0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 02/01/2014 22:33:26 Now if gravitation slows in effect at the event horizon it too can't escape. This may well have rid me of the density issue except that all calculations of g have to be outside the mass being modeled. If c stops then there is effectively no g. If there is no g then what stops light. This is chicken and egg. So we are back to density.Now I see what you're having trouble with Jeff. Consider what the term "relativity" really means. Relativity is about the relative differences between the local events and what someone at a distance observes. For anyone falling into a black hole, time marches along exactly the same way it passed before they started their fall. However, for an observer the light coming from the black hole seems to be frozen. You may be thinking a bit backwards about this issue and this is very common for people to confuse the understanding about the dilation of time. Local to the black hole, light still travels at c. Local to the black hole, gravity is the same as it was beyond the region. What has changed it what the distant observer sees. I'm sure you've heard about how speed and gravitational forces slow the advance of time. But this slowing of time is only observed by those outside the local frame. For those experiencing the speed or the gravitational forces of huge masses like a black hole, time advances as it always has. Remember the example of the astronaut leaving the earth and speeding around the galaxy and returning to find those he left much, much older than himself. People confuse who's time has slowed. If the people on earth are much older, it appears to the astronaut that their time has accelerated and his has slowed. When we talk about speed and huge gravity causing time to slow, this slowing is only apparent to the observer, not the ones under observation. And conversely, those who remained on earth seeing their astronaut returning many years later and looking only months older would cause them to think his time had slowed. But for the astronaut, his interpretation remembers his time as advancing quite normally.Quote from: jefferyHBTW Have you ever read up on phonons? No, can't say that I have.
Now if gravitation slows in effect at the event horizon it too can't escape. This may well have rid me of the density issue except that all calculations of g have to be outside the mass being modeled. If c stops then there is effectively no g. If there is no g then what stops light. This is chicken and egg. So we are back to density.
BTW Have you ever read up on phonons?
All that I said above was with reference to an external observer. i know relativity well enough to understand what the observer in the gravitational field will experience but that is not the point.
Frames of reference are not useful in all situations.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 00:05:59All that I said above was with reference to an external observer. i know relativity well enough to understand what the observer in the gravitational field will experience but that is not the point.I didn't mean to marginalize your comments Jeff and I'm sorry if you may have taken it that way.Quote from: jefferyH Frames of reference are not useful in all situations. Could you expound on that for me Jeff? What I've learned about physics tells me that space/time is all about frames of reference. That's because time can not be separated from the equation. Space does not exist singularly, it is always accompanied by time.
No offense was taken by any of your remarks. The trouble with frames of reference and Lorentz transformations is that it is like navigating the oceans by measuring the speed and direction of the waves under the ship. Navigation needs a fixed reference and this was via the stars and then via an accurate timepiece. If sailors had to continually calculate how far in a particular direction a wave had moved the ship navigation would have been impossible. This is the point I am making. Too much time is spent navigating the physical sciences by measuring the waves instead of finding some fixed reference. This could be done if we thought about it properly. As we have no fixed points we can never be sure about anything important and we over complicate the mathematics.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 02:49:48No offense was taken by any of your remarks. The trouble with frames of reference and Lorentz transformations is that it is like navigating the oceans by measuring the speed and direction of the waves under the ship. Navigation needs a fixed reference and this was via the stars and then via an accurate timepiece. If sailors had to continually calculate how far in a particular direction a wave had moved the ship navigation would have been impossible. This is the point I am making. Too much time is spent navigating the physical sciences by measuring the waves instead of finding some fixed reference. This could be done if we thought about it properly. As we have no fixed points we can never be sure about anything important and we over complicate the mathematics.That would simplify things Jeff, but the problem is defining that point of reference. We have to ask the question; Is there a position in the universe that remains motionless? And then we have to ask; Motionless to what?According to present theory, the universe has no central point to gauge that point of origin from. There's a thought experiment about this problem and it goes something like this:Imagine there are only two objects in the universe, yourself and your best friend. You both notice that the distance between you is growing, your friend sees you moving further away and likewise, you see him receding also. Now, determine which one is moving. Is it you, or is it your friend? This thought experiment only involves two objects, the universe contains trillions upon trillions complicating the answer to the question. Truth is, it is more logical to assume that they are both moving than to decide which one is standing still. To determine which one is motionless is impossible.
BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 18:37:20BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.
Quote from: Ethos_ on 03/01/2014 19:27:12Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 18:37:20BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.I wasn't trying to prove motionlessness. That was the point. I was attempting to reference relative motion in a subsystem.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 20:17:13Quote from: Ethos_ on 03/01/2014 19:27:12Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 18:37:20BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.I wasn't trying to prove motionlessness. That was the point. I was attempting to reference relative motion in a subsystem.OK, for one reason or another, I seem to have misunderstood where you were headed with this discussion. I think we can agree concerning these points about relative motion. But how does this relate to electromagnetic radiation and gravity? Electromagnetic radiation always propagates at c, and according to the latest estimates, gravitational waves do as well. These velocities would of course apply to their local frame. As observers, there exist many circumstances where we can see slowing of these speeds from our frame of reference. But just because we see them slowing from our frame, doesn't mean they have slowed in theirs. The photon always experiences it's local speed as c. And if the graviton is a proper estimation for the gravitational force carrier, it does as well.
I am veering away from a direct link between the photon and gravitation. However by going down this route I have come to a more startling conclusion. What we think of as the graviton could be a merger of three other particles, all of which is are virtual particles. So these 3 virtual particles then combine to make a graviton that appears to move backwards in time which is not disallowed in quantum physics.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 03/01/2014 21:53:17I am veering away from a direct link between the photon and gravitation. However by going down this route I have come to a more startling conclusion. What we think of as the graviton could be a merger of three other particles, all of which is are virtual particles. So these 3 virtual particles then combine to make a graviton that appears to move backwards in time which is not disallowed in quantum physics.Which three virtual particles are you considering Jeff?