It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tired Light, Multi Dimensional Time, and Anti Matter (Worth a look)

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I wanted to high light a recently made video I came across from one of the theoretical physicists I keep an eye on, Gavin Wince. While I generally dismissed what a lot of this guy was saying, I always found his take on space-time interesting and his take on relativistic concepts interesting if not fully complete. Most of you know me as an Electric Universe proponent but my interests in these topics do not stem from the desire of a one theory to be ‘correct’ over another.

My most major beef with standard physics has always been with the idea of red-shift by a Doppler effect being used as a method to measure distance in space, The Hubble Constant I linked this page in particular as it not only explains what the Hubble Constant is, but lets you know who was invovled, the history of the problem, and some great links at the bottom of the page to the real meat and potatoes of how those ideas have been discussed and debated over time, feel free to investigate them on your own .


Most of us would consider 'Tired Light' to be a dead concept, as any form of the theory, violates basic conservation laws of physics.

Recently there has been so much talk about “Holographic Space” and what it means, this topic has allowed the idea of tired light to make a huge comeback.

“The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.”

It is the subject of Horizons that bring us back to the idea of tired light, expansion theory, and the big bang.

Enter Gavin Wince, and his video “The Dark Side of Time”




In the video he goes through the process of describing how multi dimensional time (traditionally time is only a single dimension of our 4 dimensional exsistance, space being 3 x,y,z axis and time being the 4th.) can account for red-shift and do away with the need for dark energy, by refuting the idea that the universe is expanding and does it without throwing current physics out the window, and that infact, it solves many issues of current physics.


I will warn you now, the video is not for the average nerd, it is physics heavy and does not make more than a modest effort to simplify its presentation; as such a basic background in physics and math principles is recommended. Anyone who follows this kind of stuff should, at the least, be able to follow along to get the gist of it.

The idea of mulit-dimensional time is currently being received well by researchers in the field and I think its a great watch to get ahead of the curve so to speak.
edit on 10-1-2014 by vind21 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I'll have to check that video out later but nice post!

I think about these things a lot, and I'm just an amateur when it comes to physics and cosmology, but I'm a really good amateur, I think.

I like some of the ideas of the electric universe theory, but one thing bothers me about it. Electricity is just one form of energy. Energy exists in all forms, according to relativity, so electricity alone should not be an underpinning concept for a theory.

Electricity exists at all points in space at all times, as does mass, as does vacuum. What we see as electricity or mass is simply the condition which allows the energy to manifest in that form. All of the universe contains electricity, but space requires the correct conditions in order to manifest as electricity. Everywhere in space has the potential to become electricity, and has the same potential to become a fish.

And the elements... Should not be seen as particles separate from one another, but should be seen as manifestations of matter in space dependent on the conditions which allow them to exist. As in, "Hydrogen is a state of space, in the category of matter." If the conditions persist that allow hydrogen to manifest, then hydrogen will manifest. The elements are simply different states of space dependent on the conditions of space at that point in space. When we observe and realize hydrogen, we are witnessing a manifestation of motion that we can perceive as hydrogen. The next manifestation we can perceive is helium, but the points between hydrogen and helium also manifest, but probably only so briefly as to be undetectable. Elements develop along a path of infinite progression, so helium is a manifestation of the same space, just on a more highly developed frequency of motion. A hydrogen atom with positive or negative ions are just manifestations close to and on either side of hydrogen on this infinite progression.

And the speed of light... Not how fast light travels in a vacuum. How fast the medium through which light travels ALLOWS it to travel. This is the part where people say something about there's nothing in a vacuum...

Inflation of space is misconceived as well, in my opinion. If space is inflating, then nothing in space should be exempt from that inflation, to include our environment and our bodies. If inflation were calculated as uniform across the universe, as the cosmic background radiation snapshot suggests, and there was a force that could be associated with that inflation, then all the maths that suggest dark matter holding together clusters and galaxies would be unnecessary.
edit on 10-1-2014 by Mon1k3r because: clarity



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
You will defiantly want to watch the video then, I think it will help hash out several of the concepts you are talking about.




And the speed of light... Not how fast light travels in a vacuum. How fast the medium through which light travels ALLOWS it to travel. This is the part where people say something about there's nothing in a vacuum...


There are direct explanations to that concept in the video. I'd type it out but as it's rather new to me at this point I don't want to muddle it up.



To be clear to everyone: This is not an "Electric Universe" video, quite the opposite.


It is from the view point of Relativistic theory and does a wonderful job of showing a very plausible explanation of why you don't need dark matter or dark energy, the ability of energy to change states and how it applies to the electromagnetic spectrum and sheds light on why the 'holographic theory' is being received so well.

It goes so far as to explain the nature of time in relativity, there are just a lot of things going on here that directly relate to recent discoveries and anomalies, it may not be perfect, but it seems a step in the right direction as far as relativity is concerned.

edit on 10-1-2014 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Interesting video, but completely wrong imo. He uses his multi-dimensional time theory to explain how galaxies can rotate at the same speed from the center to the edge without any need for dark matter, but what he fails to explain is why we measure the total mass of most galaxies to be much higher than what we would expect given the visible mass in those galaxies. If they didn't contain some type of invisible mass then the space-time around the galaxies wouldn't be so curved (we can measure the curvature by observing the lensing effect created as light travels around the galaxies). And it just so happens that the amount of curvature we measure is exactly consistent with the amount of dark matter required to explain the rotation speeds of the galaxies.

Furthermore, we can actually measure isolated dark matter in extreme events where the dark matter cores can actually separate from their partner galaxies and we can see space warping where there is no visible mass at all. If his theory can explain how all of these observations are possible without dark matter then I will be truly impressed.


It was the result no one wanted to believe. Astronomers observed what appeared to be a clump of dark matter left behind during a bizarre wreck between massive clusters of galaxies.

The dark matter collected into a "dark core" containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies hung together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. This result could present a challenge to basic theories of dark matter, which predict that galaxies should be anchored to the invisible substance, even during the shock of a collision.

The initial observations, made in 2007, were so unusual that astronomers shrugged them off as unreal, due to poor data. However, new results from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope confirm that dark matter and galaxies parted ways in the gigantic merging galaxy cluster called Abell 520, located 2.4 billion light-years away.

Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in Hubble Image

edit on 10/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Thats all good and fine I guess, but the link you posted sounds more like a nutter link than the fringe theorist I posted about lol.

Especially when you take into account his equations are being used at CERN now, if only as a curiosity, and only applied to certain things. the guy really isn't trying to rewrite the book here, I think it mostly amounts to a description of why we get such statistical variance on what should be certain measurements.

Im not going to debate wrong or right, he's got a track record now of several correct perdictions regaurding masses of particles and a few other interesting insights. Dismissing it out of hand is a mistake imo.

I posted this video on that Higgs thread running right now just to see what people would say.





Though a Higgs-like Boson may have been discovered, certain anomalies about this particle do not match the Standard Model Higgs predictions; specifically issue that match Wince's predictions. So far, the Higgs-like particle does not appear to be coupling with Fermions such as Leptons and quarks. Additionally, in the ATLAS detector data, there is significant excess in the gamma-gamma channel over the ZZ channel. This same discrepancy shows up in the CMS detect data, however, the excess is reversed! This is what Wince is calling the Higgs Paradox, and it just so happens to fit his model of the Higgs Boson.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


this is really quite delusional. Do you honestly think that all particle physics is being done at CERN? Like someone using some equations at one institute gives this man's word salad any credence?

I watched the video and i have to say that, it is interesting but as pointed out already quite frankly pie in the sky. It makes absolutely no sense to decide that time has to be 3 dimensional,
edit on 13-1-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 






this is really quite delusional. Do you honestly think that all particle physics is being done at CERN? Like someone using some equations at one institute gives this man's word salad any credence?


The hell?

Where do you get off with that post, I said no such thing, I made 0 claims about anything "blah blah...your a moron who thinks CERN is some magical elf land and no one does what they do" ....thanks that was constructive. I started off letting you know it was fringe I said nothing that was not reported in the video by reliable news sources.

Your opinion on "pie in the sky" is pretty irrelevant considering the entire post starts out with that assumption.... he actually has a theory, written out and testable, with the equations laid out... the experts in the field are intrigued by, but we better bad mouth him as fast as possible yea?


The point is he was able to make accurate predictions with his equations, that translated to real observations, to the point some people at CERN entertained the idea of using them on other issues to see what they found. Seeing as that happened.... what 1 other time? I thought it was worth sharing.

The fact that when applied to certain cherry picked issues in particle physics it accurately predicts observations, is what make it worth looking at if only because its "interesting"



edit on 14-1-2014 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
There is no way this guys equations are being used at CERN.

Read this: scientopia.org...

No, don't just skim it, read the whole thing. The guy may be many things but a mathematician is not one of them.
edit on 14-1-2014 by mrwiffler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


Indeed, he is never referred to as a "mathematician" I think philosopher is the proper term and the one used in the videos. One does not have to be a mathematician to do math or have a theory but your point is valid in many respects.

Look, there are plenty of 'hit pieces' on this guy and as has been said, there is a fine line between crazy and genius with the former being the more accurate description for this guy but, Character assassination is the easy way out.

The fact that CERN did indeed run with some of his stuff, at least in some small room somewhere, probably with elves, is more than most "crackpot" theories can claim; if they are still doing it....I'd agree it is unlikely.

I don't see anyone dealing with the meat of the issue though, I put this in the Science forum with some expectation of a solid debunk, of the direct topic, his accurate*? prediction of the properties of the Higgs like particle, any of us who have looked into this stuff before know he is crazy, a quick trip to his youtube page will tell you that, oh and that he is good with stop motion clay...lol


Last I checked Einstein didn't do so hot in school either, if one of you would actually like to take the time to explain why 3d time is such a horrid idea when 11 dimensional M-theory is ok, then by all means do so, it would actually be beneficial to someone reading this or seeing this kind of thing for the first time.

(
I'm sure someone will now insinuate I am comparing this guy to Einstein with the way today is going
)
edit on 14-1-2014 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

ChaoticOrder
And it just so happens that the amount of curvature we measure is exactly consistent with the amount of dark matter required to explain the rotation speeds of the galaxies.


Doesn't that suggest that there is no need to 'require' dark matter?

It's relative to something. What is it relative to?



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 


Time to mention my favorite personal Skunk Works theory: that time and gravity are the same thing. You do the math (and win the Nobel Prize! Well, share it with me at least?)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aleister
reply to post by vind21
 


Time to mention my favorite personal Skunk Works theory: that time and gravity are the same thing. You do the math (and win the Nobel Prize! Well, share it with me at least?)

The pull of gravity is due to the time being slowed down in the vicinity of mass.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join