The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?  (Read 10208 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Although the intention of this thread is to remain within the remit of established physics in a quest for a deeper understanding of such, I have placed this discussion in New Theories, so that should we transgress into uncharted territory, we are free to do so if such becomes relevant.

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.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 19:43:10 by timey »


 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #1 on: 11/02/2016 19:38:48 »
To 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?
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #2 on: 11/02/2016 23:05:12 »
Is distance an absolute invariant
This 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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #3 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! 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #4 on: 11/02/2016 23:53:45 »
Ok, thanks Space Flow, you've given me a good deal to digest there.  Great stuff!  My lads hogging my internet connection, but I'll get a good look in at it in the morning, he'll be sound asleep then, no bloody doubt, grrr!  But on the bright side, I'll have my phone.

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! :)
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #5 on: 12/02/2016 00:10:23 »
"Although the intention of this thread is to remain within the remit of established physics"
"Ok, I am now asking things in certain ways because I intend that you think about the matter from that perspective".
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.
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.
« Last Edit: 12/02/2016 00:59:47 by Space Flow »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #6 on: 12/02/2016 01:28:38 »
Space Flow - thanks, most of your answers are as I anticipated, the maths will take me some time.  I'll get back to you on the majority of this post when I've given it some further thought, and also when I have read your link.  One thing does stick out though.  You say you do not understand how the constant velocity of light travelling through quicker rates of time will cover units of distance faster than it does relative to travelling units of distance in a reduced rate of time?

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!
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #7 on: 12/02/2016 03:19:11 »
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.

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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #8 on: 12/02/2016 03:41:59 »
Well, yes... This is why I asked if the tubes might be partially set into the ground, which would be an interesting scenario in itself, with regards to measuring time dilation, although in consideration of 4 km, equally as impossible ;)

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.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #9 on: 12/02/2016 03:58:59 »


It does make more sense that they are horizontal from the point of view of a more consistent gravitational field though.
Of course, and lying at right angles to the event would expose a much greater area for the waves to influence.

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................
« Last Edit: 12/02/2016 04:20:28 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #10 on: 12/02/2016 09:24:31 »
When I looked at the experiment report last yr it looked like each arm had 2 test masses, one at at each end of the tube, which are connected to the mirrors. When a wave passes over, the masses will be displaced in/out (the wave isn't like a water wave, it appears as a flexion). I assume the arms are set at rt angles because they don't know which direction the waves will come from and with only one arm a wave passing // to the light beam wouldn't cause any flexion.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #11 on: 12/02/2016 12:19:01 »
Ok, Space Flow - I have a scenario whereby we can very simply, 'if you do the math' :), check this gravity waves experiment out from a different angle, and I believe that you will either find these results very interesting indeed... or you will prove me wrong.

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
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #12 on: 12/02/2016 13:50:36 »
This topic comes down to understanding Special Relativity in terms of Energy Conservation. Energy Conservation is one of the few laws of Physics. This law has to be enforced even for Special Relativity. The confusion for most students is connected to skating around the law. Energy Conservation is only possible with preferred reference. Relative reference can and will violate energy conservation; breaks the law.

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.
« Last Edit: 12/02/2016 13:55:47 by puppypower »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #13 on: 12/02/2016 17:26:37 »
I was about to start a new thread from a comment you made in "is distance an absolute invariant" because I thought the point you were making has got lost in the noise that that thread has become. I don't usually quote wholesale, but here it is as a starter, seeing as this seems to be the data gathering/scoping point in the thread. If it isn't relevant to the discussion I'm happy to delete it.


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 space
The 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.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #14 on: 12/02/2016 17:27:52 »
I was about to start a new thread from a comment you made in "is distance an absolute invariant" because I thought the point you were making has got lost in the noise that that thread has become. I don't usually quote wholesale, but here it is as a starter, seeing as this seems to be the data gathering/scoping point in the thread. If it isn't relevant to the discussion I'm happy to delete it.


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 space
The 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.
« Last Edit: 12/02/2016 18:03:23 by Colin2B »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #15 on: 12/02/2016 18:55:00 »
Well Colin, don't delete, but I think we have moved on from there a bit since then.

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.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #16 on: 12/02/2016 20:25:26 »
MY my my...
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.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 05:19:01 by Space Flow »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #17 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!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #18 on: 12/02/2016 22:24:52 »
Consider a traveler who is heading towards a world 20 light years away at a speed that dilates his time so that the journey appears to take only 1 year from his point of view. If he now calculates his journey time with that of the speed of light, with distance data he had calculated in advance, he finds the journey took 1/20 of the time light would take to travel the same distance. If he knew nothing of time dilation he would assume he had traveled faster than light. Yet time has moved on without him to compensate for his misconception. Relativity is THAT strange.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #19 on: 12/02/2016 22:33:02 »

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!
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.
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!!!
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #20 on: 12/02/2016 23:38:46 »
Space Flow - I too respect the work of Einstein and other greats, too many to mention.  I recognise what you have done, are doing, and can see that it is a different way of equating relativity.  You haven't made it clear what the benefits of this way of doing things are though, and I'd be interested to hear!

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...
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #21 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.
« Last Edit: 12/02/2016 23:52:55 by Colin2B »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #22 on: 13/02/2016 00:18:33 »
Yes Colin, actually I did make a mistake in what I said there about faster time.   But...take that lateral thinking a couple of steps further.  A clock loses time.  A second losing time.  A shorter second...

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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1292
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #23 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.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #24 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" ???
« Last Edit: 13/02/2016 00:49:36 by Space Flow »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #24 on: 13/02/2016 00:44:30 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums