Post by: timey on 11/02/2016 18:33:44
Is distance an absolute invariant? ...It's a great question, point of fact...
In order to further my understanding of how the intertwining of general relativity with special relativity is mechanically derived. I have questions.
The Lorentz transformations.
Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate the velocity related slowing of time (relative to a 'stationary' observer), and contracting of distance experienced by the moving reference frame?
Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate the stretching of the fabric of space?
Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate gravitational time dilation? If not, what is?
And... are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate an observed length contraction?
*
Ok, I am now asking things in certain ways because I intend that you think about the matter from that perspective. Not because I have not understood the subject matter, at least to some degree anyway :). I'm now trying to understand how the GR field equations are slung together, and which maths are used in what context.
I am now talking about a reference frame that is moving at a constant velocity in which we find the observed party, with respect to another reference frame, (that we are considering as stationary with respect to the moving reference frame), where we find the observer. The moving reference frame is travelling through changes in a gravitational field, at an angle that affords the observer a view of its length.
: are the length contractions that an observer observes, a factor of the gravitational time contractions experienced by the observed?
: is velocity related time dilation experienced by the observed, a factor of the stretching of distance observed by the observer?
: is the contracting of distance experienced by the observed, a factor of the time dilation experienced by the observed?
: is the stretching of distance observed by the observer, a factor of his reference frames rate of time dilation?
: is the stretching of distance observed by the observer, a factor of his observation of length contraction?
In the other thread of same question:
Space Flow: you say that between galaxies in the voids that there are still gravitational forces at play, although very weak, and that space time is subsequently flattened. A flattening of space time is suggestive that without the effect of curvature, that a distance between 2 gravitational forces will be a 'shorter' distance than if any significant curvature were apparent. The time dilation aspects of faster time, (relative to earth), in these voids, also denotes that a unit of distance will be covered by a constant velocity more quickly. Yet... This flattened space time is being stretched, and the fact of redshift is given as proof of such. Are you able to talk me through the mechanics of the mathematics for these considerations? Can you calculate gravitational redshift?
Alan: you have said: GR simplifies to SR in the case of no acceleration, or no gravitational field... That there is a gravitational field in the voids, and that where these gravitational fields cross points, as such, that they cancel each other out. This being the premiss for wormholes presumably?
You have also given an example of some basic algebra that my level of study assumes that I already know. I'd like to understand how to use: GM/r2 ... my interpretation is that G is the gravitational constant, M is mass, but why a big one in this instance please? r2 is radius squared, but is this a straight line radius distance or a circular radius distance... please? Any help appreciated!
Jeff: I know you have been watching the Susskind lectures too, and I have no doubt that you, as a schooled mathematician, will have understood the subtleties of these complex equations far better than I. If you can answer any of my questions, I'd be delighted. This goes for anyone else who understands the concepts being discussed.
Post by: timey on 11/02/2016 19:38:48
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 23:05:12
Is distance an absolute invariantThis is indeed a complicated question, and in the way you have gone about asking it, you have one set out your thoughts very clearly, and two you have some assumptions and understandings that are not quite correct.
So lets work through it;
I will start by cleaning up your understanding of what I previously said.
Space Flow: you say that between galaxies in the voids that there are still gravitational forces at play, although very weak, and that space time is subsequently flattened. A flattening of space time is suggestive that without the effect of curvature, that a distance between 2 gravitational forces will be a 'shorter' distance than if any significant curvature were apparent. The time dilation aspects of faster time, (relative to earth), in these voids, also denotes that a unit of distance will be covered by a constant velocity more quickly.There are no totally empty Voids that we have been able to find. But the density of matter in the Voids is extremely low. By extremely low I don't refer to particles per cubic metre but to clusters, galaxies, stars, etc. Yes there are material structures even in the middle of the biggest Voids that we have looked into. So even though we can talk hypothetically about a flat spacetime, in reality we know of no such place. (Actually the very centre of any massive body should have a small region of totally flat spacetime).
The other thing about the above statement that distances should be shorter in flat spacetime is not correct. Curvature or in my case flow rate, increases density and as such distances are shorter where there is movement. Therefore distances are seen to be longer in flat spacetime and shorter in curved. Anywhere that movement can be observed whatever the cause, brings time dilation and length contraction into the observations. This is not an answer to the overall question you pose but explains what will be observed.
Any unit of distance will always be covered by any kind of velocity more quickly than not moving at all so I don't understand what this is supposed to mean; "The time dilation aspects of faster time, (relative to earth), in these voids, also denotes that a unit of distance will be covered by a constant velocity more quickly".
Who is the observer in that statement. If you are talking about a SR scenario than looking from Earth technically you are not at rest. Even stretching the imagination past reasonable limits this is not a good comparison and will complicate rather than teach us anything.
But I will set that aside and assume that you have found a point in space that is at rest relative to the centre of this Void. Again using SR to describe the situation, from this observation point any movement you observe by anything in the Void will make that mass that is observed to be moving display time dilation and length contraction by an amount defined by the Gamma factor (γ). Gamma is defined by (1 divided by the square root of (1-(v/c)^2).
From the reference frame of any mass in the void, without acceleration of any kind involved, they too can consider themselves to be at rest and anything they observe to be moving will be subject to the same treatment as above.
Any affects due to space flatness or better put degree of curvature is outside the analytical powers of SR.
Yet... This flattened space time is being stretched, and the fact of redshift is given as proof of such.Any movement attributed to space expansion is attributed to movement of space time and not movement through spacetime. It causes a frequency shift like any observed movement towards and away from an observer will do, but not being movement through spacetime is not subject to Gamma factor adjustment. If all the observed movement is by spacetime itself, it is possible to even exceed light speed with no time dilation or length contraction.
Such movement is calculated from the frequency shift observed and in an expanding universe is always red-shift. In other words the spectral signatures of elements contained in the light that we observe have all been shifted to the longer end of the EM spectrum. The light has been stretched.
The math to work that out is fairly simple because we have the constant speed of light as a reference.
An example would be that you analyze the light from a distant object and you identify known absorption lines, but these lines are not where your lab testing tells you they should be.
If an object is moving towards or away from you, these spectral lines will be
moved in wavelength away from their normal wavelength λ. (The lab wavelength)
If you observe a line at wavelength λo, you can define a redshift z as: z=λo-λ/λ (λo being your observed wavelength).
If you then multiply this by the speed of light per second you will get the speed that your observed object is moving away from you. This is fine as long as the speeds you are observing are well short of the speed of light.
If you are somehow watching something that due to the expansion of the Universe is moving away at relativistic velocity then you have to add the gamma factor to that equation. Even than it is a little more complicated. Luckily this situation does not change the impact on the subject matter of this post so we can leave it at that.
Whether slow or relativistic, this stretching of light due to space expansion is a line of evidence that distance is not an absolute invariant.
Can you calculate gravitational redshift?This is a subject that deserves its own post.
Under the current curved space interpretation of GR, it requires the use of calculus. Or it would if I was to try and run you through it.
Spaceflow theory on the other hand treats everything as a relative velocity or acceleration between matter and spacetime, and so reduces it to just relative speeds.
I am in the process of working through that maths for inclusion in my own paper and you will be able to view it there once done.
Right lets see how you go digesting this analysis of just the statement in your vast query that is attributed to me, before I try and address the many other points of your post.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2016 23:29:07
Alan: you have said: GR simplifies to SR in the case of no acceleration, or no gravitational field... That there is a gravitational field in the voids, and that where these gravitational fields cross points, as such, that they cancel each other out. This being the premiss for wormholes presumably?No, just places where the gravitational field isn't merely weak but actually zero. However since all the stuff in the universe is moving around all the time, the zeros are temporary and pretty much unpredictable!
Quote
You have also given an example of some basic algebra that my level of study assumes that I already know. I'd like to understand how to use: GM/r2 ... my interpretation is that G is the gravitational constant, M is mass, but why a big one in this instance please?We usually write F = GMm/r^2 to denote the force between two masses, and that usually means between a big lump (mother earth, M) and a little one (me, m). So the gravitational field at a distance r from a big lump will be GM/r^2, from which we can calculate the accelerating force on any mass m1, m2, etc that happens to be there.
Quote
r2 is radius squared, but is this a straight line radius distance or a circular radius distance... please? Any help appreciated!r is, classically, the shortest distance between two points in Euclidean space. If there are only two bodies in our universe (I feel a song coming on - it's that time of year!) and our test mass (little m) has no initial velocity, we can ignore all that stuff about conservation of angular momentum and geodesic paths in curved spacetime, and your picture of microgravity in the void of deep space does indeed provide the criteria for simple linear attraction. Of course if there is an initial relative velocity, then conservation of angular momentum will lead to a Specsavers Moment and m will take up a decaying orbit. Yes, folks, sex and physics - better than television any day!
Post by: timey on 11/02/2016 23:53:45
Alan, same as, and thanks for the maths lesson. I'll put that to use straight away in tidying up some formula I've been working on, and btw, you forgot about phychology! :)
Post by: Space Flow on 12/02/2016 00:10:23
"Although the intention of this thread is to remain within the remit of established physics"You are probably going to think I am being difficult, but I can not do both of the above red and blue quotes, with the questions the way you have worded them.
"Ok, I am now asking things in certain ways because I intend that you think about the matter from that perspective".
Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate the velocity related slowing of time (relative to a 'stationary' observer), and contracting of distance experienced by the moving reference frame?
Answer;Yes the Lorentz transformations are what is used to find the applicable gamma factor to any observed reference frame that is moving relative to the observer. The gamma factor gives you the time dilation and length contraction observed in a relatively moving reference frame.
The second part of this question does not make sense (contracting of distance experienced by the moving reference frame?).
A reference frame that is observed to be moving is observed to undergo time dilation and length contraction.This is from the point of view of the observer, so saying that an observed moving reference frame in any way experiences such things is wrong. That same reference frame has every right under SR to consider itself stationary and it is the other reference frame undergoing the effects of observed speed.
One's own reference frame can not experience these effects.
Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate the stretching of the fabric of space?
If you mean due to Universal expansion, not as a general rule, as the observed speeds we see so far do not warrant that level of difficulty.
But to answer the question if they describe the situation more accurately than not using them then YES. To clarify that some more, if we were observing expansion at relativistic speeds then we would be forced to take Gamma into consideration. As it is at the moment with the speeds we are dealing with the extra level of computing difficulty is not justified by the extreme fractional difference it would make in our answers.
Are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate gravitational time dilation? If not, what is?
Answer; Yes
And... are the Lorentz transformations used to calculate an observed length contraction?
Answer; Yes
dTo explain: my interest is in 'distance' rather than length. Distance being the space between things, and length being the distance occupied by matter. Clearly 'a' distance between things that are moving at different speeds relative to each other is variable. But... are we saying that distance itself, empty space between 'things', can be stretched or contracted?Answer; I do not quite understand the distinction you make between distance and length.
Things as you call them are composed of space with an extremely small fraction of impurities within this space we call matter. Even then the representative matter is said to be considered as point particles so really we are talking about space when we say distance or length.
Whatever the space we are observing does, then the matter within that space is observed to do the same thing. Check out the latest announcement of the discovery of gravitational waves to get a better understanding of what happens to matter when the space that contains it gets distorted in any way.
So the correct answer to your question is that all these relativistic effects are observed to happen to the spacetime and the matter contained by that spacetime just conforms to the observed shape and rhythm of that spacetime.
With the exception of the recently discovered Gravitational waves, we have no other way of directly observing spacetime. So we use the observation of matter to show us what spacetime is seen to be doing. Matter is the proxy for what we observe to be happening at the coordinates it occupies.
I don't know if you have noticed but not once in all my answers have I even hinted that any of those effects actually happen. Only that they are observed to happen. So in a sense your main question remains unanswered.
The only thing is the recent discovery of Gravitational waves can be taken as a direct observation of spacetime distance or length changing.
Everything else until now depended on the understanding of GR. These gravitational waves are a direct observation of spacetime varying in shape and size.
If we had observed such an effect without GR to explain it, we would have been forced to imediately invent a theory to account for a spacetime that can stretch and compress, as that is exactly what direct observation showed to have happened. Any theory that claim's otherwise will have a very hard time explaining this data.
So LIGO and VIRGO have answered this question for us. Distance is most certainly not an invariant of any sort let alone absolute.
Post by: timey on 12/02/2016 01:28:38
Yes - gravity waves. You may well find it amusing to see in the gravity waves thread, that my 'visual' of the premiss of the experiment has morphed several times now.
Given that we are here in New Theories, I can speak more freely. And please appreciate that I am stuck here with a very small and rather cracked iPhone screen for investigating my interests, but a hugely vivid imagination...;)
First I imagined that the light was sent along tubes at an angle to the tube itself, where the mirrors lined the tube and the light bounced around inside to a measuring point and a gravitational 'shift' in the light was detectable.
Then Ethos said no, and told me that the light is split into a beam down 2 tubes aligned in a V angle with mirrors at the ends, the idea being that the distance between the mirrors was going to be changed by the gravitational wave. This, I imagined was going to a more closed up V shape...
Then Alan dropped the subtle hint that it is the length of the arms of the V that are supposed to be affected, which is when the experiment became vertically oriented in my mind.
There are many roads to Rome, aye?
Never-the-less, I do think that my notion of the light being exposed to an increase in gravitational energy causing a gravitational shift in the light itself is valid, providing, as Ethos pointed out, such a shift could be measured. But if they are expecting the length of the arms to be affected by the gravitational wave, and the equivalence principle holds, then light will also be gravitationally shifted. The distance of the arms will be measured by how much time it takes the light to return, but we must also consider that the rate of time will also be affected by a gravitational wave. An increase in the gravitational field will 'slow' time down according to GR. The constant speed of light travelling the 4 kilometre arms in a slower rate of time will result in the appearance of a longer distance. Vertically oriented arms will be already dealing with changes in the gravitational field in any case. In fact, in my mind, a horizontally oriented experiment would have the benefit of being oriented in a consistent gravitational field.
I daresay you might tell me now that all three of my visualisations of the experiment are wrong, and offer me a fourth! Lol!
Post by: Ethos_ on 12/02/2016 03:19:11
This, I imagined was going to a more closed up V shape...Actually timey, I think the layout is more like a Capital L and the arms lay horizontal to the earth. An arm of 4 kilometers in height would be higher than any man made structure we currently have built on earth. The pictures I've seen have the tubes laying flat to the earths surface.
Then Alan dropped the subtle hint that it is the length of the arms of the V that are supposed to be affected, which is when the experiment became vertically oriented in my mind.
Post by: timey on 12/02/2016 03:41:59
I wonder how the arms themselves are supposed to be length affected? I can visualise the possibility if they are vertically aligned, but horizontally? The mind boggles... Is it a directional thing do you suppose? North and East maybe...?
It does make more sense that they are horizontal from the point of view of a more consistent gravitational field though.
Post by: Ethos_ on 12/02/2016 03:58:59
Of course, and lying at right angles to the event would expose a much greater area for the waves to influence.
It does make more sense that they are horizontal from the point of view of a more consistent gravitational field though.
I've also been doing some more investigation and have discovered that it is indeed the cycling of shortening and lengthening of the tubes that LIGO has observed leading to the verification of gravitational waves.
They compare the measuring of a protons diameter with the cycling of it's diameter from spherical to elliptical. By which standard that comparison is achieved, I have yet to found a detailed description of how the experiment was done.
Interesting times we live in my friend, interesting times................
Post by: Colin2B on 12/02/2016 09:24:31
Post by: timey on 12/02/2016 12:19:01
You say the Lorentz transformations equate length contraction. As far as I understand, in using the Lorentz transformations to equate length contraction, that this system of mathematics 'already takes into account' the factor of the 'lengths' experience of a slowing of its time... That this equation is a melding of both these concepts and gives both results.
Now then, if you would, please just humour me here a bit...
I am now switching the polarities of the 'time' consideration. An increase in the gravitational field is now 'increasing' the rate of time. The constant speed of light is now taking a 'shorter' amount of time to cover the 4km distance.
By taking the distance by which the original 4km distance has shrunk according to 'length contraction', and juggling the differences with the gravitational constant, (it's not quite clear to me the mathematical mechanics of how to 'juggle', but it will come to me), that these will divide down to the constants of square root 2, and 0.41+bunch other numbers.
This mathematical description, if it pans out, will tell you that 'length' or 'distance' IS an absolute invariant, and that it is the 'time' considerations that are the variable, as we have always thought, but just not occurring in the manner that physics has been thinking for all these years.
If I am right, then the Lorentz transformations them self can also be equated. It should be possible to add up 2 of the constants used in this equation , (I think, scratches head), to arrive at the constant of square root 2, and further 'juggling' should reveal the constant of 0.41+lots other numbers.
On the other hand, I might just be completely bonkers. :D
Post by: puppypower on 12/02/2016 13:50:36
Let us look at Doppler shift and Energy Conservation. Consider a fog horn and ships coming and going from the harbor. The fog horn sounds with a given frequency and uses X kilowatts of energy to operate the horn. The ships coming into the harbor will hear the pitch go up, while the ships leaving the harbor will hear the pitch go down. This relative motion changes the sound waves for the observer. However, this does not impact the reality of the fog horn, such as its electric bill.
The Doppler shift, observed as ship come and go, does not alter the sound source at the level of its mass, its size, its geometry and its energy usage. What I observed on the moving ship is how my motion impacts the sounds waves that came from the fog horn after it leave the horn. If I extrapolate these changes back to the source and alter the source, it is all an illusion. The fog horn did not change for me. This assumption is egocentric and assumes I am the center of the universe and all hail me.
My motion has nothing to do with the fog horn operation. The fog horn by being the source of the wave is the standard reference if an energy balance is important. One way to test this is look at the fog horn energy bill and see if my driving past the fog horn all day long makes its electric bill it go up or down. Nothing will happen accept expectations.
The analogy is if I wear red sunglasses, the entire world will appear to have red tones from my reference. The world does not change. That would be an illusion. This illusion might be instituted among my peers, if I assume reference is relative. If reference is relative, why not pick my references as the standard? It does not matter if plants are actually green, since it is all relative to my red reference. This will require we do away with common sense and the energy balance.
Instead of a fog horn, say have an energy horn, similar to a fog horn. This is used to warn star ships of asteroids, plasma arcs and other space travel hazards. This energy horn emits energy of a given spectrum defined by Star Fleet. The star ships coming toward the energy horn will see a blue shift in that spectrum, while the star ships going away will see a red shift in that spectrum. These star ship observations do not impact the energy horn in term of its tangible reality; its electric bill. All that happens is the energy signal coming from the energy horn is altered by our motion, for our reference, as defined by Special relativity. This does not alter the source. If it did alter the source, coming and going would see a different energy balance in the energy horn; violate energy conservation.
If the energy horn was in motion; asteroid crawler, sounding off as it finds dangerous things, since its motion implied actually added propulsion energy; kinetic energy, relativistic (kinetic) energy will be added to its mass/energy balance. This uses a variation of kinetic energy extrapolated by Einstein into the equations of special relativity. This will result in changes in the asteroid crawler defined by special relativity. These changes are real and are connected to an energy balance. The energy came from propulsion and not red sun glasses.
If the star ship observer is in motion, it will see its own internal special relativity affects, connected to its own relativistic kinetic energy; energy balance due to propulsion. Ships of the same mass coming and going, at the same speed, will have the same internal changes, since both have the same kinetic and internal energy. The V2 term of kinetic energy makes coming and going the same since the square of plus and minus is both 1. Kinetic energy is a scalar.
Each ship; coming and going, may will see a different Doppler shift in the energy horn; red in glasses. These two separate changes; internal energy and external Doppler shift, may appear to create different relative energy in the asteroid horn. But the actual energy of the energy horn is connected to its own energy usage and its own mass velocity.
To summarize Doppler shift will make external energy appear to change, relative to the observation reference. However, this does not affect the source. This is red sun glasses. If the source is moving based on kinetic energy, there will be internal changes in the sources based on SR. This is independent of any observer.
If I am stationary and the source moves at V, or if I am moving at V and the source is stationary, the energy balance can be different, even if the Doppler shift is the same. If my reference and the source reference have two different masses, we get two different kinetic energies based on who is moving. Relative reference only applies to the Doppler shift, but it does not apply to an energy balance. Energy balance always implies a preferred reference, since Conservation of Energy will be made void by relative reference. If I move at V or the moon moves at V relative to me, each will require different energies, even if both give the same Doppler shift.
Dark energy appears to be an artifact of assuming relative reference applies to energy conservation by making the red shift define the universe. Lost energy is appearing in other ways, through data inferences.
Special Relativity is easy is you assume Doppler shift and Energy Conservation are two separate things that are not connected. The first is relative and the second needs to be absolute or else Energy Conservation is violated; breaks the law.
Post by: Colin2B on 12/02/2016 17:26:37
Colin. No problem, in fact I think my post was just a symptom of my frustration at my inability to find anyone willing to undertake a 'progressive' discussion with me regarding GR.
When taking on board the difference between a length and a distance, by the remit of SR, a length in a reference frame that is accelerated relative to another, will appear contracted to the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame. The observer on the length in the accelerated reference frame does not experience a contraction of his crafts length, and will instead experience a contracting of the distance he is travelling relative to what the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame observes of the lengths accelerated reference frames journey.
Finally, the lengths accelerated reference frames rate of time is running slower relative to the non accelerated frames rate of time.
Dispensing with the SR considerations for a moment, the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length and its accelerated reference frame travelling through changes in the gravitational field. These changes in the gravitational field also elicit changes in the rate of time that a clock runs at. We have tested this theory by placing clocks in all manner of elevation, and measuring by how much faster they run relative to a clock at ground level. (NIST atomic clock ground level relativity experiments 2010)... Even back in Einstein's day, it was known that a pendulum has a shorter swing up a mountain, than in the valley.
***Therefore, and based upon this sole observation I do believe, it has been decided that a gravity field slows time down. And that the rate of time runs faster out in space.***
So the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame, observing the accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length in the accelerated reference frame travelling through a gravitationally induced change, or changes, in the rate of time of its locality.
According to GR, if light travels at the speed of light across units of distance experiencing local changes in the gravitational field, and therefore is experiencing changes in the rate of time over these units of distance experiencing changes in the gravitational field, and GR does not take these local changes in the rate of time into account, then distance does indeed become a variable. It stretches!
Clearly the GR field equation's do also include these changes in the local rate of time into the mix to account for this stretching of distance that would otherwise occur.
Space Flow: I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint. I agree! If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.
My initial thoughts to get discussion rolling which I think are relevant to the new thread you have started:
.............. We have tested this theory by placing clocks in all manner of elevation, and measuring by how much faster they run relative to a clock at ground level. (NIST atomic clock ground level relativity experiments 2010)...Along with Gravity probes A & B - both SR & GR appear to be consistent with the experiments.
Even back in Einstein's day, it was known that a pendulum has a shorter swing up a mountain, than in the valley.The effect was known in Huygens' time - late 1600s, he derived the formula for pendulum under influence of gravity and used it to calc value of g in Paris. This effect is much larger than that due to GR.
......Therefore, ... and based upon this sole observation I do believe, it has been decided that a gravity field slows time down. And that the rate of time runs faster out in spaceThe only thing I would add is that for the local observer in space, time, distance, etc, appear to be unchanged.
Space Flow: I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint. I agree! If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.Not sure what you mean by a lesser percentage of light
Although the 'distortions' seem to be a factor of our viewpoint they also appear to be quite real. Experiments show that the time dilation remains after a clock is returned to the laboratory frame. This seems to indicate that the journey took a shorter route through time, so to speak. (Note : I'm not sure about calling time a distance as GR uses ct (a distance) to represent distance light travels between events.)
That the moving object is no longer contracted could be just the result of coming back to our frame - if we are standing on the longer road, we can't measure it as shorter. We are used to 2 travellers taking different routes to the same point and taking different times.
I view Lorentz transforms for time and length as being 2 sides of same coin, which I think is the view you are coming to.
What does intrigue me, and I haven't resolved how to think about this, is that if clocks at different heights in a gravity field are showing different times between events, it implies a difference in the flow of time at those points, like different flow rates in a river. Is this a result of gravity or a cause of the motion we attribute to gravity? Also, it is important to consider whether the movement is across different heights, or parallel to. How do we resolve this with respect to acceleration, where we might see the acceleration as 'causing' the gravity effect.
PS the formula for gravity time dilation is
image1.png
Where tf is measured at an infinite distance from the mass.
Post by: Colin2B on 12/02/2016 17:27:52
Colin. No problem, in fact I think my post was just a symptom of my frustration at my inability to find anyone willing to undertake a 'progressive' discussion with me regarding GR.
When taking on board the difference between a length and a distance, by the remit of SR, a length in a reference frame that is accelerated relative to another, will appear contracted to the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame. The observer on the length in the accelerated reference frame does not experience a contraction of his crafts length, and will instead experience a contracting of the distance he is travelling relative to what the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame observes of the lengths accelerated reference frames journey.
Finally, the lengths accelerated reference frames rate of time is running slower relative to the non accelerated frames rate of time.
Dispensing with the SR considerations for a moment, the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length and its accelerated reference frame travelling through changes in the gravitational field. These changes in the gravitational field also elicit changes in the rate of time that a clock runs at. We have tested this theory by placing clocks in all manner of elevation, and measuring by how much faster they run relative to a clock at ground level. (NIST atomic clock ground level relativity experiments 2010)... Even back in Einstein's day, it was known that a pendulum has a shorter swing up a mountain, than in the valley.
***Therefore, and based upon this sole observation I do believe, it has been decided that a gravity field slows time down. And that the rate of time runs faster out in space.***
So the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame, observing the accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length in the accelerated reference frame travelling through a gravitationally induced change, or changes, in the rate of time of its locality.
According to GR, if light travels at the speed of light across units of distance experiencing local changes in the gravitational field, and therefore is experiencing changes in the rate of time over these units of distance experiencing changes in the gravitational field, and GR does not take these local changes in the rate of time into account, then distance does indeed become a variable. It stretches!
Clearly the GR field equation's do also include these changes in the local rate of time into the mix to account for this stretching of distance that would otherwise occur.
Space Flow: I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint. I agree! If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.
My initial thoughts to get discussion rolling which I think are relevant to the new thread you have started:
.............. We have tested this theory by placing clocks in all manner of elevation, and measuring by how much faster they run relative to a clock at ground level. (NIST atomic clock ground level relativity experiments 2010)...Along with Gravity probes A & B - both SR & GR appear to be consistent with the experiments.
Even back in Einstein's day, it was known that a pendulum has a shorter swing up a mountain, than in the valley.The effect was known in Huygens' time - late 1600s, he derived the formula for pendulum under influence of gravity and used it to calc value of g in Paris. This effect is much larger than that due to GR.
......Therefore, ... and based upon this sole observation I do believe, it has been decided that a gravity field slows time down. And that the rate of time runs faster out in spaceThe only thing I would add is that for the local observer in space, time, distance, etc, appear to be unchanged.
Space Flow: I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint. I agree! If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.Not sure what you mean by a lesser percentage of light
Although the 'distortions' seem to be a factor of our viewpoint they also appear to be quite real. Experiments show that the time dilation remains after a clock is returned to the laboratory frame. This seems to indicate that the journey took a shorter route through time, so to speak. (Note : I'm not sure about calling time a distance as GR uses ct (a distance) to represent distance light travels between events.)
That the moving object is no longer contracted could be just the result of coming back to our frame - if we are standing on the longer road, we can't measure it as shorter. We are used to 2 travellers taking different routes to the same point and taking different times.
I view Lorentz transforms for time and length as being 2 sides of same coin, which I think is the view you are coming to.
What does intrigue me, and I haven't resolved how to think about this, is that if clocks at different heights in a gravity field are showing different times between events, it implies a difference in the flow of time at those points, like different flow rates in a river. Is this a result of gravity or a cause of the motion we attribute to gravity? Also, it is important to consider whether the movement is across different heights, or parallel to. How do we resolve this with respect to acceleration, where we might see the acceleration as 'causing' the gravity effect.
PS the formula for gravity time dilation is
t0=tf√(1-2GM/rc2)
Where tf is measured at an infinite distance from the mass.
Post by: timey on 12/02/2016 18:55:00
Please note the Lorentz transformation considerations in my last post, in relation to switching the polarities of the time consideration and the gravitational 'shift' in light, this being of relevance to the current LIGO gravity wave length contraction experiment. I am waiting with bated breath to hear if my mathematical suggestions pan out!
What is relevant at this point in the discussion is a pendulum having a shorter swing at elevation. Yes - you are correct, this is a far greater effect than GR time dilation... but this is not the point. A pendulum is, and always has been, associated with time keeping. A shorter swing means faster time. I believe that this alone is the premiss for believing that clocks tick faster in elevation. Of course, it would be a natural progression to 'assume' that time is running at a faster rate in space. That a clock will tick faster at elevation. And, low and behold they do. The Lorentz transformations make a perfect description of this concept, in relation to parallax distances and the speed of light. The consequence of this equation is that length, or distance, is variable.
However, just because a body of mass experiences an increase in its rate of time at elevation, this does not mean that the rate of time for that location of space runs at that rate of time. Indeed, for massless light, we see its rate of frequency reduce as it travels out into empty space. If you can view lights frequency as an indication of the rate of time in that location, it becomes apparent that the length of the wave is not distance related, but time related, that time is running at a vastly slower rates in vastly reduced gravity fields and all parallax distances are shorter than we currently believe. By 22.24%, or to be mathematically precise, d/square root 2.
This line of thinking renders the phenomenon of time as being 'energy' related. An increase in gravitational energy, increases the rate of time.
Post by: Space Flow on 12/02/2016 20:25:26
Go away for a bit and the whole conversation travels at the speed of light in my absence.
It appears quite a bit has been said that I will have to read and understand before commenting on any of it.
I am here to offer timey some easy math for working out how time dilation and length contraction are related to gravity, and those effects calculated at different radii. (heights)
No calculus involved as I have extrapolated from the premises of Spaceflow theory. All this is dependent on relative speeds so can just be treated with high school algebra. Any radius (height) can be treated as a situation in SR so simplifying things.
Using the equations which are not new in this manner will give you equivalent free space travel velocities velocities for any point in any gravitational well. This way any two can be directly compared to each other.
Anyway here it is:
Spacetime Flow Rates
Definition of Gravity; See acceleration.
Definition of acceleration;
A rate of changing Geodesic. Measured as relative change rate of speed between matter and spacetime and defined as a pressure in newtons. (Weight)
There are several ways to achieve a true accelerated state.
One is to jump on a spaceship of some sort and in free space constantly accelerate past your surrounding spacetime.
Two you could stand on the dense surface of a massive object and let spacetime accelerate past you towards the centre of gravity. You could also stand on a rocket sled and accelerate at 1g 1 metre above sea level and as such view yourself as accelerating past a static spacetime (even though you are static relative to anything around you constituted of particle based matter). Either way it is describing an equivalent situation.
When this situation is achieved by maintaining a radius from a centre of Mass without angular momentum (Hover), the speed of the spaceflow past a thus otherwise stationary seeming observer, is given by; “V=sqrt((2GM)/r)” in m/s towards the centre of Mass. If V (Spaceflow velocity) ever equals “c” the speed of light, you have reached the Schwarschild radius of a Black Star (hole). Not that such an animal as a non-rotating Black Star is possible.
Where; V is the flow velocity of spacetime.
G is the Flow-rate Constant (6.67e-11 m^3/Kg/s^2) (Formally the gravitational constant)
M is the amount of Mass in Kgs inside a sphere described by the radius.
And r is the distance from the centre of mass in metres. (Radius)
This describes velocities in an accelerated frame and the rate of acceleration is still given by Newton’s;- A=GM/r^2 Where A is acceleration.
The so called centripetal force now supplied by the inflowing spacetime is still given by; f=(MV^2)/r and also still equals GMm/r^2
Orbital velocities are still calculated by; Vo=sqrt((GM)/r)
Where Vo is the orbital speed needed to stay Geodesic (Free Fall) at a known radius.
NOTE: Atmospheric drag and the effects of spinning bodies have been totally ignored in this treatment, as it would add a level of complexity without significantly helping in communicating the concept or significantly changing the results until you start dealing with ultracompact objects with high spin rates.
Post by: timey on 12/02/2016 22:03:36
Well Space Flow, it would seem that your theory and mine are at complete and total cross purposes with each other (chuckle). No matter... I consider alternative physics theories as synonymous to a lottery ticket, that doesn't cost money, is much more entertaining, but shares the same probability issues in being a winner!
One observation, my theory is a damn site easier to disprove than yours...lol!
Post by: jeffreyH on 12/02/2016 22:24:52
Post by: Space Flow on 12/02/2016 22:33:02
Well you see dear lady, I don't aim to throw out two and a half thousand years of accumulated knowledge about the way things work.
Well Space Flow, it would seem that your theory and mine are at complete and total cross purposes with each other (chuckle). No matter... I consider alternative physics theories as synonymous to a lottery ticket, that doesn't cost money, is much more entertaining, but shares the same probability issues in being a winner!
One observation, my theory is a damn site easier to disprove than yours...lol!
I have no problems with GR as such. Just the way it's been interpreted for the last hundred years.
You will find that if you just change perspective, all the observations, experimental evidence, and maths, suports my view even better than the same supports the curved space view.
As I said it is not a big change, but I think an important one. There is no reason to throw out Einsteins great work, just redefine it so we have an avenue to move forward.
That does not necessarily mean the direction of your thinking is necessarily wrong, but you may have guessed by now by my comments on these posts, that I have a couple of problems with your point of view.
Several of your hypothesis do not fit the observed facts.
But maybe after these conversations we have been having, you might want to revise what you sent me. Maybe not!!!
Post by: timey on 12/02/2016 23:38:46
My theory does not in the least throw any of the work done by the greats of science aside. Nor does it start from scratch. If my theory is going to be doing anything at-all, it will be to mesh all this great work together. It quite simply states that one mistake has been made, and in rectifying that mistake, not only do we arrive at the 'observed' universe, albeit by a different mathematical process that affords us an absolute reference frame, but we also get a cyclic universe, and we get it without adding any unobserved quantities into our universe. No dark matter. No dark energy. I do realise though that it is a bit of a paradigm leap for the mind that is trained in relativity, to take on board that GR time dilation is perhaps just a mass near mass phenomenon, that black holes are full of energy, where time runs extremely fast, while the slowing of time that a traveller experiences in space is because time runs slow in space. I do not understand where you have a problem with observation fitting the theory, probably because you didn't say.
However, if one understands the premiss or not, this does not really have any bearing upon picking apart the Lorentz transformations in search of the constants square root 2 and 0.41+other numbers.
I'm saying that the contraction of the tubes in the gravity waves experiment is caused by a time 'contraction', not a length contraction. That the Lorentz transformations are allowing for a slowing of time within the equation, and in the event that time is actually going quicker, the resulting length contraction 'measure' of contraction length, is in fact not a length contraction, but a time contraction.
Now you have to realise that I am doing all of this in my head, but I think, (rubs chin) that the fact of the allowing for a slowing of time in the equation needs to be added to the measure of the length of the contraction, subtracted from the distance, and if you divide all the aspects by each other, 2 of the results will be the constants square root 2, and 0.41+other numbers.
Now then, I cannot do this myself on this iPhone screen with a free internet scientific calculator. Not without going to specsavers anyway!
Any help from any mathematician appreciated, I'd be really happy to be proved wrong...
Post by: Colin2B on 12/02/2016 23:41:16
What is relevant at this point in the discussion is a pendulum having a shorter swing at elevation. Yes - you are correct, this is a far greater effect than GR time dilation... but this is not the point. A pendulum is, and always has been, associated with time keeping. A shorter swing means faster time. I believe that this alone is the premiss for believing that clocks tick faster in elevation.But a pendulum clock loses time at elevation unless corrected, that is what intrigued me when you included it. The period of a pendulum is inversely proportional to √g, so each swing takes longer and clock slows down. Bit of a red herring really but best to get it out of the discussion.
Edit: reading through this thread, am I right in thinking you are proposing that the effect of gravity on time is the opposite of what current GR says, or have I misread. Not sure I have grasped your ideas properly.
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 00:18:33
Maybe it's just me, and it matters not how they got there really, they did, and clocks do tick faster in elevation. Clocks are mass. GR time dilation 'could' be just a mass near mass phenomenon, and the phenomenon of time 'could' be caused by energy, with the rate of time set at stopped in a zero gravity field. If you add up inherent mass energy with 'space energy' (synonymous to inherent mass energy), gravity potential, and subtract 0.5mv^2 energy for rate of time result. It's actually a time matrix. 3 positive and 1 negative, and can work in conjunction with a matrix of 3 dimensions of space, whereas the 4th time aspect of this space time matrix is the resulting rate of time of the time matrix.
Clearly it would be a miracle if I'm right Colin, but even 'wrong', I reckon it's a stunning piece of logic. Worthy of a calculate anyway.
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 00:28:26
Edit: reading through this thread, am I right in thinking you are proposing that the effect of gravity on time is the opposite of what current GR says, or have I misread
No, I'm not suggesting that it is the opposite to GR time dilation. GR time dilation remains as a mass near mass phenomenon. This is an additional time dilation and is the root cause of time. A parallax distance divided by square root 2, subtracting the result from the original figure, this part of the parallax distance is not distance, but is related to the slowing of time. This will comprise of 0.41+other numbers of the parallax distance.
The gravity wave length contraction becomes not a length contraction under this remit, it is a time contraction. A time contraction, under the remit of calculating it as a time dilation, will cause the maths to give you a length contraction.
Post by: Space Flow on 13/02/2016 00:44:30
I do realise though that it is a bit of a paradigm leap for the mind that is trained in relativity, to take on board that GR time dilation is perhaps just a "mass near mass phenomenon", (Not sure what you mean by that) that black holes are full of energy, where time runs extremely fast, (That should say slow) while the slowing of time that a traveller experiences in space is because time runs slow in space.(Proven fact time runs faster in free space.) I do not understand where you have a problem with observation fitting the theory, probably because you didn't say.Sorry above are a couple of points that have directly been shown to be wrong, (time runs slow in space) or are mathematically extracted from theory that is based on what has directly been shown to be wrong. ( that black holes are full of energy, where time runs extremely fast). when you input more energy into anything, you slow the rate that it feels time compared to you.
And a statement I don't understand; "mass near mass phenomenon" ???
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 01:28:22
Therefore, this theory examines the possibility that GR time dilation is a mass near mass phenomenon, and that the rate of time runs slow in space. Light has no mass. It's frequency reduces by means of gravitational redshift. Rendering relativistic mass as redundant, this theory states the frequency of light as being indicative of the rate of time, and the increase in the wavelength as being time related not distance related.
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/02/2016 01:58:13
.Instantaneous velocity at distance d is then:
Then the instantaneous kinetic energy is
Since the field extends to infinity then this function is continuous to infinity. Thus the gradient of time dilation must be continuous to infinity and will not reverse since the gravitational field is non-vanishing.
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 02:16:57
Post by: Space Flow on 13/02/2016 02:28:42
Ok, time has been shown to run fast in space. How has time been shown to run fast in space? By a clock. Does the clock have mass and associated mass? Yes it does. So... time has NOT been shown to run fast in space! Time has been shown to run fast for a clock and its associated mass in space. What rate time is running at in that space when the clock and its associated mass is not there, has not been proven at-all.OK,
Therefore, this theory examines the possibility that GR time dilation is a mass near mass phenomenon, and that the rate of time runs slow in space. Light has no mass. It's frequency reduces by means of gravitational redshift. Rendering relativistic mass as redundant, this theory states the frequency of light as being indicative of the rate of time, and the increase in the wavelength as being time related not distance related.
I need some guidance here of how you want me to approach this;
You have made some statements that are contrary to observational evidence, and you have justified that discrepancy on the fact that taking a measurement of a situation changes the situation.
We can take no direct measurement of anywhere where matter is not. Spacetime could be doing loop de loops where no one can watch it, but unless you have come up with a unique way of monitoring a location in spacetime that includes no matter, in such a way as to determine if it appears time or space distorted in some way, I can not help you.
You are also trying to disconnect space from time and say that only one is variable.
The lorenz transformation give us a conversion factor that is applied the same to all physical observations. To say that it does not apply to space but only to time is to say that all experiments for the last 100 years that have confirmed the theory of General Relativity have somehow been wrong.
You can not within the bounds of GR find any way to disconnect the two. You would have to totally throw it out and start again, with a different theory that still fitted all the observations accumulated so far.
You are asking me to try and help you calculate a geometry I can not visualise without throwing out hard evidence, or having an alternative explanation for observations that contradict your geometry.
And blaming the observations on the fact that it is something material that was used to make them, is not a good reason to push them aside. Not if we are talking Physics.
I am not that good. Sorry..
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/02/2016 02:53:26
Jeff - I feel really stupid! Like I should know how that relates to what I'm saying...but I don't. Would you please put it into context for me?
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/work/node3.html
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 03:05:30
Furthermore, I am saying that the Lorentz transformations are faulty. Don't use them. I've given a means to finding the constants of square root 2 and 0.41 within the Lorentz transformations to 'prove' or 'disprove' my theory, because the equation that I am suggesting as an alternative should exactly match the result of the Lorentz transformations, but from a different mathematical route, and for different reason.
The alternate - d/square root 2, subtract result from d = 0.41 of d. This 0.41 of d is time related, not distance related. It takes the constant speed of light, this distance turned back into time (our rate of time) longer to travel d/square root 2 = revised distance.
You say that blaming observations on the materials used to measure them isn't physics. I am stating time as energy related. In an energy related equation, M + m is a consequence. Also m has potential energy considerations. The clock and its associated mass have more associated energy than the space it occupies does when it's not there. Light, in that relativistic mass is stated redundant, has no potential energy considerations. Therefore, in that light is 'just' picking up gravitational field energy in space, light 'is' our clock in space!
Yes, of course I'm trying to say that it is only time and not space that is variable, how else can one achieve an 'absolute reference' frame from which everything else can be equated?
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 03:21:15
In non-relativistic newtonian terms the average velocity traveled in distance d is given by:
Instantaneous velocity at distance d is then:
Then the instantaneous kinetic energy is
Since the field extends to infinity then this function is continuous to infinity. Thus the gradient of time dilation must be continuous to infinity and will not reverse since the gravitational field is non-vanishing.
Sorry Jeff, but despite the link you provided, I'm still non the wiser as to understanding the context you have posted this in.
I kind of get that you are showing that time dilation will dilate to infinity in a non vanishing gravitational field.
Are you saying this relates to my notion of time contracting in a gravitational field?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/02/2016 09:02:31
Clocks are mass.
And there's the root of a misunderstanding. GR predicts time dilation independent of the mass or density of any device you use to measure it, and the frequency of an atomic clock is not determined by the mass, density or weight of any component.
AFAIK the various clocks used by, for instance, ground stations, GPS satellites, aircraft and spacecraft, all have different masses and are surrounded by carriers of different masses, yet they all do the same thing.
When we have an entirely theoretical prediction confirmed to a remarkable degree of accuracy by several independent practical experiments, we tend to accept the primary hypothesis.
Post by: Space Flow on 13/02/2016 09:21:54
But Space Flow - I have indeed shown a means for equating what time is doing in space. It's light. Relativistic mass rendered redundant means that light is picking up its energy purely from its surroundings. Energy denotes frequency, and frequency denotes wavelength.OK maybe it's me that needs the help here.
Furthermore, I am saying that the Lorentz transformations are faulty. Don't use them. I've given a means to finding the constants of square root 2 and 0.41 within the Lorentz transformations to 'prove' or 'disprove' my theory, because the equation that I am suggesting as an alternative should exactly match the result of the Lorentz transformations, but from a different mathematical route, and for different reason.
The alternate - d/square root 2, subtract result from d = 0.41 of d. This 0.41 of d is time related, not distance related. It takes the constant speed of light, this distance turned back into time (our rate of time) longer to travel d/square root 2 = revised distance.
You say that blaming observations on the materials used to measure them isn't physics. I am stating time as energy related. In an energy related equation, M + m is a consequence. Also m has potential energy considerations. The clock and its associated mass have more associated energy than the space it occupies does when it's not there. Light, in that relativistic mass is stated redundant, has no potential energy considerations. Therefore, in that light is 'just' picking up gravitational field energy in space, light 'is' our clock in space!
Yes, of course I'm trying to say that it is only time and not space that is variable, how else can one achieve an 'absolute reference' frame from which everything else can be equated?
With this visualisation you describe.
First I need to clear up your view on what I see as contrary evidence to that view.
Now I noticed from a few different comments here and elsewhere that people are not really clear on the principle or the method of Gravitational wave detection by systems like LIGO and VIRGO.
The detectors are two evacuated tunnels of exactly 4 Kms each. They form two arms of a laser interferometer.
This instrument is designed to measure distance to an accuracy that makes the nucleus of an atom look like a small Moon. It does nothing else other than measure length or distance whatever you want to call it.
It does this by taking the one laser beam, and splitting it into two. One is sent down one tunnel to a mirror at the end and the other one down the other tunnel.
When those identical beams come back they are heterodyned together. If all things are equal the two beams recombine into the perfect replica of the beam that was emitted, and that is what the oscilloscope or whatever high tech version of an oscilloscope they are using to analyse it.
This system depends on the fact that the system of detection depends on the constant speed of light. and the fact that if a gravity wave hits it it will come from a certain direction. Now unless that direction is not at direct right angles to both arms of the detector, then it will effect one arm before the other. As it is coming through at the speed of light, then the speed of light of the lasers are fast enough to detect this difference and tell us about it.
Also the frequency of the laser gives us the resolution.
Now light travels at the speed of light and as such it is timeless. Time dilation can have no effect on it. That means that this system is only capable of measuring the space part of spacetime.
If the distance in either arm of these detectors changes at all in its length, the two heterodyned return lasers will not be in synch and will display an interference pattern.
This is what has been reported to have happened last September in both LIGO and VIRGO detectors.
I would need a reasonable explanation for these observations from the point of view of your theory.
Secondly, we now have a large accumulation of observational data for an effect called gravitational lensing. A lot of this data is from regions that don't show any matter associated with the cause. This is what is fuelling a lot of speculation about an imaginary "Dark Matter" particle.
That aside, we have definite data that space in those places is deformed to the point of bending light.
A time dilation region of space might redshift or blueshift light, but warped time can not change light's direction by any means I am aware off. So if space can deform in such a way to achieve this, and even do it without the presence of matter, than it is not invariant. That too needs explaining.
And of course we have the main one that all of us are quite aware off. GRAVITY. How does Gravity do what it does? Einstein's and as such the worlds view for the last 100 years tells us that gravity comes about because mass deforms, bends, and twists space. Is that the description of a constant invariant space?
If you can bend and twist it, then why can't you stretch and squish it?
And if you can't do all those things to space, then what is your definition for all these things?
There are probably a lot more but explaining these will suffice.
Post by: Space Flow on 13/02/2016 09:25:19
There is no space free of gravity, as I believe you used such a description as a place that time stops.
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 09:34:53
Clocks are mass.
And there's the root of a misunderstanding. GR predicts time dilation independent of the mass or density of any device you use to measure it, and the frequency of an atomic clock is not determined by the mass, density or weight of any component.
AFAIK the various clocks used by, for instance, ground stations, GPS satellites, aircraft and spacecraft, all have different masses and are surrounded by carriers of different masses, yet they all do the same thing.
When we have an entirely theoretical prediction confirmed to a remarkable degree of accuracy by several independent practical experiments, we tend to accept the primary hypothesis.
Granted Alan, and you make a good point concerning associated mass concerning the atomic clock!
To be clearer... A caesium atom has mass. It has a higher frequency at elevation. When you record this frequency, you are recording the activity of a 'body' of mass at elevation. This mass of the caesium atom in relation to the greater mass of the earth is what you are recording. You are not recording what the frequency is of the 'space' that caesium atom has been elevated to.
There was entirely logical theoretical prediction involved in the notion that the sun revolved around the earth. Look how that turned out...
Clearly, if GR gave us a full understanding of gravity, then these 'New Theory' conversations concerning gravity would be obsolete. It is only because theoretical physicists are looking for a means to link quantum to gravity, that 'looking' at alternate logic is occurring.
This is alternate logic Alan, and it is entirely logical. This doesn't, and isn't going to make it 'right' of course, but it does make it worthy of a calculate.
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 09:53:20
However, if light gravitationally shifts when exposed to changes in a gravitational field, then the light in that experiment is 'shifted', end of story, and they will be recording a shift in time. No doubt about it! ... If they are comparing this data to the remit of a Lorentz contraction, then this equation is already taking into account the 'shift' in time. K?
I'll get on rest of your post later....
Post by: Colin2B on 13/02/2016 10:12:22
However, if light gravitationally shifts when exposed to changes in a gravitational field, then the light in that experiment is 'shifted', end of story, and they will be recording a shift in time. No doubt about it! ...So you are saying that the gravity wave is strong enough to affect the light beam. I don't think the system is set up to detect a time shift and remember Eddigton had to use the intense field of the sun to be able to see effect on light.
PS where ca I see your working calcs you mention, have I missed them?
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 10:33:57
Yes I do have some calculations that I derived from a 'to scale' geometrical diagram that I conceived expressing my idea. I cannot use the maths symbols thingy here on the forum. I say cannot, actually it's haven't used it before. But I will write out my formula and related constants again, photograph them and post it later. I'm not going to post my diagrams though. If you fancy a look, I can send them to you by private message, under the remit of a private message being private.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/02/2016 11:42:47
A caesium atom has mass.
But the difference in energy between the hyperfine ground states of a cesium atom is not mass-dependent.
Nor, come to think of it, is the period of a pendulum!
Post by: Colin2B on 13/02/2016 12:07:16
my theory states that light cannot be bent by gravity, it's masslessIt's not the mass you consider, but the momentum which is affected by gravity.
Alan is right, pendulum not affected by mass of the bob, just length and g.
No hurry for the maths as I'm quite busy this w/e. Just check over that you are not doing the equivalent of a circular argument when you talk about feeding results back in.
When you are ready pm (confidentiality respected) and I'll send you something to show an easier way to do equations on here.
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 12:19:04
A caesium atom has mass.
But the difference in energy between the hyperfine ground states of a cesium atom is not mass-dependent.
Nor, come to think of it, is the period of a pendulum!
Correct - they are both gravity related, and gravity causes changes in the rate of time...
The pendulum has a shorter swing being subject to less gravitational energy at elevation. Being a mass though, it is still subject to potential energy. If we recorded the frequency of the atoms that comprise of the pendulum at ground level, and then at elevation... we would find that the frequency of those atoms has increased at elevation. This is due to potential energy.
Same as for the caesium atom!
Light has no mass. No potential energy considerations there. The frequency of light reduces in a reduced gravitational field, because it is not experiencing any potential energy.
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 12:25:35
I'd be happy for you to school me in posting mathematics. Thanks! ...and if you do find yourself interested enough to want to have a look at the diagrams, just say, and I'll send them to you.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/02/2016 12:39:04
Correct - they are both gravity related, and gravity causes changes in the rate of time...
Alas, there is no mention of gravitation in the Schrodinger equation that defines the ground states of the cesium atom. That's why we use it for space clocks.
Post by: puppypower on 13/02/2016 12:41:30
If we alter this bond length, we will get something that is not hydrogen gas. If I am on a moving reference and I see what appears to be distance contraction, halving the H2 bond length, and hydrogen is still a gas, what I see will be an illusion. The distance for hydrogen gas is an invariant. At half that distance, hydrogen would need to change phase and become a solid. If it is not solid but still as gas, I saw an energy based illusion; violates energy conservation. Each phase occurs at specific energy, which is the same in all references.
If we only think in terms of space-time, distances are not absolute, but will be reference dependent. But once you add mass, matter, and therefore the forces of nature, you also have energy conservation. Here distances become absolute and use that to define the states and phases of matter.
In the topic of absolute distance, some argue yes and some argue no, It is actually yes and no. It is yes in terms of the phases of matter, but no if we only look at space-time. Those who try to reduce mass to space-time tend to violate energy conservation by making invariant distances, variable, thereby allowing things that defy common sense. Hydrogen gas, at half the bond length, is an illusion.
In my long rant (previous post) about special relativity, I separated SR into internal and external SR, with internal absolute and external SR, relative. Internal SR takes into account the mass/energy of the observational system; matter based contained by energy conservation, while external is only concerned with the energy that reflects off objects.
The question that comes to my mind is what is the impact of internal relativity on external relativity? Does the internal energy of a moving object impact what it sees on the outside? In GR, the space-time well parallels a pressure well connected to matter and gravity. The top of the space-time well of the sun has the lowest pressure, while the bottom of the space-time well has the highest pressures. In terms of material phases, invariant distances get smaller as we go down the space-time well due to pressure and phase changes. Materials with the smallest variant distance; core of the sun, by being at the bottom of the well see external space-time in a more contracted way.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/02/2016 12:41:57
The frequency of light reduces in a reduced gravitational field, because it is not experiencing any potential energy.
No, it increases.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/02/2016 12:48:02
If the laws of physics are the same in all references, the bond length for hydrogen gas is an absolute that will be the same in all references.
but it is known to stretch!
New Journal of Physics 5 (2003) 124.1–124.8 (http://www.njp.org/)
"....The calculated frequency for the free H2 molecule is 4190 cm−1......"
Post by: alancalverd on 13/02/2016 12:57:12
No, I am 'not' saying that the light is 'bent'... (my theory states that light cannot be bent by gravity, it's massless) ... I'm saying that the light is gravitationally 'shifted'. And yes, that a 'change' in the rate of time is occurring. That physics is calculating this 'change' as being slower. This is causing the appearance of a length contraction. If you calculate under the remit of this 'change' in time as being to quicker time. Then you can see the length has not contracted. The contracted 'time' has caused the constant speed of light to cover the distance a bit quicker is all.
But under gravitational lensing, light takes longer to get from A to B because the path length is increased, as observed.
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 13:53:08
In space the light is taking longer to get from a to b because of time dilation rather than distance dilation.
(This is also in answer to a post you made earlier Space Flow)
In the case of gravitational lensing, a mass is passing in between our mass and the mass of the light source. This light from the light source is not bent towards the in between body/bodies of mass.
Now this is where it gets complex. I am saying that we will only be able to view 77.68% of the light of the light source. (d/square root 2, (edit: I think that might be d/0.41 instead...hmmmm) and transposed back into magnitude) But as the light passes the in between body of mass, the gravitational field changes. Now we are looking at a new calculation of d in (d/square root 2, (edit: same as last edit) and transposed back into magnitude). We are just looking at 'more' light.
This is based on the notion that between different 'rates' in the rate of time, it would be impossible to view all of the time scale of a slower time. And also that it is impossible to view all of the time scale of a faster time. You will only see a percentage as per by how much faster, or as per how much slower the other rate of time is running. This being why, in the world of quantum, something can be seen, from our rate of time, to be in 2 places at the same time.
Post by: timey on 13/02/2016 18:41:48
Post by: Colin2B on 13/02/2016 23:37:47
Ah Colin - well I hadn't been going to post the maths only for your benefit, which is just as well. It would seem you are telling me that you are not really all that interested.No, the word I used was busy, not disinterested. Only just back from long day, and out most of tomorrow. Sleep my main priority, but will look at what your posting when I can give it quality timey [:)]
PS
The pendulum has a shorter swing being subject to less gravitational energy at elevation.No, as I said the period is longer, hence wider swing because there is less gravitational restoring force for the KE.
Post by: Space Flow on 14/02/2016 00:19:49
I notice that a number of people are now trying to point these discrepancies with observations out and will sit back and see how everyones understanding develops on this subject before commenting any further.
As I mentioned earlier, I can not mathematically express anything I can not geometrically visualise. I am having trouble fitting your ideas into a geometry that makes sense to me without throwing out a large part of our accumulated observational evidence.
I find it very hard personally to go directly agains observations. I never have a problem with considering a different cause for observations, but theories in the end are there to explain observations.
Observations at this stage say that a few things work the opposite way that your theory predicts.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/02/2016 00:33:24
ψ = d/Φ10 = u ................. (1)
and r - u = ψ ........................(2)
therefore we know that r = 2u so u/r = ½
but it is later stated that u/r = √2
also that u/ψ = 3.5 which is clearly inconsistent with equation (1) which shows u/ψ = 1
Sorry, lass, you will have to explain yourself a lot better than this. You might begin by stating what the symbols represent, then how they are related by physics, i.e. what known laws or assumptions lile behind the equations. Then check the equations for dimensional balance: if mass, length and time don't appear to the same power on both sides, there's something wrong. And don't forget to eliminate any absurdities such as the ones shown here.
Remember that relativity is based on one assumption only: that the speed of light is the same for all observers, and that assumption has been experimentally verified to an absurd degree of precision. If you want to challenge or refine GR, you'll need some very robust evidence for any other assumptions you bring to the party.
Post by: timey on 14/02/2016 00:50:20
d/golden ratio*10 power 1 = u
(d/golden ratio*10power 1) + (golden ratio/0.41*10 power 1 = 0.41) = r
u/r = square root 2
r/u = B*
Those are the dimensions between r and u.
You have been confused by the initial ITT time dilation sybmbol, which is simply stating (as far as I'm concerned) that the following equation = ITT time dilation.
Edit: r minus u = ITT time dilation, and r/ITT time dilation = 0.41
P.S. Run that through your scientific calculator to confirm the 6 constants of the formula. If it checks out Alan, then take all the aspects of the Lorentz transformation, both inverted and otherwise, divide them by each other, and if you don't find the constants square root 2, and 0.4, come back then and tell me "sorry lass". Otherwise you are hardly being fair! - and furthermore, I have not at any point challenged the constant speed of light, I have merely said it takes a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to cover units of distance when exposed to changes in the rate of time.
Alan, the formula will equate any parallax distance to any light source, and the dimensions of r and u will always divide to square root 2 and B*, and r minus u will always equal ITT time dilation, and r/ITT time dilation will always equal 0.41 of that distance, but for a starter checking distance, just plug in 16.18, and in the interests of honesty, I'm pretty naffed of with your use of the word 'absurdities'... Just saying!
Post by: timey on 14/02/2016 11:13:01
...and my brain has fuzzed on the pendulum. I surely can't see which way is up now, :) blimey. Anyway, 'tis mute point tbh... I was, quite some years ago now, trying to think why Einstein predicted clocks tick faster at elevation, and the activity of a pendulum was my conclusion. Be this relevant? Not really!
I'm looking forward to hearing your response on my maths. Please note the 'index of terms', top right hand corner. I can see it quite clearly on the limited inches of my phone screen, but others seem to have missed it!
Furthermore, I hope you are in the realisation that this formula was derived from a 'to scale' geometrical diagram. Geometry is actually 'pure' mathematics, and will only produce advanced mathematics. Can you handle advanced mathematics Colin?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/02/2016 18:40:09
d/10Φ = u
and d/10Φ + Φ/4.1 = r
so u + Φ/4.1 = r
If you assert u/r = √2 then u = √2r
so r = √2 + Φ/4.1 = 1.414 + 1.618/4.1 = 1.8
Post by: timey on 14/02/2016 19:14:46
I understand that in algebra, equations must show balance in both sides... so in achieving r, which is a two sided equation, I used an aspect and divided a constant x 10 power 1, and on other side, I used a constant and divided a constant x 10 power 1 to achieve 0.41.
You have come a different route to 1.8. I simply divided 9/5 units. That's what I was looking at on the diagram, is why.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/02/2016 19:43:08
It seems that you are stating as definitions
Φ/10 = 360/Φ which is plainly untrue, and
10Φ = 360/0.1Φ which is also clearly wrong.
Also 10Φ/0.1Φ = 100 = α, which will serve as a definition of α, but then
10Φ/α = 0.162, not 3.5
Once we have cleared up these anomalies, I might enquire as to how Φ got involved in the first instance, then how time dilatation is related to velocity in a zero field, which according to SR and experiment, it is. Then having solved SR, maybe you can take my hand and guide me through GR!
Post by: timey on 14/02/2016 21:41:09
d = parallax distance
a = apex curvature
golden ratio/10 power 1 = 360/golden ratio x 10 power 1 = 22.24
(I've inverted the direction of the strike through in the circle of the symbol, because this representation is the opposite of the way I am using the golden ratio x 10 power 1)
golden ratio x 10 power 1 = 360/golden ratio/10 power 1 = 16.18
ITT symbol = ITT time dilation
This is just giving terms.
Now go to bottom left hand corner:
golden ratio x 10 power 1/golden ratio/10 power 1... This is quite simply 16.18/22.24 = Embree Trefethen constant = a (GR)
(Lol! I can see your confusion now, I should have used the constant 4.5 there...and I canny remember which one it is...argggh)
golden ratio x 10 power 1/4.5 = 3.5 = a (ITT)
(I believe the 3.5 is a bifurcation of a Fiegenbaun constant)
...and: golden ratio got involved because my diagram is using them in matrices.
This formula is 'just' a description of light travelling at constant velocity light speed across space in slower rates of time, not faster rates of time.
The Lorentz transformations make a description of length contraction, and distance dilation. This theory states that this notion is mistaken. That a length contraction is a time contraction and distance dilation is a time dilation. This formula gives these dimensions of that scenario, and holds distance as a constant.
The dimensions of this formula should match dimensions in the Lorentz transformations, if you take all the aspects of both the inverse representation, and the non-inverse representation, and divide all of them by each other.
If they don't, I'm wrong...
Post by: alancalverd on 15/02/2016 08:38:43
The figure 360 is familiar as the number of degrees in a circle, and since Φ is a pure number, 360°/Φ will be an angle, 22.24°, so Φ cannot equal 360°/Φ. Unless the 360 came from somewhere else - please explain.
Mention of parallax distance suggests you are describing an astronomic measurement, so in stating Ψ = d/10Φ you have asserted that time dilatation is a function of distance only, which is experimentally untrue and dimensionally incorrect.
If you have hidden a dimensioned normalisation factor, please elucidate for the benefit of simple souls like me!
Post by: timey on 16/02/2016 10:25:19
Index of terms:
d - parallax distance
a - apex curvature
golden ratio/10 power 1 - 360/golden ratio x 10 power 1 = 22.24
(I've inverted the direction of the strike through in the circle of the symbol, because this representation is the opposite of the way I am using the golden ratio x 10 power 1)
golden ratio x 10 power 1 - 360/golden ratio/10 power 1 - 16.18
ITT symbol - ITT time dilation
This formula holds distance as a constant in respect to the constant speed of light.
Ah, ohhhh... (n)... Good, your explanation has just cleared up a whole reams of mystery in the maths education lectures I've watched! Thanks!
Post by: timey on 16/02/2016 10:40:33
Mention of parallax distance suggests you are describing an astronomic measurement, so in stating Ψ = d/10Φ you have asserted that time dilatation is a function of distance only, which is experimentally untrue and dimensionally incorrect.
Yes I am dividing 360 degrees of angle by the golden ratio in an inverse and non-inverse form.
A parallax distance has been ascertained by parallax method. Degrees of angle have been employed in this method of parallax.
This formula is based on units of distance and units of time having been rendered equivalent. (r) is describing that the speed of light, under present physics remits of faster time (relative to earth), is 'equating' that a distance is r minus u too long. That r minus u equals ITT time dilation. Turning the extra distance back into u, we can ascertain by how much 'time' is going slower in space, and that a parallax distance (based on angles) is always 0.41 of itself 'shorter' than we currently believe.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2016 13:15:33
And the numbers still seem somewhat arbitrary. What has the golden ratio got to do with it? Why multiply by 10?
Either I've walked in halfway though the film, or, like Star Wars, it never made sense in the first place (explosions don't billow in space, and laser swords are nonsense). I'd like to believe the former, so some explanation would be welcome.
Post by: timey on 16/02/2016 15:25:28
1.618 transposed to 16.18.
We can arrive at this figure by:
360/golden ratio x 10 power 1 = 16.18
360/16.18= 22.24
16.18/22.24= Embree Trefethen constant
I realise Alan, that my representation of the maths are not conforming to convention. But the numbers 'are' there, if 'you' can represent them in better format.
Of course, my notion is 'just' an expression of logic. (Perhaps). Don't worry... if I am pissing in the wind, I'll make sure the wind doesn't change direction while I'm doing it.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2016 19:51:29
16.18/22.24=0.7275
ET constant = 0.7026
Post by: timey on 16/02/2016 20:29:29
I know for a fact that square root 2 'is' emerging. It has to because the diagram is using the square to diagonal. Please understand that on A4, I'm not going to get more than 1 number after the decimal point from a diagram. This is limiting somewhat!
Please note that the golden ratio's proper representation is: 1.61803398874, or, more precisely (edit: didn't copy over the equation I copy and pasted) ...and the 22.24 (which is already an abbreviation) ...it's proper representation will then be altered.
Oh for a 'proper' scientific calculator and a wide screen computer... I'm stuck on an iphone4 here.
Does it compute to the ET constant under it's unabbreviated form?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2016 20:52:55
Post by: timey on 16/02/2016 21:01:12
16.8/12 = 1.4
...you will find that each equation equals 1.4.
Given that my diagram was more accurate, I believe this number would add up to 1.41421, this being the Pythagoras constant for square root 2.
If you divide the radius number by the units, you arrive at a constant of 0.71428571.
Did it compute to anything near: 0.71428571 ?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2016 23:34:49
10Φ/(360/10Φ) = 0.727231663523274 and a bit
Where did the 16.8/12 come from? You talk about "radius" and "radius number", but you are mixing dimensions. Radius is a length, which could be in meters, fathoms or parsecs, but 12 is a pure number. The quotient of a radius by a constant can be anything at all depending on how you measured the radius, and it will have dimension of length. √2 has no dimension.
Post by: timey on 16/02/2016 23:36:22
Post by: timey on 16/02/2016 23:48:53
This then should alter the reverse equation. 12/16.8+numbers. Might it alter it to the point of matching this number: 0.727231663523274 and a bit. ?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2016 23:53:05
Numerology is not the key to physics.
Quote
16.8/12=1.4, which should actually equal 1.41421No "should" about it. The quotient is exactly 1.4. No need for a calculator. The only number that can equal √2 when divided by 12 is, mysteriously, 12√2 = 16.97056 and a bit.
Post by: timey on 17/02/2016 00:03:42
I'm not doing numerology, I'm doing geometry.
The r is on the diagonal, and u is on the square.
Did you try reversing the equation 16.8/12 = 'should be' square root 2 to get the precise number for 16.8 ?
Post by: timey on 17/02/2016 00:12:00
I'll send you the rest of the numbers. If we can get the precise numbers like such above. This will make all the difference!
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2016 00:14:17
Boltzmann has nothing to do with geometry and is not a natural number, it is an arbitrary experimental result that depends on the freezing and boiling points of water at sea level, and its value has no universal significance.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2016 00:17:52
16.97056 and a bit is just fine.
I'll send you the rest of the numbers. If we can get the precise numbers like such above. This will make all the difference!
No. Get the physics sorted first. No numbers, just properties and dimensions. Nothing else makes sense or leads to undertanding.
Post by: timey on 17/02/2016 00:25:23
r2 = 2.8 units
r3 = 4.2 units
r4 = 5.6 units
r5 = 7 units
r6 = 8.4 units
r7 = 9.8 units
r8 = 11.2 units
r9 = 12.6 units
r10 = 14 units
r11 = 15.4 units
r12 = 16.8 units
If I can get the precise numbers then I can recompute, and the dimensions will make more sense (humour me? :). )
16.8 was a result off an A4 diagram, wadda you spect?
And, to say so, that is all the Bolttzman is at the moment. There's room for improvement.
(In fact you've shown me how, so I'll do it myself. Back at you tomorrow)
Post by: timey on 17/02/2016 01:57:18
Maths is a bit of a head twister though, must say.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2016 09:26:40
16.8 was a result off an A4 diagram, wadda you spect?So you dream up some numbers, plot them on a graph, then read them off again. Unless the numbers derive from an experiment or a physical law, the result has no physical meaning.
Regarding Herr Boltzmann, the value of his constant depends on the means you use to define, not the dimensions of mass,length, time and temperature, but the units of measurement of these dimensions. So the number has no physical importance. Length and time are measured by the same means (it's a long story, but it just requires the assumption that c is constant) so meters and seconds are related, but kilograms and kelvins are entirely arbitrary units and not related to any other dimension, so numerically irrelevant.
Furthermore k is the property of a bounded ensemble, not the universe or a single particle, whereas a valid pronouncement about relativity must apply to anything and everything.
PLEASE, for the sake of your own sanity, forget the numbers and wrote down the physics. To paraphrase Roosevelt, when you have grabbed the problem by the wotsits, the numbers will follow.
Post by: Colin2B on 17/02/2016 10:04:24
I still don't understand why you used golden mean, was it from the parallax? Problem is as soon as you start inputting a number, be it a ratio or constant, you are in danger of generating all sorts of numbers which is why I said:
.... Just check over that you are not doing the equivalent of a circular argument when you talk about feeding results back in.
Remember, golden mean linked to fibonacci, linked to TE const, etc so all sorts of numbers can appear inc √2 and √5 etc
Hey, but you had fun doing it, yes? And found out lots of interesting thing on the way?
Post by: timey on 17/02/2016 11:32:54
All any 'qualified' person can tell me is that 'Nope sorry, it just can't work that way'... But NO-ONE can say why it wouldn't, just puts me down.
I then drew a 'to scale' geometrical diagram. I have measured my diagram physically. The speed of light takes the same 'time' to travel a parralax distance, as it does to travel it under the remit of 'slow time' in space by the remit of my notion and formula. I have only been coming up with numbers since I measured my diagram.
The numbers have emerged from my diagram, that I came up with after a whole seven years 'after' I had the idea ... So, no Alan, I did not pull numbers out of my arse thankyou!
Am I having Fun? Its very interesting to think about things from different perpectives. I enjoy that. But no, it is really, really horrible to be completely discounted by people. I can understand why some of the brilliant people of the past in physics had such a hard time in their lives, (Not that I think myself brilliant, but I'm not stupid either)
My diagram is producing constants, (close in numbers to the ones I thought) and I will continue to try and grasp mathematics until the day I die in order that I may get to the bottom of it.
Clearly, I will be doing this without the help I was seeking here. Just been wasting my time I guess. Not a mistake I'll be making again.
Post by: Space Flow on 17/02/2016 12:07:33
I have said it many times. Mathematics where it does not derive from real physical observations, is just bedtime stories designed to give you nice dreams.
Don't follow random number sequences because you sense a mathematical pattern. Instead find the physical geometry you are trying to describe, and the right numbers will come out of it.
Unless your numbers describe relations between physical processes, they are just numbers.
Good luck with it. You are obviously determined to show something.
Post by: timey on 17/02/2016 13:00:51
Well there you go.
I have said it many times. Mathematics where it does not derive from real physical observations, is just bedtime stories designed to give you nice dreams.
Don't follow random number sequences because you sense a mathematical pattern. Instead find the physical geometry you are trying to describe, and the right numbers will come out of it.
Unless your numbers describe relations between physical processes, they are just numbers.
Good luck with it. You are obviously determined to show something.
Erm, physical geometry. Geometrical diagram. Am I missing something here?
Post by: timey on 17/02/2016 13:01:36
When you measure a cesium atom in elevation, are you measuring what time is doing in the space the atom is located, or are you just measuring what time is doing for the atom located in that space?
Post by: puppypower on 17/02/2016 13:41:23
If the laws of physics are the same in all references, the bond length for hydrogen gas is an absolute that will be the same in all references.
but it is known to stretch!
New Journal of Physics 5 (2003) 124.1–124.8 (http://www.njp.org/)
"....The calculated frequency for the free H2 molecule is 4190 cm−1......"
I agree the hydrogen H2 molecule bond is not static, but will vibrate. However, once we define this vibrational distance range, this is invariant and will be the same in all references. If we see distance contraction, due to special relativity, and the vibrational distance range of H2 has shifted to say 1/2 normal size, due to distance contraction, but the H2 does not change phase, we are not looking at H2, but are seeing the impact of relativity on its energy signal.
To prove this to yourself since the laws of physics are the same in all reference, try to make H2 with double or half the bond length in the lab, while not changing phase from a molecular gas. It can't be done, except with a trick that will not be common to the universe.
Space-time and energy are complementary, in the sense, that both contain only the units of distance and time. But the H2 molecule contains mass, distance and time. You can't see a this 3-D affect, with only the 2-D filter of space-time. However, you can see 2-D affects, related to the 3-D, such as the energy profile.
Where the confusion is, can be explain below. Below is a 3-D image of a ball. It looks 3-D, due to the shadowing and highlights. However, if you touch the computer screen, one can use another sense to feel that it is not really 3-D. It is a spatial image or illusion that can fool the eyes and brain. What we infer from the energy signal in 2-D, due to relativity, can create an image of 3-D. I call this a spatial illusion; 2.5-D. It is not 3-D (laws that are same in all references).
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumb9.shutterstock.com%2Fphotos%2Fthumb_large%2F499702%2F499702%2C1267374151%2C6.jpg&hash=e4f4a51ce2e0dafd5baa42a148abed89)
Post by: Colin2B on 17/02/2016 13:52:06
But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...This forum is hosted by TNS Cambridge University, but the forum is open to anyone and my understanding is that the University doesn't have a team of experts standing by to give definitive answers.
The quality of answer will depend on the knowledge of the person who answers. Alan, Evan , Chiral I have faith in, the box??
Post by: Ethos_ on 17/02/2016 14:02:07
Ha,ha,ha,ha,,,,,,,,,,,good one Colin, best laugh I've had for a long while...............But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...This forum is hosted by TNS Cambridge University, but the forum is open to anyone and my understanding is that the University doesn't have a team of experts standing by to give definitive answers.
The quality of answer will depend on the knowledge of the person who answers. Alan, Evan , Chiral I have faith in, the box??
Post by: Colin2B on 17/02/2016 14:18:29
Post by: timey on 17/02/2016 15:27:30
But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...This forum is hosted by TNS Cambridge University, but the forum is open to anyone and my understanding is that the University doesn't have a team of experts standing by to give definitive answers.
The quality of answer will depend on the knowledge of the person who answers. Alan, Evan , Chiral I have faith in, the box??
Yes.. I was hardly thinking there was a panel or anything. I'm sure 3 of the people you mention might make attempt at reasonable answer. But Chris is the one who is in contact with theoretical physists on the radio, and presumably comes into contact with physicists who do not comment upon this site...
Its an interesting question and forms the basis of the 'physics' of my idea.
Post by: Ethos_ on 17/02/2016 15:56:56
Sorry Ethos, I accidentally left you off the list - result of time pressure I assure youActually Colin, I can't hold a candle to either Alan, Evan, or Chiral. These three continue to impress me with their knowledge and the ability to express it in a manner that the reasonable individual can understand. As for that other fellow, the evidence is overwhelming.
Post by: Ethos_ on 17/02/2016 16:03:57
Sorry Ethos, I accidentally left you off the list - result of time pressure I assure youI think you may have misinterpreted the reason for my laughter, what I was so amused about was your mentioning of Alan, Evan, and Chiral in the same sentence with "Thebox".
If that be the case, and others have misinterpreted my laughter, I would extend my apologies to Alan and Evan and also to Chiral. My hasty reply is my error and I accept the responsibility for that mistake.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2016 18:12:18
That would possibly explain the source of the "r" numbers, and indeed their arithmetic relationships, but it is entirely Newtonian and nothing to do with general relativity.
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/02/2016 18:43:59
If I recall correctly, timey's famous diagram is a graph of a parabola. This is indeed the path an object would take if launched from a much larger object at less than escape speed, and it is of passing interest to note that the horizontal axis can be time or distance if the gravitational field is effectively parallel.
That would possibly explain the source of the "r" numbers, and indeed their arithmetic relationships, but it is entirely Newtonian and nothing to do with general relativity.
And that is the crux of many wannabe's problems with relativity.
Post by: timey on 17/02/2016 19:23:08
If I recall correctly, timey's famous diagram is a graph of a parabola. This is indeed the path an object would take if launched from a much larger object at less than escape speed, and it is of passing interest to note that the horizontal axis can be time or distance if the gravitational field is effectively parallel.
That would possibly explain the source of the "r" numbers, and indeed their arithmetic relationships, but it is entirely Newtonian and nothing to do with general relativity.
Now we are getting somewhere! Exactly... Inverted Time Theory has got bog all to do with relativity.
Yes...it is Newtonian! Except that unlike Newtonian mechanics it does explain the perihelion of mercury,
The reason why it explains the perihelion of mercury, is because the measurements of GR, and the measurements of ITT, take light, travelling at the speed of light, the exact same amount of 'time' to cover both the GR distance, and the revised shorter distance of ITT.
This quite simply is stating that the distance of GR is stretched, not as a distance, but as a time measurement of dilated time. Reversing this concept, it states that a length contraction is instead a time contraction.
That light, in both of these instances, is travelling at the same speed, but in slower, or faster rates of time. That because GR, on the basis of the fact of a caesium atom runs faster in elevation from a gravity field, states that time is running faster in space... ITT states that time is only running faster for the atom, not the space it is located in. This concept is reflected in the fact that lights frequency reduces in a reduced gravity field.
Simple stuff really!
Of course we do have to mention GR in the workings of ITT, but only as a working theory that works, and therefore any new concept definitely needs to be checked against it.
P.S. A word of advice Jeff... I always check when I am making a statement about someone else, whether or not the same statement applies to myself!
Post by: Space Flow on 17/02/2016 22:36:13
Erm, physical geometry. Geometrical diagram. Am I missing something here?Sorry timey.
By physical geometry I am referring to observations of reality and how an idea explains that. Rather an idea explaining some geometrical drawing on a piece of paper that is not shown to connect to reality, but just generates or not nice patterns.
Every part that you talk about has to show how it connects to the Universe not to mathematics.
If you believe that any of what you have put forward does that than the problem is mine as I have not been able to make the connections. Your numbers have to me seemed to contradict each other and I can not see how they refer to a real system.
I do not mean this comment to be discouraging. As I said I accept that the shortcomings may be mine in that I have not been able to see what you see.
Good luck with it and keep learning.
Post by: timey on 17/02/2016 23:39:13
Not sure what there is to misunderstand about what I'm saying really. It's pretty simple. In looking at the gravity wave experiment, they expect the length of the poles to contract in a length contraction caused by a slight increase in gravity. I'm saying that the poles are not contracting, it is the journey 'time' of the light that is measuring those poles that is contracting.
In that the world believes that an increase in gravity field slows time down, physics has taken on board the notion that an actual length of matter will contract, and reversing the concept, that a distance of space will dilate. Looking at a significantly more changeable 'inverted' time dilation phenomenon, in addition to GR time dilation remaining as is, we can match a distance's dilation to a time dilation, and a length contraction to a time contraction.
I've only being 'doing' maths since just before Christmas. These are the first maths I've 'ever' done. If I had gone to school and could do maths, I wouldn't be seeking any help.
So... I'd say it is highly logical that my maths will be a bit funky. Thanks for re-confirming it though!
However, to say so, geometry is geometry is geometry.
Thanks for the good luck wishes, and in return, I urge you not to become discouraged yourself... I hope you keep learning too!
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2016 23:56:59
This concept is reflected in the fact that lights frequency reduces in a reduced gravity field.
Which, as I pointed out sometime ago, is exactly the opposite of what happens.
Post by: timey on 18/02/2016 00:08:22
This concept is reflected in the fact that lights frequency reduces in a reduced gravity field.
Which, as I pointed out sometime ago, is exactly the opposite of what happens.
I must be totally misinterpreting this link then. Lights frequency does not reduce in a weaker gravity field?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2016 19:05:56
Post by: timey on 18/02/2016 21:42:59
This is why: Light will redshift until the point of the least gravitational field between a receptor and the light source, and from this point on it will blueshift towards the greater gravitational field.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment
We can see that relativity has been tested, via redshift in the Pound Rebka experiment. This was conducted from ground to the bell tower (?) and reversed, at Harvard. The focus of this experiment was 'time' oriented.
Alan, for me, the most significant information in the 'gravitational redshift' link, of my last post, is this:
"This is a direct result of gravitational time dilation - as one moves away from a source of gravitational field, the rate at which time passes is increased relative to the case when one is near the source. As frequency is inverse of time (specifically, time required for completing one wave oscillation), frequency of the electromagnetic radiation is reduced in an area of a lower gravitational field (i.e., a higher gravitational potential). There is a corresponding reduction in energy when electromagnetic radiation is red-shifted, as given by Planck's relation, due to the electromagnetic radiation propagating in opposition to the gravitational gradient."
Removing light (massless) from the remit of gravitational potential. Now, under the premiss of ITT, consider that time is 'reducing' in rate, as per the frequency of the light. The fact of the ensemble of the current mathematics can be used to ascertain that the fact of lights frequency being inverse to the current remit of a quicker rate of time being significant. And the length by which a wavelength becomes longer is also significant.
Now, if I were a mathematician, or indeed if someone can give me a lesson in scientific calculator usage, (square root 2 being blatantly obvious), I think I could (given some time) turn the current maths inside out to represent what I am trying to describe here with Inverted Time Theory.
Does that make sense?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2016 23:26:26
Removing light (massless) from the remit of gravitational potential.
Incomplete sentence, but I think it is intended to contain something significant! Would you care to explain? We know that light is indeed affected by gravity.
Post by: timey on 19/02/2016 00:08:43
Yes of course we have observed that gravity affects light, but is it gravity affecting the light, or is there a possibility that it is gravity related time considerations, and changes in there-of, as massive bodies of mass come into alignment, that are causing these effects? (As far as I can make out, there have been no laboratory tests that have bent light with gravity... Nearest I've found is this :
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2009/07/20/testing-relativity-in-the-laboratory/
...and...I don't think gravity is involved)
Under the vastly wider scale of an inverted time dilation, observations of gravity lensing and star displacement would occur... just as we observe.
Post by: timey on 19/02/2016 00:34:31
Draw a distance line on the horizontal, and graph slower, and faster rates of time (relative to earth) on a vertical, with slower rates (relative to earth) above the horizontal, and faster rates (relative to earth) below the horizontal.
Run your 'speed of light' vector along the horizontal into rates of time that are progressively slower until midpoint and then are progressively faster to end of distance.
This will create a parabola.
Now run a 'speed of light' vector along the horizontal, with time getting just a tinsy, tiny bit faster progressively, and then slower progressively, but just around the midpoint of the distance... and you will see a slightly inverted parabola.
This inverted parabola can be considered synonymous to gravitational lensing.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/02/2016 12:08:16
That light 'gets' it's energy from the gravitational field.This sentence surely doesn't make sense? A photon is emitted from an electron transition which determines the photon energy. The universal favorite isthe 21 cm hydrogen line which arises from a spin-spin interaction and is therefore gravity-invariant. We know that photons arising from sources with a strong gravitational field are red-shifted, i.e. appear to have less energy than expected from the quantum transition, so it ain't gaining energy from the gravitational field!
Post by: timey on 19/02/2016 13:15:27
Can we agree that the Pound Rebka experiment can possibly be considered indicative that any redshift observations must be being observed at the point of weakest gravity between the light source and the receptor mass?
That if we observe a redshift of light from ground to bell tower on earth, that a hypothetical observer standing on a distant light source would also observe a redshift phenomenon as the light leaves the gravitational field of the light source?
Post by: Colin2B on 19/02/2016 23:44:02
Can we agree that the Pound Rebka experiment can possibly be considered indicative that any redshift observations must be being observed at the point of weakest gravity between the light source and the receptor mass?....point of weaker gravity??
Post by: timey on 20/02/2016 00:14:38
The point of weakest gravitational field is at this point in the distance between the masses... the point just before the gravitational effects of our solar system start outweighing the reduction in gravitational force of the mass of the other light source.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/02/2016 01:41:39
Post by: timey on 20/02/2016 05:41:36
The fact of GR lacking an absolute reference frame is a direct consequence of the notion that distance and length are variables.
Under the remit the 'top of the bell tower to ground' part of the Pound Rebka experiment, the light is shown to blueshift. This indicates that it 'is' possible to chart time, or spectra, to a gravity field. And of course, you don't have to remind me that this is exactly what they do do, and that this 'is' a working theory.
However... and just on the basis that sooo many theoretical physicists are moaning about the situation, (chuckle)... for reasons too numerous to list... it becomes interesting to consider another perspective.
The amount by which time gets faster in space, and the distance by which light travels a parallax distance at the speed of light do not match up. It is the extra length in the wavelength that stretches this calculation of distance, in order to match a parallax distance. (I do believe?)
ITT simply states that it is the frequency of the light that is indicative of slower rates of time, in and across space, and that the extra length in a wavelength is time related.
Distances do not dilate.
And in reverse, an increase in gravity field, caused by a gravity wave, will blueshift the light that is measuring these 4km tubes. And that contrary to accepted physics, this will cause a 'shorter' journey time, giving the impression, under current physics remit, and the 'calculation'... of time running slower for a blueshift, that the poles themselves have contracted...
My notion places 'Both Clocks' as being 'right'... and just uses Earth's frame of reference as the 'key'... as in a key to a chartable map.
Post by: Ethos_ on 20/02/2016 14:15:45
If there is one thing about physics I believe we can justifiably say, it is this: "When speaking about absolutes, I'm absolutely sure there are no absolutes." Reality is like Jello, No absolute solidity, no absolute time, no absolute length, no absolute position in space. The one possible exception being the speed of light in a vacuum. And even this standard might find argument amongst a few.
Distances do not dilate.
My two cents......................
Post by: alancalverd on 20/02/2016 17:46:34
Yes... and this is a direct consequence of GR lacking an absolute reference frame in which to place these clocks, (or spectrum in this case).Not a question of GR "lacking" an aboslute reference frame, but recognising that there isn't one.
Worth checking your understanding of parallax distance, since you use the term quite a lot. It is just distance, inferred by parallax rather than direct measurement because we don't have a long enough tape measure to do it directly. So in principle you should be able to delete the word parallax without altering the underlying physics and overlying arithmetic of your argument. Unless you are claiming that your method reveals errors in the parallax method due to some other effect than the assumption of distance to the "fixed" star.
Post by: timey on 20/02/2016 18:40:29
A parallax distance is determined by method of angle. By determining 'how' the star is progressing across our vision in respect to other light sources, both closer to us than the star in question, and further from us than the star in question, in distance. This in conjunction with the luminosity of the star can determine the mass size of the star.
My distinction between a distance, and a parallax distance is born of the premiss of my diagram, which is recalculating the premiss of a parallax distance, determined by method of 'angle'. My diagram will not work for a distance that is not determined by 'angle'. It is the premiss of the parallax distance, the angles, the luminosity, and resulting mass size, that determines the parameters of measurement with which my diagram can then calculate.
My diagram is not stating that there is an error in the method of parallax, just an error of interpretation.
Again - can we agree that by means of the Pound Rebka experiment, that in viewing a redshifted light source, that we must indeed be viewing light at the point of weakest gravity field between the body of mass of the light source and the mass of our solar system... The light will, by the remit of accepted physics, be blue shifted all the way back to the star, from our view of reference, from that point of weakest gravity field ... ?
It also occurs... that GR only explains the perihelion of mercury to a better degree of accuracy than Newtonian mechanics. GR does not describe the scenario to an absolute exactness.
And... I am quite certain that it was not Einstein's intention that GR would be 'forced' to accept that it could not describe an absolute reference frame. I personally believe it was the fact of this that gave him a headache over GR for the remainder of his life!
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2016 00:40:51
Again - can we agree that by means of the Pound Rebka experiment, that in viewing a redshifted light source, that we must indeed be viewing light at the point of weakest gravity field between the body of mass of the light source and the mass of our solar system...No. We have no idea where the minimum is and it certainly isn't on the surface of the earth.
GR can't describe an absolute reference frame because there isn't one, and its nonexistence is the basis of GR.
Post by: Ethos_ on 21/02/2016 01:00:35
GR can't describe an absolute reference frame because there isn't one, and its nonexistence is the basis of GR.Exactly Alan, and why people don't seem to grasp this is a mystery to me? It's precisely why it's called; "General Relativity" focusing attention upon the word: "Relativity". All measurements of; Space, time, mass, ect. are not absolutes, but are "relative" to each and every other factor within those calculations.
Post by: timey on 21/02/2016 02:29:52
No. We have no idea where the minimum is and it certainly isn't on the surface of the earth.
GR can't describe an absolute reference frame because there isn't one, and its nonexistence is the basis of GR.
I did not suggest that the weakest gravity was on earth. (You say there is no idea where the weakest point of gravity between 2 bodies of mass is?)
Now with regards to the Pound Rebka experiment, if you are going to be telling me that light is observed from the top of the tower to 'redshift' towards earth, from the perspective of the top of the tower, I will hang up my coat and retire.
Far as I am aware, the experiment showed that: light moving from bottom to top of tower is redshifted from both perspectives, and light moving from top to bottom of tower is blue shifted from both perspectives.
Is this correct?
And... be that as it may, concerning GR, I can see the possibility of there actually being an absolute reference frame... and the benefits of having one.
Again - Inverted Time Theory is not synonymous to GR. GR is only mentioned with regards to it being best current working theory, and because I was indeed invited to take someone's hand, earlier this thread, and guide them through GR, with respect to my ITT notion.
I am well aware GR has no absolute reference frame, and all the disadvantages there-of... and that it does not have an absolute reference frame because distance and length are variable. (Let's not bring the fabric of space stretching faster than the speed of light into the matter.)
P.S. Ethos, you are aware that GR has problems describing our universe? That GR is a theory of gravity, and that gravity has yet to be linked to quantum, or the Maxwell equations? Because if not, then please go read "The Trouble With Physics" Lee Smolin, before you make further comment here.
Post by: Ethos_ on 21/02/2016 03:02:07
With all due respect, I'll make comments here when I think there is good reason to.....................But appreciate the suggestion nevertheless.
P.S. Ethos, you are aware that GR has problems describing our universe? That GR is a theory of gravity, and that gravity has yet to be linked to quantum, or the Maxwell equations? Because if not, then please go read "The Trouble With Physics" Lee Smolin, before you make further comment here.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2016 10:03:44
Far as I am aware, the experiment showed that: light moving from bottom to top of tower is redshifted from both perspectives, and light moving from top to bottom of tower is blue shifted from both perspectives.No, it showed that the gravitational blueshift of a "falling" photon could be measured by matching it with the Doppler shift of a moving Mossbauer target.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2016 10:22:29
Far as I am aware, the experiment showed that: light moving from bottom to top of tower is redshifted from both perspectives, and light moving from top to bottom of tower is blue shifted from both perspectives.No, it showed that the gravitational blueshift of a "falling" photon could be measured by matching it with the Doppler shift of a moving Mossbauer target.
I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but like Ethos stated I will post anywhere when I feel like it appropriate, I have the same forums rights as you all. I am sure this forum would not want to be discriminate which is a form of racism.
Alan I do not think you understood what Timey was saying, again maybe a syntactic ambiguity problem .
Imagine two stars , A and B
Imagine A and B start of adjoined.
AB
Imagine B sets out on a journey and relative to A and B neither knows who is moving.
A←→B
B travels way from A at the near speed of light v=<c
relative to B , it is A that is travelling away at the near speed of light
A, observes B to redshift by the expansion of length (doppler effect)
B, observes A to redshift by the expansion of the length. (doppler effect)
This is what timey was saying/asking.
You replied
''No, it showed that the gravitational blueshift of a "falling" photon could be measured by matching it with the Doppler shift of a moving Mossbauer target.''
This also applies, both affects are observed relative to perspective. While A observes the light from A to B redshift , A also observes the light from B to A to blueshift.
You have to imagine yourself in two different position perspectives simultaneously to understand both perspectives.
Post by: timey on 21/02/2016 12:06:09
Far as I am aware, the experiment showed that: light moving from bottom to top of tower is redshifted from both perspectives, and light moving from top to bottom of tower is blue shifted from both perspectives.No, it showed that the gravitational blueshift of a "falling" photon could be measured by matching it with the Doppler shift of a moving Mossbauer target.
My point being that there is nothing 'relative' going on between the 2 positions, top of tower, and bottom of tower, perspectives. Blue shifted means approaching a gravity field, and redshifted means departing a gravity field...from both perspectives.
Ok, let's examine the idea of a photon 'falling' to earth. A photon falling to earth is what we observe when we observe star light. When this light comes within the gravitational field of Earth, that photon, having been redshifted away from the stars gravitational field, will blueshift as it 'falls' towards Earth.
Presumably it then is possible to subtract the blue shifted effect from the redshifted effect that we observe, to arrive at the correct redshift associated with that star. (?)
But 'where' are we observing this redshifted light? Are we observing the redshifted light as a direct result of light being emitted from this star, from the position of the star? Or are we observing the light as a direct result of the light having travelled to the point of distance whereas the light has become as redshifted as to the extent that the weakest point of gravity field has rendered it?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2016 12:18:52
The business about the "weakest point of gravity" is irrelevant. We are seeing the integrated effect of all the gravitational fields and doppler shifts en route. Whilst we can compute the minimum gravitational potential and gradient between two fixed masses, there's all sorts of stuff moving about in the real universe. We know an apple is the result of 365 days of weather operating on one tree, but there's no way you can calculate the hottest or wettest day from the weight of the apple!
Post by: timey on 21/02/2016 12:56:16
The picture depicted in the link below states itself as vastly out of scale, but it does not state itself as geometrically incorrect. Is it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
The light will redshift away from the sun, but when it comes under the influence of Earth's gravitational field, it will start to blueshift...
And... as both bodies of mass are moving relative to each other, we know that the position in which we view the suns light, is not the position that the sun is in at the precise moment that we are viewing the light we view. But if we were able to view the light of the sun instantaneously, would we observe a blue shifted streak from the position that we observe the light of the sun to be in, streaking across the sky to the position that the sun is now in?
(given that it all wasn't so damn blindingly bright that is...(chuckle) )
Post by: puppypower on 21/02/2016 13:15:07
The reason is gravity is an acceleration, which has the units of d/t/t (one part distance and two parts time) while space time is only d-t (one part distance and one part time). There is time missing from space-time, relative to acceleration.The extra time is connected to pressure and allows frequencies get faster instead of slower.
One needs to think in terms of gravity as two layers, with space-time only one of those two layers. The other layer is connected pressure. Distance in space-time is not invariant as everyone has pointed out. But distance in the extra layer of time, connected to pressure, is invariant and defines specific phases of matter. Specific phases of matter have specific distances, which are the same in all references. In SR, since this uses velocity; d/t, space-time is fully defined. The extra layer of time is not impacted so materials do not change. The younger twin in the paradox does not experience extreme pressure.
If we add the pressure variable, on top of space-time, we can see what appears to be variation in invariant distances, without any phase change. We can see the hydrogen spectra, red shift, such that higher energy levels behave like lower energy levels, but in reality, the hydrogen atom is behaving in an invariant way, in the distant object. The standard hydrogen atom is how we infer motion, since we know this has to remain invariant and any chance is due to SR.
The answer is distance is variant with respect to space-time, but invariant with respect to the extra time (acceleration) connected to pressure. All the force of nature can exert pressure and be impacted by pressure. The extra time connected to pressure is how all the forces/accelerations are integrated, to define a unique summations of forces; characteristic phase.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2016 15:34:20
we know that the position in which we view the suns light, is not the position that the sun is in at the precise moment that we are viewing the light we view. But if we were able to view the light of the sun instantaneously, would we observe a blue shifted streak from the position that we observe the light of the sun to be in, streaking across the sky to the position that the sun is now in?
(given that it all wasn't so damn blindingly bright that is...(chuckle) )
If you could observe the sun "instantaneously" c would be infinite by definition and no relativistic corrections would apply to anything. And any photon leaving the sun will be red shifted from the point of view of an observer in a lower gravitational field, as shown experimentally by Pound & Rebka.
You don't need the sun or any other celestial body to play with red and blue shifts. As you have pointed out, the 57Fe mossbauer photon is entirely adequate for measurements in a terrestrial laboratory.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2016 15:57:53
Ok then - let's have a look at our closest light source, the sun, for simplicity.OH ....how nasa observe the sun in different spectrum's changing the light when it hasn't changed
The picture depicted in the link below states itself as vastly out of scale, but it does not state itself as geometrically incorrect. Is it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
The light will redshift away from the sun, but when it comes under the influence of Earth's gravitational field, it will start to blueshift...
And... as both bodies of mass are moving relative to each other, we know that the position in which we view the suns light, is not the position that the sun is in at the precise moment that we are viewing the light we view. But if we were able to view the light of the sun instantaneously, would we observe a blue shifted streak from the position that we observe the light of the sun to be in, streaking across the sky to the position that the sun is now in?
(given that it all wasn't so damn blindingly bright that is...(chuckle) )
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/02/2016 16:13:48
This is the point at which relativity meets quantum mechanics.
Post by: timey on 21/02/2016 16:46:30
I think it worth pointing out though, that the purpose of 'this' discussion, at present juncture, is to dissect 'observation' of redshift, via experimental evidence, with respect to parallax method.
Post by: timey on 21/02/2016 16:49:57
If you could observe the sun "instantaneously" c would be infinite by definition and no relativistic corrections would apply to anything. And any photon leaving the sun will be red shifted from the point of view of an observer in a lower gravitational field, as shown experimentally by Pound & Rebka.
You don't need the sun or any other celestial body to play with red and blue shifts. As you have pointed out, the 57Fe mossbauer photon is entirely adequate for measurements in a terrestrial laboratory.
Ok - yes, exactly! The speed of light is not instantaneous. And... not only do we experience a time episode between when the light was emitted, and when we view it, but also that 'the' time considerations between the light source and us, are also changing, with changes in the gravity field.
However, the Pound Rebka experiment suggests that it would not matter 'where' an observer situated himself within the gravitational field between the light source and earth. Where the gravitational field becomes progressively weaker, light will redshift, and where the gravitational field becomes progressively stronger light will blueshift.
Can we agree that there is nothing relativistic about this?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2016 17:29:07
Where the gravitational field becomes progressively weaker, light will redshift, and where the gravitational field becomes progressively stronger light will blueshift.Isn't that exacty the opposite of what happens? As I understand it, the redshift occurs in the stronger gravitational field, but obviously an observer in that field won't see it because his timebase has also been shifted.
Quote
Can we agree that there is nothing relativistic about this?Except that the nonrelativistic calculation gives the wrong answer.
Post by: timey on 21/02/2016 17:52:36
Nope. Light redshifts as it leaves a gravitational field into weaker gravitational field.
Therefore, by definition, it must blueshift as it enters a stronger gravitational field.
And... The Pound Rebka suggests that there is a definable time base. That this 'can' be determined by the shift in light. This concept has been furthered by NIST with their ground level atomic clock experiments.
And... The non relativistic (Newtonian) calculation is not taking into consideration the changes in the rate of time within the changes in the gravity field...
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2016 18:06:23
Thank you Puppypower for your dialogue.do you mean this?
I think it worth pointing out though, that the purpose of 'this' discussion, at present juncture, is to dissect 'observation' of redshift, via experimental evidence, with respect to parallax method.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: timey on 21/02/2016 18:16:42
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2016 18:24:54
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
Yes I drew similar you just cant see the faint lines because of the white background, you need to download the image and view in bitmap.
Added - I got it , it is not the object that swaps sides, it is your nose that swaps sides.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
so you have to have an imaginary point source to be accurate, not triangulate, tri- quadulate
quad
[ Invalid Attachment ]
hope this helps
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2016 22:38:41
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
If you move your head really fast left and right to keep in time with the animation in the link, the background moves at the same speed, just an observation note for you.
Post by: timey on 21/02/2016 23:28:29
If you move your head really fast left and right to keep in time with the animation in the link, the background moves at the same speed, just an observation note for you.
And... it is also possible to totally obscure a full moon with your thumb!
(That's not Cockney rhyming slang btw :) )
Very good evening to you box!
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2016 00:36:01
If you move your head really fast left and right to keep in time with the animation in the link, the background moves at the same speed, just an observation note for you.
And... it is also possible to totally obscure a full moon with your thumb!
(That's not Cockney rhyming slang btw :) )
Very good evening to you box!
Thanks for the good evening timey ,good evening to you, appreciated, yes you can obscure the moon with your thumb, perspective view is a strange thing at times. I have always done that with my thumb and forefinger , hold them about 1 inch apart and look at things at a distance through the gap , turning huge houses into 1 inch houses etc lol.
Thank you for the earlier link that learnt me something new.
Post by: timey on 24/02/2016 21:31:03
Quotethe origin of the wavesThis week's show asked about how the direction of the source was determined.
The unfortunate answer is that it was not determined very accurately at all. It is constrained to within a total area of about 600 square degrees, which is a fair swathe of the sky (the Moon occupies about a quarter of a square degree).
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Calculation
The time of arrival at the two detectors differed by about 6.7 ms over a distance of around 5000 km.
- The source could not have been on a straight line between the two detectors, as that would mean that it exceeded the speed of light, which physicists think is impossible.
- Assuming that the gravitational wave traveled at the speed of light (as predicted by Einstein), you can deduce that the wave originated at a point in the sky which is at a certain angle to the line joining the detectors. This would inscribe a circle in the sky. Due to uncertainties in the measurements, this circle is about 10 times the width of the Moon in the sky.
- There was additional (phase?) information which they drew on to further limit it to less than a quarter of this candidate circle around the sky
Finding the Source
It was suggested that astronomers could point their telescopes at the source and see a black hole. They certainly tried.
Unfortunately, 600 deg2 is not a small enough region to know where to point a big optical telescope, which typically cover a very small area of the sky, much smaller than the Moon. This event was so distant that it would need long exposures on a large telescope. Radio and gamma ray telescopes have less resolution, so they can cover larger areas of the sky.
Black holes are particularly hard to see - astronomers now have a good idea of the location and mass of the black hole in the center of our galaxy - but only because they have spent the past 15 years observing the paths of about a dozen stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#/media/File:Galactic_centre_orbits.svg) that are in close orbit around it. The black hole itself is practically invisible - and this one is only 25,000 light years away, not 1,000,000,000 as estimated for this gravitational wave source.
Fortunately, by the time they have 3 or 4 operational gravity wave detectors (in 4 or 5 years), they will be able to narrow down the source to an area in the sky that is perhaps no larger than the Moon. That is still a large area to search, but if the source were the merger of two neutron stars within our own galaxy, that may produce a burst of visible, radio and X-Rays radiation that is easily visible on Earth.
Unfortunately, the merger of two otherwise isolated black holes is unlikely to produce much visible radiation.
This paper shows more details on the analysis: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03840v1.pdf
This paper is expected to appear soon (for now it is just the diagram above): https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P1500227/006/placeholder.pdf
If indeed Einstein was right, and the speed of gravity and the speed of light are equal - then if you look at an increase in a gravity field, caused by a gravity wave, increasing the rate of time...rather than slowing it. Then the amount by which the gravity wave exceeded the speed of light, if the gravity wave 'was' considered as having travelling in a straight line, would simply indicate by how much the rate of time had increased when the gravity wave hit. (This should be synonymous with by how much the length of the poles is 'supposed' to have contracted.)
Calculating the angle from which the gravity wave came from, should then be rendered more exact, shouldn't it?
Post by: timey on 27/02/2016 12:59:16
Post by: guest39538 on 28/02/2016 14:23:16
I suppose Stoke might win... and the odds are pretty good, aren't they? Not that I'm a betting woman - nor overly interested in football!
Stoke has a key player, the player always wants to win and tries not to let anything like a defense to even bother him, he always scores in the end from persistence. He has footballing skills, he always thinks that one step more than other players which gives him the edge.
Post by: timey on 28/02/2016 21:14:18
Box... I notice you also make diagrams! Did you know that in posting on forums, you retain the ownership rights on intellectual property, such as an idea - particularly if that idea is an idea that is easily distinguishable from other idea's in its genre - but that the copyright on anything you post publicly to the forum becomes the property of the site owners?
Actually it's a little more 'grey' than I'm perhaps portraying, but only because no-one has yet taken such a case to court. This being, I think, because the general opinion is - that if you wish to retain full copyrights to any artworks, writings, or poetry you create, it would be foolish to post it to a public forum. If you do in fact actually want it out there on the net, better to create your own page. Even then your work will not be entirely safe. My artwork was ripped off from my webpage a few years back for the launch of a new car series, produced by an exceedingly prominent car manufacturer. I had to write and tell them that I was expecting my free car to be arriving imminently! They subsequently took it down, much to my disappointment! (chuckle)
Anyway - I notice box that you are indeed posting your rather interesting diagrams to the forum, so... just thought I'd point these facts out to you!
Post by: guest39538 on 28/02/2016 22:24:12
Is that so...? I was actually rooting for the Villa myself, having somehow found my way back to good old familiar Coventry, so it would seem...whereas I know my way on to Birmingham quite well from there.Well a train journey is only a train journey.
Box... I notice you also make diagrams! Did you know that in posting on forums, you retain the ownership rights on intellectual property, such as an idea - particularly if that idea is an idea that is easily distinguishable from other idea's in its genre - but that the copyright on anything you post publicly to the forum becomes the property of the site owners?
Actually it's a little more 'grey' than I'm perhaps portraying, but only because no-one has yet taken such a case to court. This being, I think, because the general opinion is - that if you wish to retain full copyrights to any artworks, writings, or poetry you create, it would be foolish to post it to a public forum. If you do in fact actually want it out there on the net, better to create your own page. Even then your work will not be entirely safe. My artwork was ripped off from my webpage a few years back for the launch of a new car series, produced by an exceedingly prominent car manufacturer. I had to write and tell them that I was expecting my free car to be arriving imminently! They subsequently took it down, much to my disappointment! (chuckle)
Anyway - I notice box that you are indeed posting your rather interesting diagrams to the forum, so... just thought I'd point these facts out to you!
I once worked in Cambridge town high street, I suppose if any one has rights to my diagrams, I would rather it be them, thank you for the information, but a diagram is only has good as the person who really,really understands it.
Post by: timey on 28/02/2016 23:44:39
Post by: guest39538 on 29/02/2016 00:55:11
Here, here... and as I also am quite happy with that which I do post, we find ourselves in agreement.yes we do
Post by: timey on 01/03/2016 12:19:04
I suspect that this 'timing' aspect of the experiment is taken care of by feeding all other relevant data straight into a computer.
Can anyone confirm if this is true?
Post by: Colin2B on 01/03/2016 12:57:36
Post by: timey on 01/03/2016 14:23:33
This discussion is putting forward the notion that there is no mass movement during the gravity wave occurrence. That any disturbance in the light beams is caused by a 'shorter' journey 'time'. This being caused by an increase in the gravitational field of earth, caused by the gravity wave itself, causing (contrary to accepted physics) an 'increase' in the rate of time for the duration of the gravity wave passing through the locations of the experiments.
This discussion puts forward the notion that it is 'not' the poles that have contracted, and that instead it is the rate of time that has contracted, causing interference patterns.
Post by: timey on 01/03/2016 15:49:22
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2016 17:06:19
In reverse, this discussion puts forward the notion that within the Michael Morley experiment and those that followed, that light associated with the arm of the interferometer equipment travelling 'in line motion' experiences a 'further slowing' of time due to 'extra' velocity related time dilation considerations. The light, travelling at the speed of light, takes a 'longer' amount of time to travel the arm of the interferometer. Without mathematically taking into consideration the light having travelled in a 'slower' time, it will 'seem' as if the length of the arm has contracted...when in fact it is instead the length of the journey 'time' that has dilated.
Yes the light slows down, the length remains a length. The calibration points , are a constant invariant. A very simple experiment shows this, fill a ''vacuum'' with a dense medium, time the journey of light, it will show light to slow down, the vacuum length, remains an invariant. I tried to tell this before, computer printouts use two points, all measurement uses two points, that is the point.
The Keating experiment used 2 points,
a......................b
a......................b
the two points are invariant on the readout.
Post by: timey on 01/03/2016 17:27:13
This remembering that in us 'playing' with light on Earth and in space, that this behaviour does not reflect the true behaviour of natural light propagation through space.
This discussion puts forward the notion that time runs progressively slower for locations (not clocks - ie: mass) in diminishing gravity fields between bodies of mass. That the reduction of frequency in light observed in gravitational shift is indicative of the rate of time for a gravitational field at that location - and the increased wavelength of the light at lower frequency is time related, not distance related.
The benefits of viewing the universe under this remit describe a non expanding, very slowly contracting, closed system, cyclic universe... that finds it beginning and end of cycle within the black hole phenomenon - without adding any unobserved added extras in order to make the system work...
P.S. Box - I am saying, in this case, that the time slows down causing the appearance of a length contraction, not that the light slows down!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
Post by: Colin2B on 01/03/2016 17:38:07
Exactly...So you are saying that this experiment would work with just lasers and mirrors, but no test mass. Just need someone to do the experiment.
This discussion is putting forward the notion that there is no mass movement during the gravity wave occurrence.
Post by: timey on 01/03/2016 18:23:12
What I do know is that the speed of the gravity wave measured in a straight line between experiments, exceeded the speed of light by 6.37 ms?... or thereabouts... If one considered this exceeding the speed of light as the speed of the gravity wave travelling in a quicker rate of time caused by the gravity waves additional gravitational field, then the distance by which the gravity wave experiment tubes is considered shorter, when divided by the distance the light actually travelled in those tubes before being measured, should tally up with the 6.37 or thereabouts ms divided by the distance that the gravity wave travelled between the experiments.
Or something like that anyway, Colin. Remember, I'm new to the maths.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2016 19:03:23
P.S. Box - I am saying, in this case, that the time slows down causing the appearance of a length contraction, not that the light slows down!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
I think you missed the point, imagine a 30 cm length, imagine light bouncing back and forth between A and B of the length, lets say we observe a frequency of 10 passing B,
Now let us imagine we move the clock and we now measure the frequency passing B as 5.
Time slowed down to half the rate. NO....... speed slowed down to half the rate, the length of 30cm is still the same and never alters, it is constant.
distance travelled = distance travelled in either experiment,
rate/d is not equal to rate/d in either experiment.
Post by: timey on 01/03/2016 19:23:59
P.S. Box - I am saying, in this case, that the time slows down causing the appearance of a length contraction, not that the light slows down!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelston–Morley_experiment
I think you missed the point, imagine a 30 cm length, imagine light bouncing back and forth between A and B of the length, lets say we observe a frequency of 10 passing B,
Now let us imagine we move the clock and we now measure the frequency passing B as 5.
Time slowed down to half the rate. NO....... speed slowed down to half the rate, the length of 30cm is still the same and never alters, it is constant.
distance travelled = distance travelled in either experiment,
rate/d is not equal to rate/d in either experiment.
Yes box - I get the point.
What you are doing is keeping distance and the rate of time constant, at the expense of the speed of light now being variable.
What I am doing is keeping the speed of light and distance as constants, and rendering the rate of time as variable, in exactly the opposite way to that which is accepted physics, while maintaining that for the 'mass' of a cessium atom in elevation, that it's time will increase, as observed, due entirely to potential energy.
GR keeps the speed of light as its constant. The rate of time is variable, in keeping with by how much a cession atoms time increases at elevation. Distance and length are then rendered variable by observation, and mathematical consideration, under the remit of the constancy of the speed of light via the remit of time being 'slowed' by an increase in gravity field.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2016 19:55:04
Yes box - I get the point.
What you are doing is keeping distance and the rate of time constant, at the expense of the speed of light now being variable.
What I am doing is keeping the speed of light and distance as constants, and rendering the rate of time as variable,
the rate of time can't be a variable, anything after 0 is history, but yes I understand your view and what you are trying to do.
''What I am doing is keeping the speed of light and distance as constants, and rendering the rate of time as variable,''
you could do that if you change the end part to, and rendering the rate of extraction as variable,
I drew it you rather than words.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: timey on 01/03/2016 20:36:50
I see you are no closer to understanding that the frequency of the cycles of a cessium atom is subject to change when exposed to changes in the gravitational field.
That these changes in the frequency of the cycles of a cessium atom exposed to changes in the gravitational field are known as time dilation, (although, in the case of this side of the 'rate of time' phenomenon, it should really be called time contraction), and are indeed proven...forming the basis of the GPS system... So... the rate of time is indeed a variable.
I'm just suggesting that the rate of time is also variable, in an 'almost' reverse symmetry, for locations of 'space' within changes in the gravitational field, and that lights observed reduction of frequency in a reducing gravitational field, being as light is massless, is reflective of this notion.
I don't know where your notion of extraction fits in. Sorry.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2016 20:44:57
Yes box - I'm having a perfect cinematic recollection of events... We've been here before. Yes I agree that anything in time after zero is history - but... in an effort to record sequential events or predict future events, that approach to viewing time is next to bloody useless.
I see you are no closer to understanding that the frequency of the cycles of a cessium atom is subject to change when exposed to changes in the gravitational field.
That these changes in the frequency of the cycles of a cessium atom exposed to changes in the gravitational field are known as time dilation, (although, in the case of this side of the 'rate of time' phenomenon, it should really be called time contraction), and are indeed proven...forming the basis of the GPS system... So... the rate of time is indeed a variable.
I'm just suggesting that the rate of time is also variable, in an 'almost' reverse symmetry, for locations of 'space' within changes in the gravitational field, and that lights observed reduction of frequency in a reducing gravitational field, being as light is massless, is reflective of this notion.
I don't know where your notion of extraction fits in. Sorry.
Firstly I acknowledge the fact that there is a change in rate of the Caesium atom, however this is not a change of rate of time, it is a change of rate of timing. We are timing a rate, the rate of time timing the event is unchanging. It should be called a timing dilation, that is why satellites need to be recalibrated.
Timing the clue word to extraction rate. Suck on a straw hard extracting the liquid fast, suck on a straw softly extracting the liquid slowly.
Are you sitting relatively stationary right now?
You are still accelerating at a rate of 9.81m/s2, you are always ''falling''.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Timing dilation is an exchange rate change,
What you have to realise is when the aeroplane accelerated down the runway and took off , that was the only time you were actually not falling.Once the aeroplane levelled out its speed, you are falling again.
(I think accelerating gives you less mass or more mass).
Post by: Ethos_ on 01/03/2016 23:49:12
From Wikipedia under: [Lorentz Contraction]
"Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat discs when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered."
My personal comments follow:
As the heavy ion reaches these near light speeds, it's frontal area compacts as it's length contracts leading to the observed increased nucleon density. These observations provide sufficient evidence that Length Contraction is a reality and not just a time dependent function of this phenomenon.
I would recommend everyone involved in this thread check out the full explanation prepared for everyone at Wikipedia.
regards...........................Ethos
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2016 08:16:35
There have been 3 or four experiments that have validated the Lorentz contraction but the one I like best is the Heavy ion experiment.
From Wikipedia under: [Lorentz Contraction]
"Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat discs when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered."
My personal comments follow:
As the heavy ion reaches these near light speeds, it's frontal area compacts as it's length contracts leading to the observed increased nucleon density. These observations provide sufficient evidence that Length Contraction is a reality and not just a time dependent function of this phenomenon.
I would recommend everyone involved in this thread check out the full explanation prepared for everyone at Wikipedia.
regards...........................Ethos
Thank you Ethos for your reminder, I ''viewed'' this experiment when they first did it and mentioned it. The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.
A simple thought of a car towing a car shows us why. For the rope to slacken between two vehicles , one in tow, either
A- the towing car has to brake and the towed car continues forward
B- the towed car had to accelerate
An object in motion without two points of pressure being applied CANNOT contract, basic science . I do not know what they observing in their experiment, maybe they just want to see something which isn't there.
I have two other real life physical experiments, one using trains as you know, not computerised garbage, that shows an objects length does not contract, what do you say to that?
Post by: Colin2B on 02/03/2016 10:51:21
I do not know how many times the beam of light is revolved around the 4km distance before the interference patterns are measured, therefore I do not understand how much 'distance' the light in the tubes has travelled before detecting from the interference patterns, the distance of one proton as a 'length' contraction.It's reflected 400 times so total path length is 1600km.
What I do know is that the speed of the gravity wave measured in a straight line between experiments, exceeded the speed of light by 6.37 ms?... or thereabouts...Where did you get this from?
The only delay I've seen quoted is the time between detection at Livingston, LA and Hanford, WA, This was about 7ms - close to your figure. That delay depends on the angle of incidence of the wave.
Post by: Ethos_ on 02/03/2016 13:46:08
The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.Ignoring the experimental results given here and maintaining your own biased view of reality proves one thing to me. And this would be that you're really not interested in the scientific method and therefore, content to pick and choose your facts based only on those things which please your personal sensibilities.
Until you learn to take these professional experiments, preformed by experts BTW, into consideration and allow that information to be part of your equation, your quest to learn about physics will suffer greatly.
But I wish you the best Mr. Box, keep digging into these questions and you may find something new.
regards................................Ethos
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2016 13:52:15
The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.Ignoring the experimental results given here and maintaining your own biased view of reality proves one thing to me. And this would be that you're really not interested in the scientific method and therefore, content to pick and choose your facts based only on those things which please your personal sensibilities.
Until you learn to take these professional experiments, preformed by experts BTW, into consideration and allow that information to be part of your equation, your quest to learn about physics will suffer greatly.
But I wish you the best Mr. Box, keep digging into these questions and you may find something new.
regards................................Ethos
My scientific method involves physical experiment, you are obviously not interested in any sort of facts.
also notice the box singularity when the sides of the box vanish.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2016 14:05:23
The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.
Whereas anyone who has ever used a rubber band or stirred paint, knows that it is an everyday occurrence.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2016 14:34:28
The problem is , anybody who knows anything about force, pressure and speed, knows very well it is impossible for an objects molecular shape length to contract due to motion.
Whereas anyone who has ever used a rubber band or stirred paint, knows that it is an everyday occurrence.
Huh? a rubber band stretches because of applied force, the work is done by the force, things don't just contract or expand for no reason, my video shows it doesn't anyway, it is an optical illusion and parlour tricks.
Post by: Ethos_ on 02/03/2016 15:02:03
Would you like us to send you a new BOX of crayons, for your experiments that is................................?
My scientific method involves physical experiment,
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2016 15:17:28
Would you like us to send you a new BOX of crayons, for your experiments that is................................?
My scientific method involves physical experiment,
You could go stand on a train station platform and observe a train in motion pass a train that is relatively stationary that is the same length. Besides the crayons was free crayons, what do you expect for free crayons.
Post by: timey on 02/03/2016 22:10:23
I do not know how many times the beam of light is revolved around the 4km distance before the interference patterns are measured, therefore I do not understand how much 'distance' the light in the tubes has travelled before detecting from the interference patterns, the distance of one proton as a 'length' contraction.It's reflected 400 times so total path length is 1600km.What I do know is that the speed of the gravity wave measured in a straight line between experiments, exceeded the speed of light by 6.37 ms?... or thereabouts...Where did you get this from?
The only delay I've seen quoted is the time between detection at Livingston, LA and Hanford, WA, This was about 7ms - close to your figure. That delay depends on the angle of incidence of the wave.
Quotethe origin of the wavesThis week's show asked about how the direction of the source was determined.
The unfortunate answer is that it was not determined very accurately at all. It is constrained to within a total area of about 600 square degrees, which is a fair swathe of the sky (the Moon occupies about a quarter of a square degree).
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Calculation
The time of arrival at the two detectors differed by about 6.7 ms over a distance of around 5000 km.
- The source could not have been on a straight line between the two detectors, as that would mean that it exceeded the speed of light, which physicists think is impossible.
- Assuming that the gravitational wave traveled at the speed of light (as predicted by Einstein), you can deduce that the wave originated at a point in the sky which is at a certain angle to the line joining the detectors. This would inscribe a circle in the sky. Due to uncertainties in the measurements, this circle is about 10 times the width of the Moon in the sky.
- There was additional (phase?) information which they drew on to further limit it to less than a quarter of this candidate circle around the sky
Finding the Source
It was suggested that astronomers could point their telescopes at the source and see a black hole. They certainly tried.
Unfortunately, 600 deg2 is not a small enough region to know where to point a big optical telescope, which typically cover a very small area of the sky, much smaller than the Moon. This event was so distant that it would need long exposures on a large telescope. Radio and gamma ray telescopes have less resolution, so they can cover larger areas of the sky.
Black holes are particularly hard to see - astronomers now have a good idea of the location and mass of the black hole in the center of our galaxy - but only because they have spent the past 15 years observing the paths of about a dozen stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#/media/File:Galactic_centre_orbits.svg) that are in close orbit around it. The black hole itself is practically invisible - and this one is only 25,000 light years away, not 1,000,000,000 as estimated for this gravitational wave source.
Fortunately, by the time they have 3 or 4 operational gravity wave detectors (in 4 or 5 years), they will be able to narrow down the source to an area in the sky that is perhaps no larger than the Moon. That is still a large area to search, but if the source were the merger of two neutron stars within our own galaxy, that may produce a burst of visible, radio and X-Rays radiation that is easily visible on Earth.
Unfortunately, the merger of two otherwise isolated black holes is unlikely to produce much visible radiation.
This paper shows more details on the analysis: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03840v1.pdf
This paper is expected to appear soon (for now it is just the diagram above): https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P1500227/006/placeholder.pdf
This is where I got info from... You are right Colin. I made a mistake. There was a 6.7ms delay between experiments. It would take the speed of light 16.68ms (if I've calculated correctly) to travel the 5000km distance between experiments in a straight line. If the gravity wave had travelled in a straight line, the speed of light would have been exceeded by 9.98ms (?)
Post by: timey on 03/03/2016 10:13:54
Bearing in mind that the light measuring the gravity waves revolves around the tubes 400 times before being measured for interference patterns... If one were to consider that the light in the tubes of the gravity wave experiment was displaying interference patterns due to a 'shorter' journey 'time', rather than a 'shorter' tube... how many ms would the speed of light have been exceeded by when travelling the 'now considered' un-contracted distance of the tubes?
Post by: timey on 03/03/2016 16:45:50
If you had a behavioural problem with your horse, dog, cat, etc, or small child (don't ask me about teenagers, they are beyond all comprehension)... or even yourself - I would bring the full bearing of my knowledge and experience to your stated quandary. Start a thread, PM it to me... I'll be all over it immediately.
(And... just for instance, I promise that if you were to tell me that you know your Dalmatian is not deaf because he can hear his food rattling into a bowl from the living room, and turns his head when you speak his name, but that he completely ignores you outside on his walks and you can't get anything through to him...I will not tell you that perhaps another type of dog might be better suited to your needs. I will address the 'problem' that 'you' are having with your 'type' of dog.)
Meanwhile...
When you measure a cesium atom in elevation, are you measuring what time is doing in the space the atom is located, or are you just measuring what time is doing for the atom located in that space?
...and...
Can someone help me here?
Bearing in mind that the light measuring the gravity waves revolves around the tubes 400 times before being measured for interference patterns... If one were to consider that the light in the tubes of the gravity wave experiment was displaying interference patterns due to a 'shorter' journey 'time', rather than a 'shorter' tube... how many ms would the speed of light have been exceeded by when travelling the 'now considered' un-contracted distance of the tubes?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/03/2016 00:26:26
The multiple-pass etalon is designed to amplify the displacement of the target by a factor of 400 before the reflected beam interferes with itself. There is no time measurement involved, just a displacement of a fraction of a wavelength
Post by: timey on 04/03/2016 08:59:16
I am really very aware that the gravity wave experiment is not a time based experiment. However, where-ever the speed of light is involved, and purely because the speed of light is constant, a time aspect can be obtained...
The tubes are supposed to have contracted by a distance. I'm pretty sure that the figure I am looking for can be obtained by:
adding this tiny distance to the distance of 1600km, (this being the distance the light travelled in the tubes before being measured) dividing this new distance by the speed of light, (my phone calculator cannot handle this calculation) and then dividing 1600km by the speed of light = 5.34
Subtracting this figure of 5.34 from the result of the first calculation should (?) give the amount of time by which the journey 'time' was shorter... (I understand and am expecting that this figure is going to be just a tiny fraction of a ms.)
This being under the remit of my theory of an increase in gravitational field increasing the rate of time...
Shorter journey 'time' causing interference patterns, not a shorter tube.
Post by: Colin2B on 04/03/2016 13:11:38
If the 4km contracts then the light will travel a shorter distance for each trip.
The tubes are supposed to have contracted by a distance. I'm pretty sure that the figure I am looking for can be obtained by:
adding this tiny distance to the distance of 1600km,
Post by: timey on 04/03/2016 14:41:01
Yes - but the gravity wave passed the experiment site at the speed of light.... It just touched upon 'one' of those 400 revolutions per tube of that light's journey very briefly indeed... No?
Would you happen to know the exact distance between the 2 experiment sites Colin? Evan said it was around 5000km, but I could use knowing the precise measurement. I'd be most grateful, as researching on this poxy phone is really starting to do my head in...
Post by: timey on 04/03/2016 14:55:52
Dependent on where the light is being measured - if the 400 revolutions, before the light is measured, is inclusive of a journey involving both tubes - then the final figure that I am seeking as a result of the equation that I described above, would require being divided by 2 in order to be correct.
Post by: timey on 04/03/2016 15:08:54
Of course it would affect each trip!!!
Sorry, my mistake... no fly's on you is there? :)
If the light makes its journey of 400 revolutions inclusive of both tubes, the end result would need to be divided by 2... But... Before that... the figure would need to be multiplied by 400!
That actually makes for a much, much better prospect for reaching the figure I have in mind... good, good!
Thanks Colin, don't 'spose you know what that figure is per chance, do you?
Post by: Colin2B on 04/03/2016 15:12:07
Dear oh me Colin!It may have been going at the speed of light, but the entire oscillation lasted 0.45s
Yes - but the gravity wave passed the experiment site at the speed of light.... It just touched upon 'one' of those 400 revolutions per tube of that light's journey very briefly indeed... No?
Would you happen to know the exact distance between the 2 experiment sites Colin? Evan said it was around 5000km, but I could use knowing the precise measurement. I'd be most grateful, as researching on this poxy phone is really starting to do my head in...I have seen 3002km.
You do make a good point though!
Dependent on where the light is being measured - if the 400 revolutions, before the light is measured, is inclusive of a journey involving both tubes - then the final figure that I am seeking as a result of the equation that I described above, would require being divided by 2 in order to be correct.
Being an interferometer the beam is split and travels only up/down each arm independently.
Edit: sorry didn't see your last post until I had finished mine due to interruptions.
What figure do you mean?
Post by: timey on 04/03/2016 15:55:26
1600km plus tiny distance of contraction, divided by speed of light = (?) (my phone calculator cannot handle this equation)
1600km divided by speed of light = 5.34ms
(?) minus 5.34ms = (?) multiplied by 400 = (?)
As said, my phone cannot handle the equation, and all I got is my phone. Can 'you' tell me what the result is?
Also - are you completely sure about that vastly shorter than 5000km straight line distance between the 2 registered hits of the experiment sites. I find it hard to imagine that Evan would have misquoted, and to be honest, 'in the region of 5000km' kind of 'feels' more dimensionally right, from my point of view of understanding... Always happy to be corrected though...
P.S. Almost forgot... Is the 0.45ms duration of the gravity wave hit related to both tubes, or just one tube?
It's just that I suspect that the 'duration' of the gravity wave hit has some bearing upon the final figure of the equation above... Hmmm, (rubs chin)... I'll have to ponder that one!
Post by: timey on 04/03/2016 16:53:06
I cannot for the damn life of me 'get with' how to establish the width of the gravity wave, and again...a bit woolly on this also tbh - but that the final result of the proposed calculation above needs to be divided by the width of the gravity wave, to establish by how much the gravitational field of the gravity wave increased the rate of time as it passes. (maybe?)
Post by: timey on 04/03/2016 20:45:17
The figure that I was hoping for relates to the straight line distance between the 2 registered hits experiment locations, and is based on Evans quote that stated this distance as in the region of 5000km. This is the shortest distance between the experiments, but, if one were to consider the scenario whereas the gravity wave moved into this distance as if it were the horizontal line of a capital T, moving down the vertical... this then constitutes the longest possible time of that distance that the gravity wave could travel upon, and the shortest distance of itself. (and just in case anyone has wrong end of stick, yes, I know it didn't travel that way)
It takes the speed of light 16.68ms to travel 5000km.
There was a 6.7ms delay between experiments.
16.68 minus 6.7 = 9.98
9.98 minus earth's gravity 9.807 = 0.173
It was my hope that the figure that I am seeking would be in the region of 0.173ms. This based on the straight line distance between experiments actually being in the region of 5000km, and obviously any slight difference in this distance would subject this figure of 0.173 to an alteration.
Now pretty please, with cherries on top... is anyone going to put me out of my misery and do the calculation for me?
Post by: timey on 04/03/2016 21:19:05
Post by: timey on 04/03/2016 22:02:50
Post by: Colin2B on 04/03/2016 23:10:27
...and to say so, the straight line distance consideration between the experiments, is in fact just a side issue that I'm interested in. It has no bearing on the result of the proposed calculation,couldn't understand why you did the calculation so I'm glad to hear that it's not important.
If you do ever need it:
"The LIGO “observatory” is made up of two identical and widely separated interferometers situated in sparsely populated, relatively out-of-the-way places: LIGO Hanford in southeastern Washington State in an arid shrub-steppe region crisscrossed by hundreds of layers of ancient lava flows; and LIGO Livingston, 3002 km away in a vast, humid, loblolly pine forest west of Baton Rouge, Louisiana."
I suspect this is great circle distance rather than straight line.
I suspect you are not getting any offers to do the calc because most folks are wondering about the maths. The 0.45s for the wave was an oscillation at, if I remember correctly, around 150Hz, so you have around 60 cycles which were not of the same amplitude. I don't know how you would decide to process that, take an rms?
I suspect you would be better off trying to find out what the average phase shift was, must be in the reports somewhere.
Post by: timey on 04/03/2016 23:25:38
It's the proposed calculation, that my phone cannot handle that is important.
I don't understand why you would consider the geological lie of the land at any experiment site as being important, or the shrubbery.
The gravity wave did not travel in a circle. There were only 2 experiment sites that were up and running and registered the gravity wave.
I have access to the LIGO data, on my phone screen. My phone will not handle the calculation.
Do you have a dog? Or horse perhaps? Small children? Lol!
Post by: alancalverd on 04/03/2016 23:58:44
There was a 6.7ms delay between experiments.AAAAARGH! You have subtracted two numbers that have nothing whatever to do with each other!
16.68 minus 6.7 = 9.98
9.98 minus earth's gravity 9.807 = 0.173
The delay between signals was measured in milliseconds. It is a time, with dimension T
g is measured in meters per second per second, and varies from place to place. It is an acceleration, with dimension LT-2.
For the umpteenth time, (a) you cannot subtract variables with different dimensions and (b) the numbers don't matter: it's the physics that counts because the universe doesn't know or care whether you measure in seconds, heartbeats, Imperial feet or Assyrian cubits.
I cannot possibly put you out of your selfinflicted misery, as long as you insist on subtracting 20.35 Euros from 300 elephants and claiming that the result (279.65) provides some deep insight into the laws of physics because it happens to be the absolute temperature in my garden right now and both quantities start with an e (NB both statements are verifiable!)
Physics is not numerology.
Post by: timey on 05/03/2016 00:25:33
But considering I have stated this as being just a side issue of interest to me, why is it that you think this is the factor worthy of your consideration?
It's THIS I'm having trouble calculating:
1600km plus tiny distance of contraction, divided by speed of light = (?) (my phone calculator cannot handle this equation)
1600km divided by speed of light = 5.34ms
(?) minus 5.34ms = (?) multiplied by 400 = (?)
When I know this figure, this being (or at least close to...maybe the duration of hit needs to be taken into consideration also) by how much the journey time has become shorter, not a shorter pole, then I can take this back to my interest in the direction that the gravity wave came from.
Again, I'm not doing numerology, although admittedly I reckon for you lot - watching me navigate mathematics must be synonymous to watching a small child learning how to ride a bike that's a bit big for them without stabilisers! ;). I understand the principle, and I know where I want to get to... s'just more than a bit wobbly is all!
Post by: Colin2B on 05/03/2016 08:27:50
Not sure why you would think I might think that. Just quoting the distance between the sites which is not a straight line.
The gravity wave did not travel in a circle.
Sorry if my response is unwanted, it was just background interest!
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2016 09:40:55
But considering I have stated this as being just a side issue of interest to me, why is it that you think this is the factor worthy of your consideration?Side issue or not, Chairman Mao said, in his address to the Fourth Peoples Congress, "When you do anything, unless you understand the principles behind it and the mechanism of it, you will not be able to do it well, or at all". Who am I to disagree with such genius?
So, back to the mechanism of the detector. Each unit consists of two mirror systems (call them north and west) at right angles. When a gravity wave passes through a detector it will alter the length of one or both arms. The trick is to detect the transient difference in length. The inertia of the end mirrors is such that it doesn't matter much how long it takes to make that measurement, so the change is amplified by having the light reflected back and forth 400 times before subtracting the north light wave from the west wave. The speed of light is irrelevant: you could in theory use sound or ferrets and string to measure a length, but we have good reason to believe that c is constant.
Post by: timey on 05/03/2016 13:26:07
We already know that the rate of time is variable via changes in a gravitational field.
Therefore, undoubtably the gravity waves gravitational field will have slowed the rate of time ever so slightly by the remit of GR. I have no doubt that this constitutes in part some of the "phase" considerations mentioned by the gravity wave experimenters. They will have understood that the consequence of a slower rate of time will have caused the light, travelling at the speed of light, to make a slower, or longer, journey time. This is an application of the Lorentz transformation, which renders length or distance as a variable.
I am looking at the possibility of the light making a shorter journey time, and that the appearance of a contraction is a direct consequence, in this case, of an increase in time, caused by the increase in gravitational field of the gravity wave in addition to earth's gravitational field, at those locations, for the duration of the gravity wave hit.
This renders the length, or distance of the tubes as constant.
My theory renders length, or distance, as constant. Albeit for the fact of bodies of mass rolling around, within their constant lengths, in this constant distance, changing the parameters of gravitational field and time aspects of these constant distances as they progress upon their gravitational trajectories. ie: the universe is not expanding...but has been slowly contracting in its spacial dimensions since the moment of inflation, due to a sea of individual particle masses clumping together. ie: a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.
Post by: timey on 05/03/2016 13:35:51
Sorry if my response is unwanted, it was just background interest!
Not at-all Colin :) . I suppose I do feel a bit resentful of your purporting to know of another's, or others opinion with regards to this thread, when it's clear from the nature of your post you haven't been up-keeping the thread of the thread. As a moderator I understand that to upkeep all the threads of every discussion is nigh on impossible though.
I've always enjoyed our contacts on line so far, and some of your comments were illuminating to say the least, despite your non-up keeping of the thread of the discussion.
Keep 'em coming, if you would :)
Post by: timey on 05/03/2016 13:40:27
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2Fk17tyd.jpg&hash=e3477db54923f43faa98fc6765b20c61)
Diagram A clearly shows the gravity wave depicted arriving at an angle that affords 6.7ms before registry of second hit at site 2.
Diagram B shows the gravity wave depicted at the angle whereas it would take the 'most' time, and the 'least' distance of the wave, to cross the distance between the sites.
Diagram C goes back to the correct angle and adds in, via r considerations, the notion of earth's gravitational attraction 9.807m/s
When I can know by how much the gravity wave has shortened the journey 'time' of the light measuring the gravity wave, the considerations of the time increase that the gravity wave is adding to the earth's 9.807m/s, via r, will alter the trajectory of the angle the wave is arriving from slightly.
It should be possible, via the considerations of diagram B, in relation to the 6.7 delay, and the distance between sites, with respect to this increased time aspect, and altered angle... to more accurately determine the direction from which the gravity wave came.
Furthermore - it is my suspicion that all of this information, inclusive of the increased time aspect, will be contained within the straight line distance between sites, when considering 16.68ms in relation to 6.7ms, and the gravitational force of earth, and the angle of the gravity wave, this being 'without' adding the increased time aspect I'm suggesting to the angle of the wave trajectory. That this increased time aspect will be reflected within the straight line distance considerations, in relation to the original angle, as an 'additional' on one side, and missing from the other side of the geometry, a fraction of ms... If I am indeed right about the information that I think is contained within the straight line distance between the sites in relation to the increase in rate of time aspects, 'I think' I can see a means of using the data to create an inverse curve out of the straight line distance of 5000km and using it for furthering clarification of the directional aspects.
Quite how to go about mathematically deriving these considerations is what's giving me the trouble though...
But that's why I'm here, right? :D
So... For the gravity wave to make the first hit, and then make the second hit 6.7ms later, the part of the gravity wave that made the second hit would have been the equal of 6.7ms, equaling 2008.6km distance from earth. This means that 2991.4km distance of the gravity wave itself, equaling 9.98ms, passed across the straight line distance at an angle. (this creates, as geometry, another triangle on other side of the distance line).
What my misbegotten non conversation of ms as per c, meters as per g, etc is concerning - ""and this being because my theory states that a gravity field increases the rate of time"" - is attempting to: a) apply that contracted factor of time to the 2991.4km distance of the wave that passed through the straight line distance of 5000km, b) applying that contracted time factor to the weakening gravity field experienced at radius from Earth, that this angle the gravity wave arrived at experienced from a distance of 2008.6km... c) drawing up a new set of angles based on the additional time aspects, to scale, on graph paper, and d) trying to apply the geometrical nature of this 'data induced' inverted curve shape that I'm seeing in my head, in relation to the triangles created by the nature of these angles.
Of course having the precise measurement between registered hits is essential, I'll have to trek through all the research data, it's hard on the phone, don't have a bigger screen available at mo. I thought someone here might know it off hand! I do realise that dealing with such small fractions of an ms, will be hard to replicate on paper, but it's the geometry I want to 'play' with, and so long as close enough is pretty near close... close enough, is good enough for now.
However, this directional aspect of the gravity wave is only a side issue to the premiss of the experiment itself as far as I'm concerned. What this thread is concerning is:
'Is distance an invariant?'...
I'm saying the light in those tubes is displaying interference patterns when the gravity wave hits due to a shorter journey time, not due to a shorter tube.
And I've given at least the premiss for a calculation...
And I've also posed the following question, which forms the basis of the physics of my theory, and gives reason for the premiss of a gravity field increasing the rate of time.
When you measure a cesium atom in elevation, are you measuring what time is doing in the space the atom is located, or are you just measuring what time is doing for the atom located in that space?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2016 14:04:31
My theory renders length, or distance, as constant.
Which is all very well, but LIGO measured a change in distance caused by the gravity wave making the mirrors move.
Post by: timey on 05/03/2016 14:27:09
And... I'm saying that a gravitational increase caused by the gravity wave will cause that light to blueshift. That blueshift is indicative of a 'faster' rate of time. This will cause the lights progression, at the speed of light, during the duration of the gravity wave hit, to be making a 'shorter' journey 'time'.
If one does not realise that a blueshift causes an increase in time, then one would 'have' to conclude that the tube itself has contracted, by the exact amount that the journey time was shorter!!!
My related calculation gives a premiss for calculating by how much the time contracted, by using the data of by how much the tubes are 'supposed' to have contracted.
The logic is simple!
Post by: Ethos_ on 05/03/2016 14:44:12
Now I understand where you're coming from timey, but this position will need a great deal of experimental verification before it will ever be accepted. As I'm sure you're aware that this view is in total opposition to current theory.
My theory renders length, or distance, as constant. Albeit for the fact of bodies of mass rolling around, within their constant lengths, in this constant distance, changing the parameters of gravitational field and time aspects of these constant distances as they progress upon their gravitational trajectories. ie: the universe is not expanding...but has been slowly contracting in its spacial dimensions since the moment of inflation, due to a sea of individual particle masses clumping together. ie: a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.
I must confess that I have always been drawn toward the cyclical model but have yet to establish a function by which the contraction could be reasonably accounted for.
I think this theory merits a lot more attention.
Post by: timey on 05/03/2016 14:48:30
Yes - and how they measured this contraction in length is by using the phenomenon of light, and recording the interference patterns in the light caused by the disturbance to the 'length'...
And... I'm saying that a gravitational increase caused by the gravity wave will cause that light to blueshift. That blueshift is indicative of a 'faster' rate of time. This will cause the lights progression, at the speed of light, during the duration of the gravity wave hit, to be making a 'shorter' journey 'time'.
If one does not realise that a blueshift causes an increase in time, then one would 'have' to conclude that the tube itself has contracted, by the exact amount that the journey time was shorter!!!
My related calculation gives a premiss for calculating by how much the time contracted, by using the data of by how much the tubes are 'supposed' to have contracted.
The logic is simple!
...actually it is not quite as simple as all that, because in addition to the amount by which the tube has contracted, you would also have to add back on to this distance, the amount of distance they have 'already' subtracted, on account of their belief that a blueshift will cause the rate of time to slow. This coming under the description of 'phase considerations' ...
P.S. Thanks Ethos. Appreciated!
Post by: Ethos_ on 05/03/2016 15:27:25
1. I don't think we should totally dismiss the malleability of matter.
(a) Even in our frame of reference, matter is composed of mostly space and is very compressible.
(b) Can we then presume to illuminate other forces such as velocity and gravitational influence to also effect the structural geometry of material objects?
2. I think it more reasonable, in view and in support of your theory, to suggest that there may exist an equilibrium between time and structural geometry taking place. And if that be the case, how in the world could we ever determine which competing entity is the greater influence?
Please understand timey, I'm asking these questions in hopes that answers might be forth coming and in no way am I attacking your theory. In view of my fondness for the cyclical model, I would be very pleased if your model were proved correct.
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/03/2016 15:36:43
I'm open to your concept timey, but there are a few details that we need to straighten out first. Allow me to first establish that; "I would be extremely pleased" to see this model verified because I favor the cyclical model. But proceeding via the scientific method, we first need to try and disprove it.
1. I don't think we should totally dismiss the malleability of matter.
(a) Even in our frame of reference, matter is composed of mostly ru space and is very compressible.
(b) Can we then assume to illuminate other forces such as velocity and gravitational influence to also effect the structural geometry of material objects?
2. I think it more reasonable, in view and in support of your theory, to suggest that there may exist an equilibrium between time and structural geometry taking place. And if that be the case, how in the world could we ever determine which competing entity is the greater influence?
Please understand timey, I'm asking these questions in hopes that answers might be forth coming and in no way am I attacking your theory. In view of my fondness for the cyclical model, I would be very pleased if your model were proved correct.
The theory is best viewed in relation to Hubble and the light cone.
Post by: Ethos_ on 05/03/2016 15:49:04
What do you think timey? I think jeff's observation is worth considerable thought as well.
The theory is best viewed in relation to Hubble and the light cone.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/03/2016 16:06:51
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/03/2016 16:10:45
There is no length contraction for this very simple reason, the length is always constant on a graph or reading.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I doubt if the bed or patient are travelling fast enough for it to be apparent.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/03/2016 16:12:53
There is no length contraction for this very simple reason, the length is always constant on a graph or reading.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I doubt if the bed or patient are travelling fast enough for it to be apparent.
I think you missed the point there Jeff, any computer readout is normally defined between a set distance of points, in the example the set length is the computer screen.
The length is constant
Post by: Ethos_ on 05/03/2016 16:19:23
Constant until you drop it from the fourth story window. Something I've been tempted to do while listening to all this rubbish!
I think you missed the point there Jeff, any computer readout is normally defined between a set distance of points, in the example the set length is the computer screen.
The length is constant
Post by: guest39538 on 05/03/2016 16:27:04
Constant until you drop it from the fourth story window. Something I've been tempted to do while listening to all this rubbish!
[/quote]
The length of one second is the length ,
Look what science does in reality,
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: timey on 05/03/2016 17:32:28
Now I understand where you're coming from timey, but this position will need a great deal of experimental verification before it will ever be accepted. As I'm sure you're aware that this view is in total opposition to current theory.
I must confess that I have always been drawn toward the cyclical model but have yet to establish a function by which the contraction could be reasonably accounted for.
I think this theory merits a lot more attention.
Actually Ethos - my suggested experiment to confirm or deny this theory could be quite cheaply and simply derived...
Take 2 identical precision atomic clocks, and place them at different locations of exactly the same elevation above sea level, (taking into consideration and avoiding differences in the equatorial bulge), but of know significant difference in geological density. See which way the time drift drifts.
My theory states, contrary to accepted physics, that the atomic clock at the denser location, will run at a faster rate than the clock in the less dense location.
If it does, then I'm right. If it doesn't, then I'm wrong!
And.... To answer one of your other questions: that mass in our macro world is compressible... Yes it is. But the gravity waves gravitational force is very weak, so unless one is saying that it is the factor of the wave travelling at the speed of light that is compressing the matter of the tubes, then we would notice, in the much more variable gravitational field of our atmosphere, that everyday objects would appear larger on an aeroplane, than on the ground. I'm sure that if this were the case, I'd of heard about it by now... (Perhaps they are, and I haven't heard? :) It is 'a' possibility!)
...and... Jeff is indeed quite correct about viewing this theory in relation to Hubble and the light cone. Hubble's law is based on redshift, and I'm saying that redshift has been misinterpreted in relation to parallax method.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2016 17:59:40
And... I'm saying that a gravitational increase caused by the gravity wave will cause that light to blueshift.
Blueshifted light will not interfere with the unshifted light in the perrpendicular tube, so you woldn't get a signal if it were due to blueshift. Or redshift.
Post by: timey on 05/03/2016 18:14:09
Any change in a gravitational field causes light to shift. An increase in a gravitational field causes light to blueshift (see Pound Rebka).
The gravity wave, as it passed through earth, caused an increase in gravitational field as it passed, both inside and outside of the tubes. The light in that tube, measuring that tube, will have blue shifted. The experimenters ""will"" have taken this phase shift in the light into consideration, without a doubt, but they are interpreting an increase in gravitational field as 'slowing' the rate of time. This ""will"" also have been taken into consideration by the experimenters, as a 'phase' consideration, without a doubt!
These gravitational shift, and time shift considerations are part and parcel of GR. There is no way that they can state that Einstein and relativity are correct, if the light was not expected to blueshift, and if they did not take into consideration an increase in gravitational field, as the gravity wave hit, slowing the rate of time. These are vital premiss of GR!
Post by: Ethos_ on 05/03/2016 18:23:28
Alan - I'm sorry but your logic does not work!But timey, alan pointed out that the shift in frequency is basically only effective in one of the perpendicular arms of this experiment. I'm not sure why you're discounting his remark.
These gravitational shift, and time shift considerations are part and parcel of GR. There is no way that they can state that Einstein and relativity are correct, if the light was not expected to blueshift, and if they did not take into consideration an increase in gravitational field, as the gravity wave hit, slowing the rate of time. These are vital premiss of GR!
Post by: timey on 05/03/2016 18:35:36
He has said that blue shifted light will not affect the light in the tube.
I am saying that the gravity wave will be blue-shifting the light that "is in" the tube...
Post by: Space Flow on 06/03/2016 02:04:45
What that implies is a variable speed of light. Light could not be a constant if Time can change and Length can't.
Yet we have more than ample experimental evidence that "the speed of light is constant in a medium for every observer".
We can try to disagree on almost anything else but that.
Post by: timey on 06/03/2016 08:18:20
My logic 'is' holding both the speed of light and the speed of gravity as constant, and 'equal'...
Please see rough sketches for an illustration of what is going on here.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2F2s652lx.jpg&hash=6816fb912184fb356ed2aa6f47e16869)
Line A - is an illustration of the speed of light.
Line B - is an illustration of light making the same distance in a contracted rate of time.
Line C - is an illustration of light making the same distance in a dilated rate of time.
Please note : because I have contracted and dilated a second by an equal amount, the measurement of by how much the 'length' of distance 'appears' to have contracted in relation to being measured via, what I will call, a standard second, is also equal... It is quite clear from this illustration that it is 'not' the length of the distance that has contracted, just that the light has taken, travelling at the speed of light, a shorter, or longer 'amount of time' to travel the distance.
This is 'nothing new'. Physicists got to this point over 100 years ago... However, and 'this' is where the BIG MISTAKE in physics lies... they have based their concept of the behaviour of light in a changing gravitational field on the behaviour of bodies of mass in a changing gravitational field, and have based all 'time drift' consideration on the fact that a clock runs a tiny bit faster at elevation...and that a gravitational field slows the rate of time 'to the tune' of the amount by which a clock runs faster in elevation.
Line D - illustrates an amount (exaggerated from 'reality' proportions to + 5% of a standard second), by which time is thought to be slowed.
Line E - illustrates that if the rate of time increased for a stronger gravitational field in a more widely variable fashion than it is currently believed of a gravitational field 'slowing time', 'how' it could come about that current physics would be 'forced' to accept that a contraction of a 'length' is occurring.
I am saying that the 'true nature' of the rate of time for a gravitational field can be found in the frequency of light reducing in a weakening gravitational field.
Recalculating the universe under this remit gives a cyclic universe that finds the beginning and end of its cycles within the black hole phenomenon...and quite a few other really exciting side issues btw. ;)
Post by: guest39538 on 06/03/2016 08:28:10
SpaceFlow - The only reason we can use light to make a measurement, be that measurement by interference patterns, or by method of journey time, is because the speed of light is constant.
My logic 'is' holding both the speed of light and the speed of gravity as constant, and 'equal'...
Please see rough sketches for an illustration of what is going on here.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2F2s652lx.jpg&hash=6816fb912184fb356ed2aa6f47e16869)
Line A - is an illustration of the speed of light.
Line B - is an illustration of light making the same distance in a contracted rate of time.
Line C - is an illustration of light making the same distance in a dilated rate of time.
Please note : because I have contracted and dilated a second by an equal amount, the measurement of by how much the 'length' of distance 'appears' to have contracted in relation to being measured via, what I will call, a standard second, is also equal... It is quite clear from this illustration that it is 'not' the length of the distance that has contracted, just that the light has taken, travelling at the speed of light, a shorter, or longer 'amount of time' to travel the distance.
This is 'nothing new'. Physicists got to this point over 100 years ago... However, and 'this' is where the BIG MISTAKE in physics lies... they have based their concept of the behaviour of light in a changing gravitational field on the behaviour of bodies of mass in a changing gravitational field, and have based all 'time drift' consideration on the fact that a clock runs a tiny bit faster at elevation...and that a gravitational field slows the rate of time 'to the tune' of the amount by which a clock runs faster in elevation.
Line D - illustrates an amount (exaggerated from 'reality' proportions to + 5% of a standard second), by which time is thought to be slowed.
Line E - illustrates that if the rate of time increased for a stronger gravitational field in a more widely variable fashion than it is currently believed of a gravitational field 'slowing time', 'how' it could come about that current physics would be 'forced' to accept that a contraction of a 'length' is occurring.
I am saying that the 'true nature' of the rate of time for a gravitational field can be found in the frequency of light reducing in a weakening gravitational field.
Recalculating the universe under this remit gives a cyclic universe that finds the beginning and end of its cycles within the black hole phenomenon...and quite a few other really exciting side issues btw. ;)
So really you have just re-explained what I have explained? except for adding a Cyclic Universe, which is just another no,no.
I have already provided the true and accurate universe model,
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2016 10:15:00
He has said that blue shifted light will not affect the light in the tube.Don't misquote me. I said that blueshifted light will not interfere with unshifted light in the reference tube. Constructive interference, which is what was detected, requires that both beams have exactly the same wavelength/frequency/energy/color call it what you like, which is why a very narrow band laser is used as the source.
Post by: timey on 06/03/2016 11:05:18
What I am saying is that the light being measured for interference patterns inside the tubes is already subject to earth's gravity field... When the gravity wave hits, the light is experiencing an increase in gravitational field, for the duration of the hit, that will cause the light 'in' the tube, measuring the tube, to blueshift - for the duration of the gravity wave hit.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2016 18:18:52
For a start, the laser beam in both tubes was travelling equal distances in both directions, NS and EW, so any blueshift due to an decreasing field in one direction would be cancelled by an equal reshift as the beam travelled in the opposite direction.
Now the measurement required a different path length in two tubes at right angles to produce an interference signal. If the gravity wave had blueshifted both equally , there would have been no signal. If it had blueshifted one but not the other, again there would have been no signal because you can only get constructive interference between identical wavelengths. So blueshift, redshift, greenshift, nightshift, swingshift and all the other firefighters on your pinup calendar, are irrelevant.
Post by: timey on 06/03/2016 18:42:49
Surely you must realise that a disturbance between a blue shift and a redshift between the increase in gravitational field of earth caused by the gravity wave, and then back again to the usual gravitational field of earth is what I am saying has caused the disturbance in the light, this being the cause of the interference patterns?
I have been previously told that the tubes are measured independently of each other, after the beam is split in two, but really it matters not. Where-ever that light is measured, it will have blue shifted to the tune of the gravitational field of the gravity wave as it passed, and then redshifted back to earth's usual gravitational field. This constitutes a disturbance due to time drift.
As I understood it, the gravity wave event is being considered as a special case of a Lorentz contraction. This speaks for itself as a 'time drift' consideration doesn't it?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2016 23:42:32
Where-ever that light is measured, it will have blue shifted to the tune of the gravitational field of the gravity wave as it passed, and then redshifted back to earth's usual gravitational field.
So now you are saying that there was no net change. But there was.
Post by: timey on 07/03/2016 00:19:20
Are you saying that there was not a Lorentz contraction?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/03/2016 08:30:16
Quote
When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the space-time in the local area is altered. Depending on the source of the wave and its polarization, this results in an effective change in length of one or both of the cavities. The effective length change between the beams will cause the light currently in the cavity to become very slightly out of phase (antiphase) with the incoming light. The cavity will therefore periodically get very slightly out of coherence and the beams, which are tuned to destructively interfere at the detector, will have a very slight periodically varying detuning. This results in a measurable signal.[44]
After an equivalent of approximately 280 trips down the 4 km length to the far mirrors and back again,[45] the two separate beams leave the arms and recombine at the beam splitter. The beams returning from two arms are kept out of phase so that when the arms are both in coherence and interference (as when there is no gravitational wave passing through), their light waves subtract, and no light should arrive at the photodiode. When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the distances along the arms of the interferometer are shortened and lengthened, causing the beams to become slightly less out of antiphase. This results in the beams coming in phase, creating a resonance, hence, some light arrives at the photodiode, indicating a signal.
The notion of "in phase", "antiphase" and "out of phase" signals only applies if the two beams are of the same wavelength.
As for blueshift
Quote
At the bottom of a gravity well, all matter waves have higher frequencies than control matter waves outside the gravity well. When such a blueshifted matter wave climbs out of the gravity well, its frequency decreases to a "normal" level, so that comparing its frequency with the frequency of a control matter wave will not show any reddening. An observer at the bottom of a gravity well cannot observe any blueshift of incoming matter waves, because the observer is himself blueshifted. Thus, gravitational redshift and gravitational blueshift are not directly observable.
Since the wave passed through both arms of the detector, any transient blueshift would have affected both arms equally and thus not have produced any signal.
Post by: timey on 07/03/2016 10:29:30
Here we have the defining statement!
Part of the altering of space time under the remit of GR incorporates that an increase in gravitational field causes the rate of time to slow.
Under the remit of calculating the event of the gravity wave via the interference patterns, will this slowing of time in relation to the speed of light, and the distance of the tubes, have been taken into consideration within the calculations?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/03/2016 11:16:19
""When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the space time in the local area is altered.""
Here we have the defining statement!
Part of the altering of space time under the remit of GR incorporates that an increase in gravitational field causes the rate of time to slow.
Under the remit of calculating the event of the gravity wave via the interference patterns, will this slowing of time in relation to the speed of light, and the distance of the tubes, have been taken into consideration within the calculations?
Timey - All the beams of the lasers are an x-axis, gravity is already flowing ''through'' the beams, a linearity singularity (box singularity) a Y-axis, the gravity ''wobbled'', could have been the Earth's gravity but doe snot matter, the singularity waved at us. The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum, it is already an invariant by it's right slowing down in a medium etc,
Post by: Colin2B on 07/03/2016 11:18:07
Remember that the interferometer is a local observer, not a free falling observer nor a non-local observer.
Part of the altering of space time under the remit of GR incorporates that an increase in gravitational field causes the rate of time to slow.
Under the remit of calculating the event of the gravity wave via the interference patterns, will this slowing of time in relation to the speed of light, and the distance of the tubes, have been taken into consideration within the calculations?
The calculations take account of the stretching/compression of spacetime and the light passing through it. I suspect that's why Jeff made his comment about Hubble's Law.
I remember a good paper on this which was very low maths, I'll see if I can find it.
Post by: timey on 07/03/2016 12:35:41
Remember that the interferometer is a local observer, not a free falling observer nor a non-local observer.
The calculations take account of the stretching/compression of spacetime and the light passing through it. I suspect that's why Jeff made his comment about Hubble's Law.
I remember a good paper on this which was very low maths, I'll see if I can find it.
Even if the phenomenon of redshift blueshift were 'observer dependent' which it isn't... please see Pound Rebka experiment... what we are looking at within the gravity wave considerations is an alteration of space time that causes the 'local' space time to change.
Yes you are quite correct that the calculations take into account of the 'light' having been compressed and then returning to usual earth parameters. Damn right they have!!!
And... the distance by which the tubes are supposed to be compressed by - would have been greater than it is - if they had not of already subtracted the 'slowing' of time considerations from the interference patterns!!! That is a fact!!!
Jeff's comment, I believe, was much more perceptively derived than you are realising, however, it always becomes a dodgy area discerning that which goes on in other people's heads...so the fact that this is what 'I' believe, doesn't necessarily make it so...with respect to both Jeff's thoughts and your own on the matter. I have 'already' read extensively concerning all aspects of the redshift blueshift phenomenon, however it is never wise to think oneself proficient! There is always something more to be gleaned from further study in any field. Hit me with it! (chuckle)
Post by: guest39538 on 07/03/2016 12:51:31
Remember that the interferometer is a local observer, not a free falling observer nor a non-local observer.
The calculations take account of the stretching/compression of spacetime and the light passing through it. I suspect that's why Jeff made his comment about Hubble's Law.
I remember a good paper on this which was very low maths, I'll see if I can find it.
Even if the phenomenon of redshift blueshift were 'observer dependent' which it isn't... please see Pound Rebka experiment... what we are looking at within the gravity wave considerations is an alteration of space time that causes the 'local' space time to change.
Yes you are quite correct that the calculations take into account of the 'light' having been compressed and then returning to usual earth parameters. Damn right they have!!!
And... the distance by which the tubes are supposed to be compressed by - would have been greater than it is - if they had not of already subtracted the 'slowing' of time considerations from the interference patterns!!! That is a fact!!!
Jeff's comment, I believe, was much more perceptively derived than you are realising, however, it always becomes a dodgy area discerning that which goes on in other people's heads...so the fact that this is what 'I' believe, doesn't necessarily make it so...with respect to both Jeff's thoughts and your own on the matter. I have 'already' read extensively concerning all aspects of the redshift blueshift phenomenon, however it is never wise to think oneself proficient! There is always something more to be gleaned from further study in any field. Hit me with it! (chuckle)
Why are you so wrapped up in the blue-shift or red-shift? that hardly matters, if you have a beam that produces a constant pattern and the pattern shows an interference, the interference shows a disruption of the constant pattern so the premise is something disrupting that pattern. I do not see time really plays a part, the difference is noticeable in the pattern and that is all what is needed.
Post by: timey on 07/03/2016 12:58:42
Post by: guest39538 on 07/03/2016 13:08:14
Box, if you are going to prove or disprove GR, time drift considerations are unavoidable... Please 'get with' this FACT!!! Seriously ;)
Well I consider my Box singularity over rules anything thus far, I consider if you want to know the truth a person should really take into consideration the Box singularity. I am not trying to push my ideas on anybody or preach my ideas, BUT I know very well my model is viable, nobody will provide the maths for me, do you want to help me?
Can you do the inverse square law?
Post by: timey on 07/03/2016 13:33:35
Inverse square law... Look, just draw an X on a piece of paper, but unlike that X, make the cross over in equal proportions. Then draw radius of equal proportions, in circles around the cross section point. Each of the quarter sections divided by the divisions of the X is showing you a representation of the inverse square law... Good luck!
Post by: guest39538 on 07/03/2016 13:46:58
Well...erm... while my mathematical impression of a young child learning how to ride a bike that's too big without stabilisers, resulting in wobbly maths syndrome - in relation to your box singularity ideas - I daresay might well make for a wonderful comedy piece...if you actually want any maths 'done', you really are barking up the wrong tree here with me mate...
Inverse square law... Look, just draw an X on a piece of paper, but unlike that X, make the cross over in equal proportions. Then draw radius of equal proportions, in circles around the cross section point. Each of the quarter sections divided by the divisions of the X is showing you a representation of the inverse square law... Good luck!
I do understand how the inverse square law works, however my needs are a bit more than just the inverse square law, I need the inverse square law doing ''backwards'' from two different points of view of moving bodies and also I needed an area contraction formula.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I need this diagram turning into maths .
We have 3 equal planes 10m², the central plane will remain stationary while the two outer planes move away from the central plane a X-axis linearity.
Relative to all 3 planes they all observe an area contraction of each other, at a length apart of unknown X away from the central plane, the planes will have visual contracted to 0 dimensions becoming a Box singularity. The length of light between the planes also contracts its width to a Box singularity. Even gravitational width contracts to a Box singularity.
So that is what maths I need to explain and also the Box singularity of ''black holes'', but that's another thing some other time.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/03/2016 14:05:34
Post by: guest39538 on 07/03/2016 14:15:32
My guess is you are not describing blades so this is not differential geometry.
What do you mean by ''blades'' Jeff?
I am not trying to describe Geometry as such, I am trying to describe the singularity whole of K=0 between all mass and that space-time is only between masses. time only exists of mass, space is not expanding an object can relativity contract to k=0.
And to see anything there has to be a ''width'' of light. Width of light shows 3 dimensional objects , no width it remains a singularity. I.e the dust particle I explained in other thread is a singularity.
Consider wave-width instead of wave-length.
Imagine a piece of elastic that was unbreakable, imagine you stretched and stretched and stretched the elastic until the density was stretched so thin you could not even see the elastic any more turning the elastic into a dimensionless singularity.
Now imagine this elastic is made of two components, emr which always wants to expand and dark energy that always wants to contract.
Post by: timey on 07/03/2016 14:53:43
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/03/2016 18:26:19
My guess is you are not describing blades so this is not differential geometry.
What do you mean by ''blades'' Jeff?
I am not trying to describe Geometry as such, I am trying to describe the singularity whole of K=0 between all mass and that space-time is only between masses. time only exists of mass, space is not expanding an object can relativity contract to k=0.
And to see anything there has to be a ''width'' of light. Width of light shows 3 dimensional objects , no width it remains a singularity. I.e the dust particle I explained in other thread is a singularity.
Consider wave-width instead of wave-length.
Imagine a piece of elastic that was unbreakable, imagine you stretched and stretched and stretched the elastic until the density was stretched so thin you could not even see the elastic any more turning the elastic into a dimensionless singularity.
Now imagine this elastic is made of two components, emr which always wants to expand and dark energy that always wants to contract.
It wouldn't make much sense unless you had studied linear algebra and Grassman algebra
Post by: timey on 07/03/2016 20:03:57
As said, I'm a dolt with the maths, but I'm pretty certain he may just have dropped you some rather helpful hints in the direction your mathematical study should focus on... perhaps?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/03/2016 20:29:59
Grassman algebra
Lol I just looked up Grassman algebra, could you imagine the look on my face, like I had just found some alien coding or something lol. I'm not so sure that's what I need, I only want to explain the relative singularity of light propagating through space in relationship to relativistic contraction of observers, but I did recognise n=0 and 1 and K mentioned, so I think it may have something to do with it.
Maybe I am trying to explain something they already know and the joke is really on me but to my knowledge my idea is unique.
Post by: timey on 09/03/2016 09:48:38
Lol I just looked up Grassman algebra, could you imagine the look on my face, like I had just found some alien coding or something lol.
Nice one Box! Lol! I know the feeling well!