Kepler's third law rules the Gravity

[pogono]

secondly you cannot say that t = dt, if anything you can only say that t is the integral from t1 to t2 of dt, unless ofcourse you want to go to a difference equation, but then you should put in your deltas.

I have already made errata to my previous post.

for one, I think you put in two different functions for "a" and "v" for which "a = dv/dt" does not hold (unless I made a mistake in differentiation of v)

I do not agree. It is just math. We can do what we want transforming equation, if we keep the math rules.

F.e. we can transform our equation to new form, and try to guess why we need finite limit for time (Planck's time) and for velocity (speed of light). It is enough to start counting from 1 instead from 0.

[pogono]

On the note of the use of unfamiliar terms, you might for example want to change "hanging observer" to "stationary observer".

Ok, exchanged "hanging" with "stationary" ;-)
How do you find my reference frame explanation from post #27?

I have rewritten whole section about Schwarzschild metric in my article. Now, It should be clear and obvious, that Schwarzschild is made of two Minkowski metrics combined together.

You may also see there, that impossible is possible (how to define reference frame for a photon)
:-D

Whole article is located here: Dilation as field (PDF)

I appreciate if some of you (or your friends) would decide to act as formal reviewer for this article.
Let me know. I hope, you find my idea interesting.

[caveman1917]

ok, fine.

Let us define accelerating body P (we know already, it will be "Photon") in some observer "Obs" reference frame.

According to Rindler's transformation we should be able to analyse accelerating "body P" by co-moving body velotity, in every particular place in space. This co-moving body proper time is Tau.



If we note co-moving body proper time in Minkowski metric, then in "Obs" reference frame it will be:



I hoper rest of transformation is obvious.

We only chave to check what is happening if we know that:

- "v" and "a" are considered as gravitational,

- we use polar coordinates:

Have fun ;-)

I think i understand what you're trying to do. You're using rindler space for a stationary observer in the schwarzschild metric, which would be a correct way to look at it. But the problem is that this is only valid locally. You could imagine a series of stationary observers from infinity all the way down, and each would locally be in rindler space, but not one of them can extend this globally over the entire spacetime. So while you could analyse an infalling body over this series of stationary observers, and at the location of each observer it will have the correct local velocity and acceleration (relative to that observer), you can't use just one stationary observer to analyse the entire trajectory.

You can think of it this way. Each observer will consider himself to be in minkowski space (with a faux-g field due to his constant acceleration), but the (tidal) effects of actual gravity show up in how each observer relates to the one a bit further from him[*]. It is because you only consider one observer, and thus forgo how they relate to eachother, that you only see minkowski space and not actual (tidal) gravity.

To convince yourself that it is incorrect, calculate the following scenario.

1. Using the standard schwarzschild metric, consider a stationary observer that "shoots" a projectile away from the source of gravity at some initial velocity (lower than escape velocity). Calculate the time that passes on the stationary observer's clock before the projectile reaches his location again.

2. Using your method of globally applying the rindler space of that stationary observer, do the same calculation. Compare the two elapsed times, if what you say is correct both times should be the same, but you'll see they are different. The difference is due to the error of applying the stationary observer's rindler metric globally.

*ETA: this is the main point of the equivalence principle and einstein's example of the guy in the elevator. While it is impossible to distinguish locally (ie inside the elevator) between constant acceleration (rindler space) and gravity (schwarzschild), it is certainly possible to distinguish globally between the two. One will have tidal effects on large extended bodies while the other doesn't.

[pogono]

I think i understand what you're trying to do. You're using rindler space for a stationary observer in the schwarzschild metric, which would be a correct way to look at it. But the problem is that this is only valid locally. You could imagine a series of stationary observers from infinity all the way down, and each would locally be in rindler space, but not one of them can extend this globally over the entire spacetime. So while you could analyse an infalling body over this series of stationary observers, and at the location of each observer it will have the correct local velocity and acceleration (relative to that observer), you can't use just one stationary observer to analyse the entire trajectory.

You can think of it this way. Each observer will consider himself to be in minkowski space (with a faux-g field due to his constant acceleration), but the (tidal) effects of actual gravity show up in how each observer relates to the one a bit further from him[*]. It is because you only consider one observer, and thus forgo how they relate to eachother, that you only see minkowski space and not actual (tidal) gravity.

You are perfectly right. We have only local observers and we cannot use Minkowski for whole space.
But I will show you in few steps what we can do.

Let us assume, that we have no idea about General Relativity (f.e. Einstein has never invented GR) and we do not know Schwarzschild metric either.

Let us consider only Minkowski metric and Rindler transformation.
We also know from observation, that gravity cause free falling speed v and acceleration g.
We may perform below reasoning.

If everything falls under gravity, then photons also should fall, somehow.
We recall Rindler transformation and use it for photon (explained in previous posts), obtaining:

(1)

(2) explanation in post #18

thus, in relation to every particular stationary observer:

(3)

(4)

This way, we have derived Schwarzschild metric for geodesics.
It is local, so let us transform above to "global" geodesics.

As we may easy see, observer proper time may be considered in relation to observer in infinity, where our Minkowski for photon appears to be:

(5)

Now, by symmetry, we may define second Minkowski for observer moving with v velocity from "photon point of view".
In this view photons are not falling, but stationary observer to keep his position is moving against surrounding (light) and experience dilation factor .
It drives to:

(6)

substituting (6) into (4) we obtain:

(7)

Now, we do not have to care about local observers anymore.
We have geodesics for whole space.

At last, we may consider any "test body" in such metric, by adding:

(8)

This way we have derived Schwarzschild metric without knowledge about GR.

[caveman1917]

First i'll apologize for the long waits between replies, i'm very busy these couple of weeks.

Let us assume, that we have no idea about General Relativity (f.e. Einstein has never invented GR) and we do not know Schwarzschild metric either.

I see what you want to do, but you are using two hidden assumptions that rely on knowing the schwarzschild metric (thus making it ultimately circular).

We assume we know SR and newtonian mechanics (including newtonian gravity).

We have a stationary observer at some radial distance (we get this from SR)


We drop in something from infinity that will have a certain velocity as it reaches this stationary observer (we get that from newtonian gravity - it equals the escape speed)

let's introduce a constant and the velocity will become

From SR we can calculate a (using subscript s for the time dilation due to relative speed, later let's use subscript g for the time dilation due to gravity) between this passing object and the stationary observer.



There enters the first hidden assumption you make, and that is that there exists a function that gives the total time dilation in terms of a gravitational and a relative velocity part. This assumption is false in general. It happens to be true in the specific case of the schwarzschild metric, but since you don't assume knowledge of the schwarzschild metric, you can't know that.

Then the second hidden assumption, you're just using one symbol for both and , but since you don't assume knowledge of the schwarzschild metric you have no way to know that they are equal.

So, even if you could prove the existence of such function, you only have now, how do you derive ?

[pogono]

First i'll apologize for the long waits between replies, i'm very busy these couple of weeks.

Dear caveman1917,
I appreciate your every response. I am grateful for the time you spend over my posts.

Only you, tusenfem, Shaula and grapes participate in this discussion.
Most of posters here are ready to fight with immature ideas asking ATMers to learn physics, provide references and show proper results. Problem appears when people have learned, provide references and theory drives to commonly accepted results...

You are substantive, polite and you assume good will. What more could I ask.
If I know your name, I would add acknowledgment to my article.
Discussion with you is a pleasure.

There enters the first hidden assumption you make, and that is that there exists a function that gives the total time dilation in terms of a gravitational and a relative velocity part. This assumption is false in general. It happens to be true in the specific case of the schwarzschild metric, but since you don't assume knowledge of the schwarzschild metric, you can't know that.

Then the second hidden assumption, you're just using one symbol for both and , but since you don't assume knowledge of the schwarzschild metric you have no way to know that they are equal.

So, even if you could prove the existence of such function, you only have now, how do you derive ?

To be honest, we do not have to make such assumption. We do not care what is the reason for such gamma. We only count proper time of the bodies.

Let us start from changing mindset.

Long time ago Maxwell had removed charged particle from equation creating "field" phenomena. It was a breakthrough!

I show by my article, that we may consider move and time flow without need for considering "rest mass" or "massive bodies". Photon does not need to have weight to be accelerated. It is seen here, in my Rindler transformation.

It is also seen in my field equations in the previous thread, where I prove, that we may explain E-M wave as disturbance in time-space structure dislocating in this time-space.
Since we know, there is no aether and E-M wave move just in time-space, we must admit, that time-space acts as medium for that wave. So there must exist field equations explaining E-M wave in the way I do.

In my article I prove, that:
- Electromagnetism appears to be time-space structure disturbance.
- Gravity is explained as photon's acceleration, therefore time flow speed factor acts in gravity as scalar potential.

Let us go back to our example.
When accelerated Photon meets with Stationary Observer (hanging in one place) we have:

1) From Rindler we count photon's proper time:



2) We know observer proper time by symmetry (in photon reference frame, the observer is moving), thus:



Rest is just calculations, you may see it inside post 18

However we do not agree with this idea - it works. We obtain Schwarzschild metric at the end.
Moreover - this way we also explain, why in GR time-space is curved.

Time-space curvature appears now as consequence of SR: to keep symmetry in proper time calculations we have to make space-time curved.

P.S. It is also definitive explanation for twin paradox. Twins may meet and compare their age only in curved space-time.

[Tim Thompson]

I

That is not proper calculus. 1/(dx/dt) is not dt/dx

[pogono]

That is not proper calculus. 1/(dx/dt) is not dt/dx

Hello Tim Thompson.
Thank you for your voice in discussion.

I am afraid it is proper way of dealing with infinitesimal increments. Below references.

We use Leibniz's notation for expressing derivative that is indeed measure for tangent. 1/tangent is just cotangent.

[estee]

It is easy to check, that my fruit salad works fine.

Let us check what it is:



Errata: should be

There are multiple calculus mistakes in the above . Your errata makes things even worse. The only thing that you can write is:



Differentiation doesn't work the way you seem to believe it works.

thus:

Absolutely not, you are not only contradicting basic calculus rules, you are contradicting basic physics.

Errata: should be

Valid only for constant acceleration, as already pointed out to you. Meaning that your first line of calculations is just as incorrect.

[pogono]

Differentiation doesn't work the way you seem to believe it works.

Hello estee, welcome to BAUT.
Nice to meet you. I am glad you have decided to join us because om my thread.

Cited post was only explanation for tusenfem, and has nothing to do with my results. However, I will provide some reference to show you, that we may transform infinitesimal increments in the way I did. I will post it here in few hours.

Edited:
>>>>>>>>
Here may be example: Inverse_functions_and_differentiation

The only thing that you can write is:

BTW, I suppose you meant a/v

As I claim we may write it in form of:


>>>>>>>>

In my article, to obtain proper results it is enough to know that
And yes, it is valid for constant acceleration, only.

I suppose you have missed, that we consider only ONE POINT in space, where photon passes stationary observer (hanging in one place). In this point in infinite small moment photons are accelerated. Always with the same acceleration.

It is calculation for one moment in one spot, but we may calculate it for "any" observer in "any" distance, what make it truth for whole space as I have already shown in post #34

[estee]

I suppose you have missed, that we consider only ONE POINT in space, where photon passes stationary observer (hanging in one place). In this point in infinite small moment photons are accelerated. Always with the same acceleration.

Your calculations violate the basic rules of calculus everywhere. You seem to think that differentials are the same things as elementary fractions. They are not, so please do not insist that your calculations are correct.

[estee]

As I claim we may write it in form of:

Basic calculus says you cannot. You are treating differentiation as if these were fractions.

[caveman1917]

Could it be that you are confusing the superscript in for the power rather than the notation to signify the inverse of a function?

Let's suppose (defined on ) then not

[pogono]

Basic calculus says you cannot. You are treating differentiation as if these were fractions.

We are making operations on infinitesimal increments all the time.

f.e. when we write or indeed we write: or

Could it be that you are confusing the superscript in for the power rather than the notation to signify the inverse of a function?

Of course I understand the difference.
I linked it because there you may see operations on increments. Here:


We may leave it, really. To perform calculations in my article it is enough that we know the result.

The result is known from Rindler:

The only one interesting thing I see in discussion about operations on infinitesimal increments, is below.
By proposed transformations we may try to derive the need for counting time in quanta equal to "e" (Euler number). What is seen here:





It is possible only for quants "e":

what means, that it must be:

[pogono]

Hello everyone.

Before we start next fight about something, I would ask you for one thing.
Open your minds for a second and say to you "What if this guy is right?".

Sometimes we need a child to see something obvious.
No physicist would write such "silly formulas" - maybe we need non-physicist to see things in different perspective.

Make calculations by yourself and check what is happening.

1) Who have checked, that time dilation factor really acts in gravity as scalar potential...
2) My Rindler and two Minkowski metrics (for photon + observer) result with Schwarzschild metric.
3) My field equations for time-space disturbance moving through time-space - works!
4) My Lagrangian and Hamiltonian - works!!

5) if you transform my equation for "photon imaginary proper time" you will see, that it comply with anisotropy for Stationary Observer metric (infinite small, local anisotropic Minkowski):



And so on...

My idea explains what field is, but it also opens thousand ways for new explorations....

What if I am right?

[Alsor]

It's possible you are right, but you should try to finish the calculations, instead leaving always the transitional solution, not finished.

The transformation of coordinates, i.e. the substitution of new coordinates, is just a temporary operation, not permanent.

1. substitution: (a,b,c,d) = f(x,y,z,t);
2. solution of the equations with new coordinates - in a new mathematical space
3. recovery of the oryginal coordinates...
we are interested in solution described in the oryginal coordinates, not in arbitrarily selected - random.

Correct math is independent of any interpretation.

[Tensor]

Before we start next fight about something, I would ask you for one thing.
Open your minds for a second and say to you "What if this guy is right?".

Well, you were unable to show that your claim that GRB 090510 supported your paper. I noticed that you've pulled that part out of your paper, but you still list the reference. You may want to take the reference out and re-number your references. Otherwise, there may be questions as to why the reference is in there.

Make calculations by yourself and check what is happening.

Well, you haven't even done the calculations you said you were going to do...

1) Who have checked, that time dilation factor really acts in gravity as scalar potential...
2) My Rindler and two Minkowski metrics (for photon + observer) result with Schwarzschild metric.
3) My field equations for time-space disturbance moving through time-space - works!
4) My Lagrangian and Hamiltonian - works!!

My idea explains what field is, but it also opens thousand ways for new explorations....

Yeah, about claiming your equations work...

Also, back on the 20th of July, you answered a question of mine:

Besides all that, what values do you get, and how do you calculate them for the decrease in orbital period of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16?

Ok, I will calculate prediction based on my theory and post it here. It will take day or two. I have already found required data at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/rela...binpulsar.html

Since it's been 54 days as I write this (12 September) I figured that we would have the answer on this by now. Soooooooo, what's the answer?

You then went with an entire post (Post #14) about why, according to your math, that you should get the right answer. However, showing that you actually get the same answer as the observation, wasn't part of the post. So, you told us that it would be a couple of days, then you would get to it over the weekend, but as of today (26 December, 2011), you still haven't provided the answer for the binary pulsar 1913+16. That now comes to a total of 159 days. If the calculations in your idea can't provide a match of the observations, just say so and we can move on from there.

What if I am right?

From post #36

Most of posters here are ready to fight with immature ideas asking ATMers to learn physics, provide references and show proper results. Problem appears when people have learned, provide references and theory drives to commonly accepted results...

There's more than one way to show an idea is wrong. Pointing out failures of logic or failures to match experimental or observational data is just as valid a posting method. Immature ideas usually have invalid support and/or the idea cannot provide a match to observations, both of which described your idea originally. And still applies to the match of observations. You provided a reference to a GRB paper you thought supported your idea. It didn't, as I pointed out, and you have now pulled that claim from your paper. You said you would be able to provide us with the values for the decrease in the orbital period for PSR 1913+16 in a couple of days, and then over a weekend, and its been over five months, and still no answer. So asking you to show proper results has shown your theory hasn't driven to a commonly accepted result, even as you continue to argue that other posters points are invalid.

[pogono]

It's possible you are right, but you should try to finish the calculations, instead leaving always the transitional solution, not finished.
(...)
we are interested in solution described in the oryginal coordinates, not in arbitrarily selected - random.
Correct math is independent of any interpretation.

Thank you Alsor for your remark. I appreciate the hint.
The Reviewer also asked me to do it. I am preparing new version of the article expressed with four-vectors (maybe with tensor algebra, we will see). It takes time - I was never formally trained in physics :-(

BTW, I am open for cooperation. I have started my first thread looking for friendly physicists who could act as co-authors and it is still open issue.

I hope scientists feel more comfortable with developing present shape of the idea. If one considers that may add something to the article, feel free to join me as co-author. I think this Forum would be a great place to exchange experience and create breakthrough in searching for unified field theory ;-)

Well, you were unable to show that your claim that GRB 090510 supported your paper. I noticed that you've pulled that part out of your paper, but you still list the reference. You may want to take the reference out and re-number your references. Otherwise, there may be questions as to why the reference is in there.

Hello Tensor! :-) Thank you for your comment. It is nice to hear you.

I agree with you. This reference is not needed anymore. I will remove it.
My field equation does not violate "c" speed of light. I understood that somewhere near the end of my last thread.

You then went with an entire post (Post #14) about why, according to your math, that you should get the right answer. However, showing that you actually get the same answer as the observation, wasn't part of the post. So, you told us that it would be a couple of days, then you would get to it over the weekend, but as of today (26 December, 2011), you still haven't provided the answer for the binary pulsar 1913+16. That now comes to a total of 159 days. If the calculations in your idea can't provide a match of the observations, just say so and we can move on from there.
(...)
There's more than one way to show an idea is wrong. Pointing out failures of logic or failures to match experimental or observational data is just as valid a posting method. Immature ideas usually have invalid support and/or the idea cannot provide a match to observations, both of which described your idea originally. And still applies to the match of observations. You provided a reference to a GRB paper you thought supported your idea. It didn't, as I pointed out, and you have now pulled that claim from your paper. You said you would be able to provide us with the values for the decrease in the orbital period for PSR 1913+16 in a couple of days, and then over a weekend, and its been over five months, and still no answer. So asking you to show proper results has shown your theory hasn't driven to a commonly accepted result, even as you continue to argue that other posters points are invalid.

Ok, let me explain.

At the beginning of my ATM threads history my idea was very immature. I agree.
I was claiming, that light has speed slower than "c" and that I have theory exchanging General Relativity...

I was not right.

My idea has grown-up. Thanks to you Tensor, thanks to tusenfem, caveman1917, Celestial Mechanic, Shaula, Kuroneko, Paul Logan, Garrison, macaw, grapes, slang, Strange, amazeofdeath, Geo Kaplan, pzkpfw, EigenState, Jim, czeslaw, captain swoop, starcanuck64, Luckmeister and non-posting readers.

Now, my article appears to be much more mainstream. Einstein was right. GR is correct, light has "c" speed. I even derive main GR equation (!) in my article, section (3.3) and in this post.
Now, in my article, I only show, that we do not need "mass" to consider acceleration and we may use second perspective, where photon has proper time.

In effect, we have two ways to analyze gravity:
- curved time-space, where photons are not accelerated
- composition of two plane Minkowski metrics, where photons are accelerated

This second perspective explains what presence of a field really means.

To calculate PSR 1913+16 we may just use GR. Moreover, Schwarzschild solution does not fit to this case (rotations, move, etc).

The only question from your post that I see is still current, is about my Lagrangian-Hamiltonian derived here and also in my article, section 3.1.

If you do not feel comfortable with my short explanation included in linked post, I may derive Lagrangian and Hamiltonian in this thread, with more comments and explanation.

My Lagrangian passes the theoretical test (article, section 3.2)
The only difference in my Lagr./Ham. is, that I do not use external "arbitrary time variable dt".
Instead I show that time is not arbitrary - it comes out form field formula, it is part of Lagrange equation, it is part of time-space we consider.

My Lagrangian shows, that field scalar potential is equal to time dilation factor as we should expect.
It also shows, that field it is time-space disturbance.

[Fortis]

Pogono,
Earlier you referred to your "field equation" but I can't seem to find anything that looks like one. Did you get as far as that?

[pogono]

Pogono,
Earlier you referred to your "field equation" but I can't seem to find anything that looks like one.

Hi Fortis, nice to meet you. Thank you for joining the discussion.

My field equations you may find in this post and also in my article, section 2.2

These fields are more general then Maxwell equations, and works fine as well for gravity as well for electromagnetism. It only depends on what you put in place of R_const:
a) Schwarzschild Radius (for gravity) or
b) Planck Length (for electromagnetism).

Short description of introduced fields:

- scalar potential that may work as well for gravity (as already shown few posts ago) as well for Electromagnetic field (as I explain in the article).

Vector fields:
- acceleration that enters in place of (gravitational acceleration) / (electromagnetic field)
- Magnetic rotation / time-space curvature factor for gravity
- time flow (understood by speed of photons relative to its proper time)

I hope it was your question about.

P.S. To consider electrostatic field we use Planck Length multiplied by fine structure constant. I show it in the article, in last section.

[pogono]

Guys!

I have just received second review! Positive!
What a New Year present! :-D

>>>>>
The manuscript entitled "Time dilation as field" deals on electromagnetic wave in time-space structure. The author derived equations of electromagnetic field and considered time dilation...
(...)
The job is ok for a scientific journal.
(...)
Introduction should add a strong motivation for the main aim of paper.... /.... and few more remarks/
(...)
I recommend the current manuscript is ok for readers of this field. Therefore one is suitable after revise for publish...
(...)
<<<<<

P.S.
I have added acknowledgments at the end!
I really appreciate your time spending over my posts.
Thank you.

[caveman1917]

ETA: Nevermind this post, it's completely incorrect, i misunderstood. You're only using the derivatives of presumed inverse functions so that's not a problem.

Of course I understand the difference.

(...between and )

Personally i consider errors of technique less important than errors in the main idea behind something, since errors of technique can be easily rectified. But estee (macaw?) and Tim Thompson are quite correct, so perhaps it's not a bad idea to go into this a bit since you do seem to seriously err in your understanding of differentiation.

is not a ratio of infinitesimals but a function on .

Let's assume (as you do) that acceleration is constant.


Integrate and velocity will be a polynomial of degree 1


Now you want to calculate , so we integrate again
and solve for

(keeping one root)



As you can see . [ETA actually they do equal]

The only way that is if the function is a constant, ie

We are making operations on infinitesimal increments all the time.

f.e. when we write or indeed we write: or

That's only because is a constant, see above.

If you say that acceleration is a constant, then will not be a constant (unless the acceleration is zero of course), so you can't perform that operation on .

[caveman1917]

I have just received second review! Positive!

Which journal did you submit it to?

[pogono]

Which journal did you submit it to?

I will post such information immediately when it will be published.
It is too fragile now, I was working for this effect for few years... I would not like to loose it :-(

As anyone can see - macaw watches me ;-)

[Hornblower]

pogono,
Could you give us a brief summary to explain what there is about this topic, if anything, that is contrary to what mainstream physicists say about general relativity and related topics? Something like the abstract that usually appears at the beginning of a long, highly technical paper is what I have in mind. I am late in coming to this thread and trying to follow your line of thought is tying my feeble brain in knots. Please bear with me.

[pogono]

Hello Hornblower, nice to meet you :-)

I find your question very important. Maybe I should really start this thread from brief explanation what is this fight about.

Forgive me, if you will find my explanation too simple. I do not know your background so I would rather write it this way (for any case), also thinking about possible rest of non-technical readers.

My article is about:

1. Since the A. Einstein, every physicist's child knows, that photon have no proper time and there is no possibility to look at the universe from phonon's point of view (there is no reference frame for the photon).

I did not know that (my father is an engineer) so I have proven in my article, there is such possibility. Using this "photon reference frame" we may derive exactly the same equations that comes out from General Relativity.
It will probably make some people laughing but maybe some others will read it carefully and then decide to reconsider consequences for well established contemporary physics.

2. Everyone knows, that every kind of wave propagates in "something".
Water wave is disturbance in water structure.
Sound wave is disturbance in air structure.
Light wave is disturbance in.... nothing.
Hey, wait... Nothing? Really? How? Why?...

In times of A. Einstein many physicists could not believe in above claim and were looking for magic substance called "aether" understood as medium for light wave. But it is at last proved, there is no "aether" (it is easy to confirm - big part of ATM is about looking for "aether").

In my article I say: if light propagates in nothing, it means: in pure time-space.
So time-space acts as "aether", acts as medium for light wave!
So light should be explained as local disturbance in time-space structure propagating in time-space.

And then... I prove it. Sounds simple, isn't it?
Thus, after 100 years, we really may stop looking for "aether"... We do not need it anymore.

3. From General Relativity we know, that gravity is explained as curved time-space.
I prove, that we may consider also flat space (what is much more easy to calculate) with scalar potential equal to time dilation factor (I do not know how to say it easy without word "scalar"...)

My idea drives us to new expression for Lagrangian and Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian means total Mechanical Energy, Lagrangian means - who knows that?) and erases added by A. Eistein.

Wait...
Why is erased? It was great Relativity Achievement!!!

It is erased, because it is not needed to be added artificially anymore.
If we consider "dilation as field" then appears spontaneously (without artificial adding it) as total FIELD ENERGY considered without test bodies...


4. But wait, if we know, that:
- gravity may be explained by time dilation
- comes out form Hamiltonian for field explained as time-space disturbance
- photon appears to be disturbance in time-space

then maybe:
- charge phenomena and photon energy also could be explained by such "tricky concept"

Bingo!
It should be. Indeed.
But who would believe it?..


5. And at least: what makes this thread name, it is interesting coincidence.
Velocity for accelerating photons (discussed in my article) follows Kepler's third law.

So we could say: there was Kepler at the beginning of everything...

P.S.
And it is good to remember, that Kepler was an astronomer ;-)

[pogono]

Hello everyone.
It is a week left to date of closing the thread, so as always I ask you for your opinion.

I appreciate any answer.
Thank you in advance for your votes.

[WHarris]

Science is not done by polls.

[pogono]

Science is not done by polls.

Hello WHarris. Nice to meet you.

Actually, science is made by poll.

Science journals send manuscripts to reviewers, asking for their opinion.
Reviewers do not have to agree to each other.
Some of journals even write on its websites, how many positive opinions are needed to accept manuscript.

So it is typical poll.

But it does not matter. I do not want to make science by my poll on ATM forum, it would be hopeless intention.
Most of ATM posters here are so tired with answering to authors of immature ideas (and sometimes even freaks), that they would not recognize interesting theory posted on ATM, even if it would be served on a plate, matching all experimental data and already got 100 positive reviews.

Fighting rules are easy:

1. If the theory is too simple - it is obviously wrong. All simple theories were discovered centuries ago.

2. If the theory is complicated, most of posters will not have time, will or knowledge to follow author's way of thinking. Starting with assumption, that author is wrong you will always find at least some typo. So, theory must be wrong.

I like this forum, because you teach me how to fight.
You teach me how to argue and what should I beware of.

Only caveman1917 and Kuroneko gave me really valuable feedback, references, sometimes even explained something. They were even able to admit to mistakes. Rest of you ends with a critique.

But it is ok. I do not expect to convince anyone. Most of you probably did not spend more than 3 minutes over my manuscript. What can you understand from the paper?...

I make poll to understand your emotions.
With certainty, you are not open for new ideas. You are not guided by seeking for the development of science.

[Shaula]

I make poll to understand your emotions.
With certainty, you are not open for new ideas. You are not guided by seeking for the development of science.

OK now that is just rude.

People here are open to new ideas and they are interested in the development of science. Including me. That is the reason they test new theories so rigorously. You seem to be missing one very important point: All currently accepted mainstream theories were given this level of scrutiny or far higher before they were accepted. The reason they are accepted is because they won the 'fight'. It is not the case that you are being treated differently to any other person proposing a new idea. It doesn't even get easier once you have a track record - maybe the more established professors leave your papers alone but then you have all the young guns looking to take down a giant.

That 'picking on me' attitude is the hallmark of a weak theory. So I suggest you don't take it to any reviews. If your theory is strong and works, if the maths and the predictions are sound then that will carry it through. If you have to resort to "Waaa waaaa, they are being mean to me" then your theory will get dropped. Also - piece of tactical advice. Don't insult the audience you are asking for reviews or opinions from. Rarely a good tactic.

Note that most people who viewed did not comment. Either because they didn't feel they could or because they were aware that they had spent enough time on the paper to comment.