- #1
Austin0
- 1,160
- 1
....This is just a concept I have been playing with for awhile...
As my knowledge of GR is limited and my knowledge of Mach's principle is limited to its application to inertia I am going to use my own generalizations from them both.
If my understanding or interpretation of either is wrong I will be glad to learn it .
...GR which I will call Local....MACH.which I will call global......
____________________________________________________________________________
...Local to global ..........Global to local.....
...ABsolute...........Relational (relative).....
,,,From the bottom up.........From the top down......
,,,,From the center to the periphery.....from the periphery inwards....
Local------, gravity is viewed as an independant local phenomena , building up from the concentrations of mass through increasing scales and distances to minimum.
The global is the sum of all the local interactions
Global ------The local effects are more dependant on the global distribution of matter.
________________________________________________________________________
Regarding the G factor and dilation
Local -----scale starts at the maximum with the largest masses , black holes, and works upward with diminishing values for decreasing masses and greater distances to reach a minmum in the reaches of intergalactic space
Global---- starts out with a minimum base factor in the voids of space due to the overall mass distribution and proceeds down through decreasing localizations through galactic clusters, galaxies ,and finally stars and planets with these various masse distributions acting as fluctuations on the minimum base value.
It would appear that these views might not be incompateble or simply two perspectives on the same thing.
But also suggests the possibility that there could be significant difference.
That there might be a greater minimum value in the global system.
But this idea faces the dilemma of all relative perspectives: How could this possibly be measured. From what possible frame.
For those that think, if it can't be measured, it is not real or existent, this would make the question moot.
But the perspective may still have value. For example:
Newtonian gravity, Keplers Laws regarding the relationship of orbital radii to angular velocity and GR were all derived from observations within a system where the overwhelming majority of the total mass was to be found in the center.
Center based direct calculations work fine. As Newton said you can practically disregard all the mass behind you , relative to the center.
But does this neccessarily apply to a system like a globular or spiral galaxy where the mass distribution is considerably more diffuse??
Could perhaps the anomalous angular velocities observed in these systems be explained from the perspective of the global distribution of matter instead of assuming dark matter or huge masses in the center ?
ANother possible application:
Our current cosmic view is; the light coming from the boundary of out perceptual universe is reaching us from a time period approx.14 billion years ago.
From a time when we conceive of the universe as being more condensed by a huge factor.
What if we assume that this much greater density would mean a much higher base value for G and dilation compared to our contemporary locale?
We can still imagine that early scientists would get the same local readings.
As both electron emitance frequencies and absorbtion frequencies would be equally lower the visable spectrum might appear exactly as it does to us. The vacuum speed of light might be lower but measurements would be taken with dilated clocks so there is no reason to neccessarily expect a different reading.
But light which was not absorbed and traveled through free space would be relatively lower in frequency compared to the electron resonances here today.
WHich suggests the possibility that at least part of the observed redshift could be due to emitter dilation rather than relative velocity or spatial expansion.
There is also the possibility that light speed has actually increased due to the decreasing G factor from reduced overall density.
That in transit through space it would also be translating through time, passing through zones of later, less dense spacetime.
but it can not neccessarily be measured as being different
as clocks in any zone are now running faster than the early universe.
Taking this idea further it seems to imply that the overall time base of the universe might be speeding up, even as it is slowing down locally through condensation ,relative to that base.
In any case I would be interested to hear other ideas regarding this.
Thanks
As my knowledge of GR is limited and my knowledge of Mach's principle is limited to its application to inertia I am going to use my own generalizations from them both.
If my understanding or interpretation of either is wrong I will be glad to learn it .
...GR which I will call Local....MACH.which I will call global......
____________________________________________________________________________
...Local to global ..........Global to local.....
...ABsolute...........Relational (relative).....
,,,From the bottom up.........From the top down......
,,,,From the center to the periphery.....from the periphery inwards....
Local------, gravity is viewed as an independant local phenomena , building up from the concentrations of mass through increasing scales and distances to minimum.
The global is the sum of all the local interactions
Global ------The local effects are more dependant on the global distribution of matter.
________________________________________________________________________
Regarding the G factor and dilation
Local -----scale starts at the maximum with the largest masses , black holes, and works upward with diminishing values for decreasing masses and greater distances to reach a minmum in the reaches of intergalactic space
Global---- starts out with a minimum base factor in the voids of space due to the overall mass distribution and proceeds down through decreasing localizations through galactic clusters, galaxies ,and finally stars and planets with these various masse distributions acting as fluctuations on the minimum base value.
It would appear that these views might not be incompateble or simply two perspectives on the same thing.
But also suggests the possibility that there could be significant difference.
That there might be a greater minimum value in the global system.
But this idea faces the dilemma of all relative perspectives: How could this possibly be measured. From what possible frame.
For those that think, if it can't be measured, it is not real or existent, this would make the question moot.
But the perspective may still have value. For example:
Newtonian gravity, Keplers Laws regarding the relationship of orbital radii to angular velocity and GR were all derived from observations within a system where the overwhelming majority of the total mass was to be found in the center.
Center based direct calculations work fine. As Newton said you can practically disregard all the mass behind you , relative to the center.
But does this neccessarily apply to a system like a globular or spiral galaxy where the mass distribution is considerably more diffuse??
Could perhaps the anomalous angular velocities observed in these systems be explained from the perspective of the global distribution of matter instead of assuming dark matter or huge masses in the center ?
ANother possible application:
Our current cosmic view is; the light coming from the boundary of out perceptual universe is reaching us from a time period approx.14 billion years ago.
From a time when we conceive of the universe as being more condensed by a huge factor.
What if we assume that this much greater density would mean a much higher base value for G and dilation compared to our contemporary locale?
We can still imagine that early scientists would get the same local readings.
As both electron emitance frequencies and absorbtion frequencies would be equally lower the visable spectrum might appear exactly as it does to us. The vacuum speed of light might be lower but measurements would be taken with dilated clocks so there is no reason to neccessarily expect a different reading.
But light which was not absorbed and traveled through free space would be relatively lower in frequency compared to the electron resonances here today.
WHich suggests the possibility that at least part of the observed redshift could be due to emitter dilation rather than relative velocity or spatial expansion.
There is also the possibility that light speed has actually increased due to the decreasing G factor from reduced overall density.
That in transit through space it would also be translating through time, passing through zones of later, less dense spacetime.
but it can not neccessarily be measured as being different
as clocks in any zone are now running faster than the early universe.
Taking this idea further it seems to imply that the overall time base of the universe might be speeding up, even as it is slowing down locally through condensation ,relative to that base.
In any case I would be interested to hear other ideas regarding this.
Thanks