The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer

Given Alfred's obvious misinterpretation of the quote he offered in Message 9 I have to question whether there is any point in asking him about the theory. It could be as pointless as asking Randman about Quantum Mechanics.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I think the quote is trying to imply a general relativistic (rather than special relativistic) phenomenon, which could be independent of relative velocities.Oli

I agree, but PaulK is still correct. Since the quote doesn't give any hint that mere separation between observers can generate time dilation effects, the quote was poorly chosen by the OP.

I would say that the quote is leaving the source of the relativistic phenomenon unspecified - which implies only that there is more than one possibility. Differing velocities is one possibility, and one that is not ruled out in the quote.Regardless, Alfred clearly misunderstood the quote, and at best cut-and-pasted the wrong section without examining it. I await his explanation.

[Copied from our private exchange]White holes do have a history of being thought to be behind a number of astrophysical phenomena: gamma ray bursters, active galactic nuclei (AGN) engines, quasar engines, etc. The trouble is defining what is meant by a white-hole. They first appear in the maximally extended Schwarzschild black hole solution, and are paired with a black hole. BUT, stuff does not flow into the black hole to appear at the white hole. Quite the opposite, the stuff falling into the black hole hits the future singularity (which lies in the future!) and the white hole is "fed" by the past singularity, which unsurprisingly lies in the past.Even then, this is the extended solution, which is primarily mathematical in nature, and it is difficult to conceive of this occuring in nature. The black holes formed by gravitational collapse are not maximally extended and do not have the past singularity and the past event horizons of the white hole.Alfred discussing Mayer suggests a black hole connected to a white hole by the Einstein-Rosen bridge wormhole. This "wormhole" is again a feature of the maximally extended solution, not the astrophysical blach hole. And it essentially connects two black holes together, not a black hole to a white hole. And it is non-traversable in that it is a "space-like" connection, so that nothing travelling at c or below can cross it.Finally, black holes and white holes and Einstein-Rosen bridges are not things to be described in words. They are precise mathematical features of the black hole solutions to General Relativity. As soon as you leave GR, these terms become essentially meaningless unless you can use alternative mathematics to demonstrate that you have similar features in your own model. Mayer certainly does not have anywhere close to that level of mathematical detail of his "ideas", so is essentially talking nonsense. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

If I misinterpreted anything like you are alleging, the whole context is freely available for you to re-interpret it back correctly with the help of your superior grasp of the subject.
Though as I clearly specified earlier, the relativistic effect described in the quote was not due to any change in relative velocity. The two types of time dilation are just similar and parallel though their causes and magnitude may differ.

Ok, you may be right and I should have chosen a different quote. So here is another passage found on p.38 going more straight for the jugular:
"The observable effects of time dilation and length contraction are associated with three distinct phenomena; relative motion, the local gravitational field and the cosmic gravitational field. All three cases involve a similar form of coordinate transformation. In the case of cosmological gravitational field, the physical coordinate transformation (i.e. the transformation of space to time) occurs in the direction of observation. The true fundamental meaning of 'spacetime' curvature in the context of cosmology is that the farther we look out into space, the more the rest frame of galaxies at the remote location is rotated in spacetime relative to the local Galactic rest frame. Irrespective of any relative motion, the greater the distance to a galaxy is, the larger the component of its time axis projected onto the radial space dimension: time becomes space."

Removed as redundantEdited by NoNukes, : Void

Well, you are right. There is indeed next to no discussion of the ideas. As far as I am aware there was a New Scientist article but I could not locate it. The author's efforts to beat his own drum and to promote the book appear to be if not non-existent, still rather subdued; there is almost no activity on his blog and FB page and so on. In the blog he stated that he was too busy finishing the book.

Well, if that effect is observed on the minor scale and it is true that your head and your feet age at slightly different rates, it is only reasonable to conclude that the effect might be mirrored on the cosmic scale with the magnitudes corresponding to scale. Macrocosm reflecting microcosm is an ancient idea.

Mayer writes: And? This is simply what happens in the FLRW solutions to the Einstein Equation of General Relativity. Simply quoting what happens is hardly ground-breaking...

I don't need a superior grasp of the subject, in fact an adequate grasp of the English language is sufficient. It is clear that the material you quoted was not describing a new source of time dilation because it did not specify the source of the time dilation adequately. It is perfectly obvious that your reading was incorrect, from that alone.However, having a basic grasp of the subject I can tell you that all it was saying was that time dilation can cause a red-shift in observed light.

Alfred,As I see it, this is one of the flaws in Mayer's theory. He attacks the predictions of general relativity as applied to cosmology, but doesn't address other areas (such as gravitational time dilation) where the theory accurately predicts observation. So his macrocosm doesn't really reflect the microcosm.OliEdited by Oli, : Clarity.

All I can say is that if Mayer is correct then there is no SR, GR and QM any more but a single theory stemming from a single principle of light being the constant ratio of space to time with no violation physically possible whatsoever, whatever the guise that violation may be coming under.
Though not abandoning the uncertainty principle, he re-interprets it in a sense to rather vindicate Einstein's attitude to the whole thing and not of those who disagreed with the man at the time.
What he says is that there is particle AND wave all along and that the particle part of the equation is constant and is quantifiable if imaginary numbers are used instead of real ones.

First, the reality is not quite mathematics and secondly I am not yet qualified to criticise the man's mathematical approach in detail as he devoted ten years to calculating the cosmos, while I spent only a couple of months at sussing out his particular theory of it.
I must admit though that I am naturally biased in his favour and that is on the purely logical grounds.
He might need to refine his metrics just as you said he should and I am sure he is aware of the need and is working towards more extensive solution.
One thing that is clear though is that the underlying reasoning is very sound.Even if the unlikely scenario that Mayer's theory is complete nonsense like you claim being the case, that would not turn the consensus views he is debunking any less preposterous.
Whatever is the case, nothing may remain naturally physically handicapped in all its efforts to expand into nowhere, so all its best intentions to multiply may be in vain and all its best efforts to stretch may be naturally nipped in the bud. Both nothing and nowhere may not be capable of helping each other to accomplish the task set before them by the modern physical theory and that is for the simple reason that neither of the two may physically exist.
Of course, I am naturally biased, as the fellow's theory is expressing in concrete detail all that I thought about the universe a priori.
I am quoting him because he speaks my mind better than I myself can.
A few months ago in another forum I started a thread dealing with the difficulties and pointing out to the inherent absurdity of the mainstream views and somebody just gave a link to Mayer's theory suggesting that this could be a sensible solution to the puzzle of time and entropy.
Whatever the relation between black and white holes is in practice, one thing is clear: the universe is neither collapsing nor expanding as contraction and expansion are not proper attributes of the universe. The attributes have been misapplied to the universe due to an obvious flaw of reasoning.I do not observe the sky falling down. Nothing disappears into nothing for the simple reason that nothing is nowhere to be found physically, so for me it is only natural to presume that there is a certain mechanism of mass and energy distribution in the universe with the never reached sum of both remaining constant.
The only task is to figure out that mechanism in the physical detail and Mayer's is best effort towards such a solution that I have seen to date.