the realization that the way gravity can be
shown to at least relative to us
==

In what way does that show gravity is relative to us .. and what do you
actually means by gravity being relative?

==
, slow time, that this slowing of time
can also be shown to contract mater
==

How can it be shown. What experiments would show this. What reason is
there for making such a wild assertion.

==
If you measure space with a
contracted rod you end up measuring more space or distances as the case
may be.
==

No .. you end up measuring the same space, but coming up with a different
answer, because your ruler is shorter. The same applies to anything you
measure .. it will give you higher numbers. So it doesn't matter whether it
is space or matter (as you seem to draw a distinction between the two).

==
Leads to all sorts of explanations for a whole bunch of physics stuff.
==

"Physics stuff"? You expect to be taken seriously at all with remarks such
as that?

==
Nearly everyone knows now that black holes and their extreme gravity
slow down time to an extreme, at least to us outside observers so how do
you show that it also contracts mater.
==

Really .. you need to improve your writing style.

==
About the easiest way to start
is by looking at the pole-valt in barn thought experiment only this time we
also add a slowed down time within the barn.
==

You don't need that .. the effect is due to changes in simultaneity which
result in the physical effect of a long pole being shorter at any given
instant in the frame of the barn.

==
But if the barn has a
significant amount of slower time inside it by for example 2 small
black holes in rotation about each other so we have a clear path
between them and then do this experiment again
==

So a similar example is it you have a meter rod upright at the top of a tall
tower and then move it, will an observer at the top of the town see
something different wrt the velocity and length of the rod compared to an
observer moving with the rod, or someone on the ground. ie will it matter
who is trying to keep the velocity of the rod to appear constant.

On Mar 2, 3:24 am, "Artful" wrote:
wrote in message

...

www.alttheories.com

==
This theory started with the realization that the way gravity can be
shown to at least relative to us
==

In what way does that show gravity is relative to us .. and what do you
actually means by gravity being relative?

I must have meant the time slowing due to gravity.Time is a very
relative thing and I could not have meant gravity was relative.Had to
just be my poor writing skills.


==
, slow time, that this slowing of time
can also be shown to contract materShapiro effect
==

How can it be shown. What experiments would show this. What reason is
there for making such a wild assertion.

More than 1 hypothetical tests are reviewed and are crudely written up
on my website.
But to actually do such an experiment you would have to forget about
the pole in barn experiment but something like how the Shapiro effect
was done would work.Instead of barn doors you would use satellites in
certain locations etc.Remember that the Shapiro effect
was done by measuring the change or rather the decrease in the speed
of light as it passed our sun.

So how can we argue that this effect can be shown to be wrong.About
the only way is if we can argue that from the rods prospective
something very different is observed but how. No question that the
outside observer will see the rod now fit within a much smaller length
of space.
To be honest I had to look really hard at this question as it was the
only way I could falsify my own theory.Remember our rod is in free
fall traveling faster and faster and will see distances becoming less
and less from its prospective.
But if you were to assume that our traveler was to use rockets to
prevent his gaining and then losing any extra relative speed then it
becomes more obvious that yes he should see his space measuring more
as a result of the time dilating effects of gravity.Another way is to
hypothesize about keeping the time dilating effects of gravity minus
the gravity and then the effect is also really obvious without the
confusion of gaining extra speeds that also contract distances to the
prospective of our rod.
Actually its easy to argue that the even from the rods prospective it
should be able to apply relativistic corrections mathematically.
In the end I didn't come to any conclusions on where the theory could
be wrong but it would be good to have some others also take a look.But
used to post this all the time a year or more ago and never got much
in useful opinions.

Another point about all this is that you have to remember the analogy
I had on light entering a glass rod and getting shorter as it travels
slower.I had a discussion with some physicists one time and it was
pointed out that at the fundamental level there may actually be no
such thing as true rest mass, all those quantum particles zip around
and or disappear in one place and appear elsewhere etc where the speed
of light is a factor so why would matter be any different than light
when it enters a slower time. So also it hypothetically it should
contract the same way for much the same reason.
Got a hypothetical light box idea for the web site that illustrates
another interpretation of the possible cause of inertia as a result.It
was interesting that while light has no mass it can be shown to add
mass to a hypothetical box.What if quantum particle could have inertia
by the same mechanism ? No rest mass at all, in sold mass, would be
interesting if its true.
Don't know what to make of it but it appeared to gave the same
predictions, conservation of energy and equivalence principle and all
that.Never did much with it but it would be very odd if if actually
did give any other predictions.



==
If you measure space with a
contracted rod you end up measuring more space or distances as the case
may be.
==

No .. you end up measuring the same space, but coming up with a different
answer, because your ruler is shorter. The same applies to anything you
measure .. it will give you higher numbers. So it doesn't matter whether it
is space or matter (as you seem to draw a distinction between the two).

Not so sure that could be true, If you measure more space how you can
argue that the extra space you measure is not actually extra space.How
can you tell your meter stick is different if everything about that
meter stick says its a meter long even when an outside observer
measures your space as much less.
I point out that circumferences around planets etc will be more
because the rulers are shorter but how could you possibly tell that
your measure is the right one and the other is wrong.Outside measures
will say the space is less but inside measures will say the space is
more.I would really have to think hard about how one could argue
different.

On the other hand I do hypothesize that its the quantum vacuum or ZPE
thats different.In other words a more concentrated quantum vacuum
would contract all of your toll in such a way that anything you could
use to measure that difference just contracts so it comes out the
same.I looked at the idea of taking along a set of Casimir's plates on
a space ship to see if they could be shown to be able to detect the
differences.They should not be able too but my maths is not good but I
attempted it.Remember that I think they plates pulled together by 16
times the force each time the distances were 1/2 so if matter
contracted so would the Casimir's plates but remember that the time is
also 1/2 as fast and the plates are also 1/4 the area.
Seams to keep the proper relationships but don't remember now so I
might try it again sometime.I think its what they say, it needs to be
covariant.
Thing is that space may not just be a relative difference in a rulers
length.

This theory is really not to be confused with Lorentz contractions and
I used to have a really hard time pointing that out when I used to
post about this theory a long time ago.You cant get extra space or
even less space with it.Just doesn't seam to work that way.


==
Leads to all sorts of explanations for a whole bunch of physics stuff.
==

"Physics stuff"? You expect to be taken seriously at all with remarks such
as that?

==
Nearly everyone knows now that black holes and their extreme gravity
slow down time to an extreme, at least to us outside observers so how do
you show that it also contracts mater.
==

Really .. you need to improve your writing style.

Yes I know. Will try to do better and re write the site bit by bit But
I have to chose between adding more content or improving on whats
there.

==
About the easiest way to start
is by looking at the pole-valt in barn thought experiment only this time we
also add a slowed down time within the barn.
==

You don't need that .. the effect is due to changes in simultaneity which
result in the physical effect of a long pole being shorter at any given
instant in the frame of the barn.

==
But if the barn has a
significant amount of slower time inside it by for example 2 small
black holes in rotation about each other so we have a clear path
between them and then do this experiment again
==

So a similar example is it you have a meter rod upright at the top of a tall
tower and then move it, will an observer at the top of the town see
something different wrt the velocity and length of the rod compared to an
observer moving with the rod, or someone on the ground. ie will it matter
who is trying to keep the velocity of the rod to appear constant.

Never thought about looking at it that way.Might be something I could
use, will have to think about it.
But tired now.
Dale