Is Gravity Time's Archer?

On the subject of time and gravity, I go by Bill Unruh`s statement;

' .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time's flowing unequably from place to place...'

Time, Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics

W. G. Unruh

CIAR Cosmology Program

Dept. of Physics

University of B. C.

Vancouver, Canada V6T 2A6

arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

As per my attachement I have a new approach to how Time works but as a result I realised that it could be paired with Gravity as a combined force similar to the EMF but with an intriguing consequence with respect to developing a pathway to merging Quantum Gravity to General Relativity.

Given the Universe is Infinite for the sake of argument then Time be as well and we know Gravity is infinite and is one of the four forces of nature.By looking at Time as an Energy Force and pairing it with Gravity we have the potential for a combined Force of Nature similar to the EMF.

The Universe has four dimensions, three spatial and one of Time so the four forces of nature are part of the four dimensional picture. Now we have a common denominator which is Time that is both an Energy Force and a universal dimension.

If so then Time's elementary particle or Timeon must somehow be combined with the Graviton and I allow for many Timeons to share one Graviton within what I call a Timeon Flock (like a Planck scaled wave-function)such that we can now endow each particle within it with their own Position and Time coordinates. By scaling up or down the number of Flocks through increasing or decreasing the gravitational density values, I believe we would allow for the merging of Quantum Gravity (QM) with General Relativity whilst also bridging General Relativity with the Quantum Field Theory.

By including Time with Gravity and merging it with the QTF, this is what I believe could be Dark Energy. By combing the above with the four dimensions through the glue that is Time, we may have the answer to the Theory of Everything!Attachment #1: Time__Gravity_the_Gravitational_Union..docxAttachment #2: Time_A_new_Realty_of_Physics_August_2014_-_March_2015.pdf

Bijective epistemology introduces mass and gravity have origin in variable energy density of quantum vacuum where time has only a mathematical existence.Attachment #1: Bijective_Epistemology_Higgs_mechanism_and_Higgs_boson.pdf

Hello Mr Agnew,

The quantum gravity can be explained in my humble line of reasoning respecting the quantum sphères and my 2 équations , the black mass is the secret ...

PS Time is not really a dimension you know, it is a duration implied by evolution spherisation at my humble point of vue.

Reversible ??? I cannot agree, we see our past indeed but we cannot go.

Regards

Indeed dear Mr Sorli,

I don't understand why somany scientists insist on these extrapolations, mathematical.It is not rational and objective. We can see our past with the relativity and we can also decrease our internal clocks but never we shall travel in time.We can only travel in space.

Regards

I have read your attachements,

Do you think that the system of fusion in mass is a binar system or an unique fusioned system ?

If the lifetime is short,so if it is a binar system so the synchronisation of sphères and their rotations are releevant considering the increasing of mass.

Regards

Pls suggest a few publically accessible things to read for more depth on shape and these ideas relating time and gravity?

Shape Dynamics Absurder Than Einstein's Relativity

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/shape-dynamics/

" With shape dynamics, says Gryb, "we're taking this very simple idea and trying to push it as far as we can. And what we realized--which was a surprise to me, actually--is that you can have relativity of scale and reproduce a theory of gravity which is equivalent to Einstein's theory--but you have to abandon the notion of relative time." "

Julian Barbour and his protégés don't know what they are talking about. Einstein's relative time is a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 two postulates - you cannot abandon it without abandoning (as false) a postulate.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

it was an interesting article. It is true that scale relativity is not dealt with by Einstein and yet it is everyday experience that the output from the sensory data we receive does show difference in observed size depending on distance from source. Perspective has been known in art since the Renaissance yet seems ignored in physics. That fact of apparent size variation makes it obvious that the observed object is an image manifestation and not the object itself. Yet somehow that is forgotten when observations are dealt with within special relativity. It was really interesting to hear that they can reproduce Einstein's results using shape dynamics. I also think it a really interesting and important realization that shape has a stability that size does not, when considering distance from an observer. Though thinking about perspective I don't think that stability is retained in the output image of an observer, if the triangle is rotated about different axes and then observed. So it definitely it depends upon whether it is a triangle object of fixed shape who is angles can not change or an image fabrication that can vary according to how the sensory data from which it is constructed is received, that is under consideration .- though I suspect that Julian might still say that it is neither but a triangle in abstract shape space.That the triangles are being considered for tiling space and thinking about black holes just surprises me but it isn't absurd, merely seeing what the idea can do.

Luboš Motl repeats my argument against Julian Barbour:

http://motls.blogspot.fr/2016/01/space-dynamics-and-antirelativistic.html

"The first problem with Mercati's "replacement" is that the "relativity of simultaneity" isn't a postulate or axiom of relativity. It is an unavoidable derived consequence of the postulates. One may be interested in this question or not interested in this question (whether the simultaneity is absolute or relative). One may emphasize or suppress this question. But the point is that we may talk about it and once we do, relativity gives an unequivocal answer: different observers must differ in their notion of simultaneity of two events. Otherwise the equivalence of the observers (principle of relativity) must be violated; or (like in Newton's theory) the speed of light will depend on the motion of sources and/or observers."

Correct. And the speed of light does depend on the motion of sources and observers.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

I found the full article, though it would have been much easier if you provided proper links. I am dismayed that the author took the time to write such a lengthy exceedingly scathing, vitriolic diatribe. I am somewhat dismayed with myself for reading such worthless, uncouth, shameless rubbishing of other people. Lubos Motl is extremely insulting, actually going beyond insult to extensive verbal abuse.I thought of giving some examples of that to demonstrate but I would be too ashamed even to quote it. Why channel all that energy into such a mean critique, has he nothing better to do with his time? Some physics perhaps? Julian Barbour is perusing his passion. At 87 why shouldn't he? I don't much like Picasso's work but he was passionate about it, doing something very different and unconventional and it is now highly regarded. There is a significant difference between constructive criticism intended to be helpful and personal attack presumably for some kind of ego inflating self gratification. I think Lubos Motl should lay off criticizing others and do some introspection.

Julian Barbour and his protégés want to abandon Einstein's relative time without discarding Einstein's relativity. This is impossible - my argument above explains why:

"Einstein's relative time is a deductive consequence of Einstein's 1905 two postulates - you cannot abandon it without abandoning (as false) a postulate."

Then Luboš Motl repeated essentially the same argument:

http://motls.blogspot.fr/2016/01/space-dynamics-and-antirelativistic.html

"The first problem with Mercati's "replacement" is that the "relativity of simultaneity" isn't a postulate or axiom of relativity. It is an unavoidable derived consequence of the postulates. One may be interested in this question or not interested in this question (whether the simultaneity is absolute or relative). One may emphasize or suppress this question. But the point is that we may talk about it and once we do, relativity gives an unequivocal answer: different observers must differ in their notion of simultaneity of two events. Otherwise the equivalence of the observers (principle of relativity) must be violated; or (like in Newton's theory) the speed of light will depend on the motion of sources and/or observers."

Barbour's "relative time" mistake is the only thing I intended to report here. Please let us not discuss Motl's personality - I am by no means his fan.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's work should not be a straight jacket that prevents any exploration around his ideas. Perhaps if anything is changed it is strictly speaking no longer Einstein's relativity. As Tom has pointed out to me there is no alternative interpretation to be made as what it is follows precisely from how it is formulated. That said, it doesn't mean the investigators are throwing away everything, declaring Einstein wrong and trying to usurp the model with their provisional explorations.Its more like 'what if we think about it this way?',and 'there are some interesting similarities', that's how I read it anyway. I would have thought that you, Pentcho, would actually support people looking into alternatives rather than jumping on Motl's snide bandwagon. Personally I don't see why just as Einstein thought of placing clocks in space, meter sticks could not be placed in space and then relative size can be compared to local size. Motl seems to think that scale in-variance of substantial objects precludes there being relative size, I think he is wrong about that, and wrong to ridicule people with greater insight than his own. Why not have a stick and a clock for goodness sake. What exactly Julian Barbour and team are doing is beyond my ken but live and let live, why not?

Clearly a meter stick image that is seen as a result of received EM radiation is NOT a meter stick object made of atoms. Yet mental object recognition capabilities allow the received and processed information be associated with such an object. That object recognition capability is useful for an organism navigating and surviving within its environment. However to equate the output image with the object made of atoms is a category error. There is no way a seen car(image) that I can measure to be 1 inch in length with my near ruler is a car object in which full sized people made of atoms can fit. It follows, the distant image meter stick length can be measured by comparison with the length of the image of the near object meter stick.The seen length being a relative measurement. The distant image size varies like the size of the elephant mentioned in the article. One has to consider which space the shape is in. Is it an invariant object shape in external space or a scale variant output image that appears in a space-time image environment.( Or is it in an abstract mathematical space in which case 'objects' might be scale variant or invariant depending on how they are modelled to be. Lubos Motl seems to have been solely considering the first kind of space and object. Either that or he was falling into the category error of equating image with object and mentally applying the material object's full size to the image of smaller size and claiming the image size to be invariant-it is clearly not.)

I discussed the same problem with Julian Barbour a few years ago:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1495

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 11:03 GMT

Author Julian Barbour wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 08:41 GMT

Barbour claims that absolute simultaneity and Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate are compatible and I disagree of course. Any reasonable scientist knows Barbour is wrong and yet... the prize went to him while I had to leave the contest.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Whether Barbour is right or wrong, his program is compatible with Einstein. In fact, shape dynamics is an attempt to explain all physical constants. It is no more reasonable to reject the empirically measured constant speed of light, than it is to reject the first principle of thermodynamics.

How are you coming on that refraction problem?

We know that the amount of matter of pra-kilogram on the Earth surface and on the Mars surface is the same. Which is value of inertial mass of pra-kilogram on the Mars surface?Attachment #1: Origin_of_Energy_Mass_Gravity_and_Antigravity.pdf

JULIAN BARBOUR AND TIME聽

I do not deny existence of time as Barbour is doing. He wins FQXI research on origin of time few years ago. His article was published at Arxiv. Barbour tries to abolish time from physics, so in his article there is no symbol t for time.聽

This is funny and shows Barbour did not get the point regarding what is time. It is true time does not exists as a physical reality in which changes take time. Barbour got that point, but he went in another extreme thinking that time does not exist at all. He is wrong. Time is not fundamental physical reality in which changes take聽place, time is merely numerical order of changes taking place in space.聽

FQXI spend about 1,5 millions聽of Dollars for advanced research on time and Barbour article is the main result of this investment. It is sad to see to spend so much money for such a meaningless result as is Barbour paper. I also apply but I did not get 1 Dollar. Because I do not belong any official scientific organization. What a nonsense is this. About time there was written so much crap from the side of established scientist with no result.聽

Now FQXI will spend few millions for research on the origin of the observer. I also apply, I send him my papers, but they answer me I'm not coming in consideration for grant. Again a lot of money will be spent with no result. Because this so-called 聽"established" scientists are "chewing" in their minds this old paradigm of physics with "space-time" (where time is 4th dimension" which is pure failure in which physics cannot progress.聽

How is possible that after for more than hundred years in physics is still believed time is the 4th dimension of space? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_is_possible_that_after_for_more_than_hundred_years_in_physics_is_still_believed_time_is_the_4th_dimension_of_space#56f57fce40485402e96b27ff [accessed Mar 25, 2016].Attachment #1: 6_On_the_origin_of_the_observer.pdfAttachment #2: 2_Observer_as_a_Component_of_Health_Care_Psychic_Teleporting_and_Telepathy.pdf

I encourage you to avoid the sour grapes and yet I also encourage you to keep jousting against the windmill's of pedagogy. You have model, I have a different model, and there are a large number of other people with different models.

Mainstream science realizes that uniting gravity and charge forces will require a very different approach and that mainstream science remains trapped in a blind alley of its own pedagogy. However, if it were so easy to find a path out of the local minimum in which science currently finds itself, it would have happened long ago.

I like your DQV (dynamic quantum vacuum) approach since it comes down to an aether and that is my approach as well in aethertime. However, since you still believe in both time and space, your DQV aether will necessarily have all of the same pathologies as does the current quantum foam of spacetime. Also, it is not clear what role phase and coherence has with DQV aether, which of course is how any aether will be a quantum gravity as well as quantum charge. In other words, where is the Schrödinger equation?

Let's face it. You have not really made a very strong case for the usefulness of DQV aether for addressing the issues of cosmology that don't already have explanations. In other words, simply saying that DQV explains dark matter is not as useful as actually doing a calculation that shows that DQV aether shows how a galaxy rotates. Replacing dark matter with another equally mysterious substance called DQV aether hardly seems that useful.