Predictions and the theory of gravitational time

The theory of gravitational time and divergent coordinate systems will undoubtedly be controversial before it becomes accepted. Covered here are 14 predictions that follow from this model of time and relative geometry that are unaccounted for by existing relativity based models.

1. Bullet Cluster

The model of spatial dilation as the mechanism of gravity and the source of the equivalence principle predicts exactly the lensing effects that we observe in regards to ultra massive clusters with a significant relative velocity as in the case of the bullet cluster. If two or more bodies of significant mass and velocity approach each other, the spatial dilation of each approaching body will eventually interfere. The result would be exactly what we see: A gravitational lens flare that does not align with the center of observable mass.

2. Relativistic Doppler Shift Without Naively Dilating Time

While the Newtonian Doppler shift follows from pure motion in a way that aligns perfectly with our observations of the Universe around us, relativistic Doppler shifts require that we dilate the time elapsed for the observer. See Consistent Simultaneity for why this is likely nonsensical. If the passage of this mysterious medium we describe as time does not dilate with respect to relative motion, but it is distance that dilates and in turn the dilation of this distance is what we experience as time, we can achieve precisely the same experimental results without applying as a scalar of a quantity that we can not directly observe.

There is a blog post addressing this claim in the context of the Pound-Rebka1 experiment, where researchers at Harvard placed an emitter at and attempted to find the relative velocity away from the receiver at ¹ that would perfectly cancel the gravitational Doppler shift of the light emitted from the additional height available here. They found a velocity of , which coincides precisely with what is predicted by a model in which spatial dilation occurs at exactly at distance , where is the height above

Where is the motion of the emitter with respect to time.

3. Singularities

If spatial dilation is the mechanism producing what we experience as the force of gravity and this spatial density is relative, geodesics no longer terminate under significant gravitational dilation, following a similar principle to the fact that a number, no matter how small, can always be divided by . No matter how much or how little our coordinate system might be dilated compared to the co-ordinate system of another observer at a different position along this density axis, the observer at the varied spatial density should have no direct awareness of this discrepancy as all of space dilates.

As several quantities, including would dilate proportionally to this spatial density, singularities are no longer formed by points of infinite density, but rather by locations where , where is the speed of light in the spatial density of the observer some significant distance away from the center of the 'singularity'. If dilates inversely proportional to spatial density, there is no loss of causality or causal disconnect in the coordinate system of an observer near the singularity.

In a similar manner to which the human eye can only see a small range within the electromagnetic spectrum, there is no reason to believe that what we describe as a point of near infinite density is not of proportion to another observer at a difference spatial density. As relative motion can bring tones that are inaccessible to a human ear into the audible range, so too should a shift along this density axis bring into proportion a different spatial density.

4. Super Evolved Galaxies

As this model predicts a Universe in which all spatial coordinates exist concurrently along this density axis, there is no temporal limitation on the evolution of distant galaxies. This model produces no mechanism that dictates that our 'Big Bang' event must have happened concurrently with that of another distant observer. When the world line of Earth was at a temporal position that we now describe as the big bang, there is no reason that other bodies couldn't exist at a temporal position that even now is in the 'future' according to our current reference frame.

In other words, although the logic behind the Big Bang is solid, and a state like the one described by that model likely exists at some point along this density axis, there is no reason to believe that all bodies within the Universe shared that temporal position concurrently.

Figuratively speaking, if this density axis were to be compared to the latitude of a position on the Earth's surface, there is no reason to believe that as we existed at the equator or the ultra-dense 'Big Bang' that there were not concurrent bodies existing at a lesser density in Chicago, eating horrendous pan pizza and hopelessly cheering for the Bears.

5. Grandfather Paradox

This theory of relative spatial dilation predicts a model of chronological ordering that is much more inline with the way we order events in space. If a body exists at density and continues to along this density axis, as any temporal progression indicates, there is no reason to believe that or any events or bodies that influenced should remain at density . If the allegorical grandfather of , undertook a series of events at which later produced at , the temporal component of the displacement 4-vector of is now, apart from any significant relativistic spatial dilation, on the order of the temporal component of the displacement vector of . Further, if both and were to somehow find their way back to density , there is no mechanism for the events that now take place at to affect events that have already occurred at . To put it plainly, if the 'grandfather' undertook an action to produce the 'grandson' at , the grandfather ceased to exist at the moment after he undertook that action, and it's no more logical for the 'grandson' to be able to change the events that led to him being able to prevent those events in the first place than it is for someone driving along the highway to avoid a pothole ahead of him by swerving around a pothole behind him.

6. Fine Tuning & Fermi Paradox

has long been one of, or perhaps the single most physically consequential transcendental quantity apart from . The fact that suggests some sort of gravitational, or perhaps even unified well. If we exist at a density and velocity such that and appear to conspire in some unknown manner to produce this transcendental ratio with such unique mathematical properties, it could be that this is the natural course of the Universe. As all of what we know about the Universe indicates that we are not unique or special, it could be that other forms of complex life exist across not only vast spatial distances, but also across varied densities such that their own velocity, density and gravitational acceleration conspire in a similar manner.

See Center of Mass Shift for more on this symmetry, and Relativistic Symmetry for a potential relation between this symmetry and our rotational velocity.

7. The Mass Independence of Gravity

This model relies upon a mechanism of gravity in which the kinetic state of an observer does not change in response to what we observe as gravitational acceleration. If it is space the dilates toward the observer while the observer remains in an inertial state, then and . Since the observer or body experiencing this dilation of space experiences no acceleration, and gravity is indeed not a force. Not only does this directly address the struggle to quantify gravity, but this describes a mechanism of action in which the mass of the observer must be irrelevant to the effects of this dilating space in any direct manner.

In other words, bodies of different masses accelerate at the same rate due to gravity for the same reason that a large person and a small person will lunge forward at the same rate if the car they are riding in slams on the breaks. Both bodies lunge forward at the same rate because it is not that they are being accelerated, but that the car around them is accelerating in the opposite direction. Likewise, the force applied to their respective seat belts will be larger for the larger person, in the same manner that a piano will impact the ground with more force than a pillow.

As in the car analogy above, the body in free fall is not accelerating, but rather space accelerates around that body until there is an external interaction, which than creates a change in velocity of the body that appears to be in free fall.

8. Equivalence Principle

See Relativistic Symmetry

The model of relative spatial dilation being proposed suggests that the equivalence principle is far more than a useful mathematical construct. Since the velocity of an observer in free fall due to gravity is found by:

We might write this as:

This describes the equivalence principle as the literal upward motion of the surface of a gravitational source, as a consequence of the integrated dilation of space along the radial vector to that position.

9. Michelson & Morley

Michelson and Morley2 are often credited with disproving the existence of a luminous ether by demonstrating that the speed of light does not vary according to the direction of the emission of this light, across the Earth's surface. The belief was that if a luminous ether existed, the motion of Earth through this ether would produce measurable drag in the direction of travel. When examined closer however, this experiment while incredibly clever, merely demonstrates the lack of ether drag normal to the Earth's surface. If we consider the principle of spatial dilation being proposed, this 'ether' would dilate in a radiating pattern from the center of mass of massive bodies as they move through space. Not only does this dilation of space in a radiating pattern not conflict with the Michelson Morley experiment, it predicts precisely the gravitational Doppler shift of light that we've confirmed experimentally.

10. Retro-causality

If an action is taken at there is no reason to conclude that that action can not have an effect at , and have another effect at , in that order, before the observer arrives at . This model predicts a mechanism of chronological ordering that allows time to behave as another spatial axis in the sense that events may occur in an order along this axis that is not necessarily linear. Not only does this provide a mechanism for retrocausality, permitting that all observations are in the 'future' relative to the action that initiated that sequence of events if the force carrying mechanism can act across this density axis, but many time travel paradoxes no longer apply.

This should not be taken to imply that an observer at density can not create an event that will have an effect at , even though that density is in the 'past' with respect to the observer in question. Rather, the observer and any events that affected the observer in any manner will no longer exist at density .

11. Lack of Gravitational Aberration

As this model of relative spatial dilation declares that this dilation of space is time, we can easily infer that objects that appear to share a time component of their displacement 4-vector may exist separated by some density, particularly if the spatial components of their respective 4-vectors are sufficiently separated. As the dilation of space being proposed increases as a function of the magnitude of motion through space, it must be that less dense coordinate systems exist in the 'future' with respect to an observer at a greater density. As this dilation of space is proportional to , a decrease in should correspond with a decrease in density, .

In turn, if we extrapolate upon this model to describe a system similar to our own solar system, in which a vastly more massive body is orbited by one or more less massive bodies, the more massive body would exist at a greater density at the time of the emission of this spatial dilation, despite appearing to exist at a shared density to the orbiting bodies. This discrepancy in density would supersede the period expected, where is the theoretical velocity of gravity itself, to include this discrepancy in density as well. If gravity exerts itself along this temporal component of an spatial system, and the orbiting body exists in the 'future' according to the primary source of gravitation, the orbiting body may experience a change in displacement that appears to be while gravity and the gravitational source move along the density axis .

This is somewhat synonymous with the notion that the dilation of space around the primary source of gravitation is responsible for the physical effects of gravity, and that gravity itself does not need to radiate from the body itself to exert it's effects at some distance .

12. Two-Body Tidal Lock

If there exists a system of massive bodies in free space such that the theoretical spatial dilation around them is not too turbulent, as would be the case in two body systems of a reasonably small orbiting radius compared to that of other nearby bodies, this mechanism of gravity predicts a behavior similar to what we've described as tidal lock. If we describe this system such that the larger body is and the smaller , let orbit at radius . Let the angle of along the plane of rotation be and let represent the radial vector of such that is initially pointing to the center of mass of .

If the effects of gravity are due to this theoretical spatial dilation being proposed, then as increases with 'time', or the dilation of space, any rotation of away from would result in an asymmetrical force being applied to , under which a greater force would be applied to on the side that is rotating towards , and a lesser force would be applied to the side that is rotating away from .

Allowing that the mass densities, the radius and the orbital velocity are within a given range, this would produce an orbiting body which tends to orbit the larger body, with one surface of always tending towards .

13. Consistent Simultaneity

Consider the elementary derivation of time dilation given in figure . We've confirmed experimentally that an observer traveling between points and will experience a temporal dilation of .

If two observers, and conspire that observer should travel at preciously velocity between points and , at what time will reach ? If does not share the time dilation of , how can effects like length contraction and transformation of velocities apply? More importantly, how can they apply in a manner in which travels at precisely the agreed upon velocity ? While one observer may tell another, 'travel at this velocity', how can one tell another 'experience this amount of time'?

It is utterly nonsensical to dilate time according to current interpretations of relativistic motion, and even more preposterous to dilate lengths and velocities to account for the asymmetries created. If is to travel at precisely the agreed upon velocity between points and , and this experimentally confirmed scalar of must apply, the only possible solution is that this scalar must be applied to distance and not time. Of course the period of elapsed time between and for an observer moving at preciously velocity increases by an equivalent factor , but this is an artifact of and being further separated in the coordinate system of than in that of .

By applying as a scalar of distance instead of time, can travel at precisely velocity and still reach point in .

14. There does not exist a single experimental validation for the principle of relativistic time dilation

While Einstein is rightly credited with revolutionizing our concept of space and time, there has not been a single experimental validation of the theory that scales time. The notion that in the coordinate system of the observer at relative rest is not symmetrical with in the coordinate system of the observer in relative motion is undeniable, but not a single experimental validation of this asymmetry has been carried out to associate this discrepancy uniquely with time.

The Pound-Rebka experiment1, the Ives-Stillwell experiment4 and other supposed confirmations of special relativity all rely upon relative motion being used to quantify the effects of time dilation. Applying as a scalar of distance not only produces precisely the same results, such that all of these confirmations remain completely intact, but does so without the need to dilate velocity and other time dependent variables.

Not only does applying as a scalar of time require the dilation of velocity to maintain the most fundamental of identities, it fails to truly provide a mechanism for the gravitational Doppler shift. How can a time dependent variable such as the speed of light be of the same magnitude in multiple reference frames, when time itself dilates between each frame? The only sensible manner with which to interpret experimental validations of relativity like the Pound-Rebka results is to conclude that is applied as a dilation of space, and that the relative motion required to offset this dilation of space is equal to that dilation of space, as is the case in their findings of .

Conclusion

While understandably this model will be met with skepticism as any model making such bold claims should be, this model creates no further asymmetries beyond that of spatial density, which in itself is in correspondence with the concept of cosmic inflation and provides a mechanism for the equivalence principle that produced GR in the first place. The asymmetries produced by current interpretations of relativity have become so widely accepted because they produce mathematical results that are consistent with our observations, to an extent. Terminating geodesics producing singularities, asymmetric mass effects seen on galactic scales in systems similar to that of the bullet cluster, the evolution of astronomical bodies that seems to defy our current understanding of time, and relativistic Doppler effects are either unaccounted for by current interpretations of relativity or are attributed to mechanisms that defy logic, often breaking the most fundamental of physical and mathematical identities.

The model being proposed requires far fewer modifications to pre-relativity theories than SR or GR itself, and conflicts with not a single experimental validation of either SR or GR. The idea of being subject to motion and spatial dilation that is not directly perceivable due to the concurrent dilation of all measurement apparatus is understandably uncomfortable, but the math leads where it does, and that is not to the dilation of time. If any variable dilates at the same rate, and dilates in the same manner as time itself, the dilation would be directly imperceivable.

When the mechanism that produces the relativistic effects we observe without the need to dilate time also yields a peculiar velocity that coincides with direct observation, and the dimensionless proportional dilation of space corresponds to within 2 parts in 100,000, it's time to go back to the chalkboard.