Admin writes:
Hi Alfred,
Thank you for submitting this thread proposal. Could you please flesh it out a bit with an outline of what Mayer is proposing? Feel free to cut-n-paste from your early messages, click on your name for a list of all the threads you've participated in thus far. Once you're in a thread you'll see a link under your name saying "Alfred Maddenstein's posts only". Click on that and it should make the job easy.
I'm not sure what the problem is, but I thought I was clear that I wasn't happy that you were introducing Mayer's ideas into multiple threads on other topics. Since you continued posting anyway in the
How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang? and
The accelerating expanding universe threads I've temporarily removed your posting permissions in the
Big Bang and Cosmology forum. I will restore them as soon as this thread proposal is accepted and promoted.
But why should you be so unhappy with that? That forum does not seem to be particularly active. Since I've been gone no new activity could be detected so even if I derailed the train of forum's thought off any topics, it was the derailment of a slow train indeed. It rather looked like no topics were much discussed at all. I hope no passenger bones have been broken.
As to the question of Alexander Franklin Mayer..well, let's say I am investigating the phenomenon and its aspects. What strikes me is the glaring gap between my own assessment of the man's achievements and the level of interest they currently generate.
That is, I want to find out whether I am a moron to hold something almost completely ignored in such a high esteem.
So, in a way, the issue for me to settle is who is foolish here. Myself or the venerated opinion of the many.
I propose that the thread should be copied into Is it science? forum for the opinion I have heard repeatedly is that the man is a worthless amateur in astrophysics having next to no peer-reviewed papers published and so on.
You ask me to give an outline of the theory. I must say that I am not sure I am the best person to do that as my translation of his ideas would necessarily be a very free one giving a somewhat wrong impression of his style. Which though not dry and jargon-laden by any means is quite matter-of-fact and investigative.
The best way is to hear it from the horse's mouth and judge for oneself.
The model is called MdR and that it because it is derived from the ideas of Minkowski, de Sitter and Riemann and in a nutshell is proposing that time should be considered in strictly geometrical terms. Space and time are strictly equivalent and mutually convertible measures with light expressing the constant ratio of the conversion. That is the reason why its velocity is not a variable and why no deviation in its measure is physically possible. That precludes any acceleration, inflation or expansion of the standard model. Geometrically time is strictly orthogonal to space. Thus if time and space are assumed to be an infinite circle, in such analogy the spatial part of the mixture could be taken to be the area of the circle and the temporal its circumference. If a radius is drawn from any of the points on the infinite circumference that should represent one of the infinity of the possible directions of time. Time is understood to be local necessarily.
The phenomenon of time dilation is taken to have a much wider significance than it is currently understood and in practical terms its manifestations are taken not to be limited to acceleration and deceleration of bodies involving local and relatively short distances.
For if any change in velocity is a reciprocal contacting and dilating of a distance and a time, then a sufficiently long distance on a cosmic scale is itself bound to produce exactly the same effect on the respective scale without any acceleration or deceleration involved.
Which may imply that on the universal scale the rates of processes, otherwise known as ageing are inversely proportionate to the distance to the observer. There could be no universal rate to the passing of time possible and the idea that a common clock may show a time the whole universe should agree on as it is proposed in the Big Bang model is incorrect. There may be the two rates of ageing to any object in cosmos- intrinsic and apparent at a distance. Any two observers at a close distance from each other would find that their intrinsic and apparent rates of ageing should roughly coincide in each other's estimation, yet any spatial distance between them may create a divergence in the respective reading of the two rates. At close distances that difference of rates may be ever so slight and practically negligible, yet the discrepancy between the two readings may grow as a function of distance and on the scale of billions of light years may become ever so great necessarily.
If instead of a circle the space and time relation is modelled as a sphere, then there is a parallelism between time and gravity. Time-lines may be then understood to be similar to gravity vectors in respect to the surface of the earth. Just like there is no gravity at the very centre of the earth's mass where all the vectors coincide, the sum of all times in the universe is agelessness necessarily. Mayer puts it beautifully and concisely saying in one of his papers that the universe is the physical manifestation of eternity.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : Grammar and style
™ Version 4.2