The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?  (Read 10254 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #125 on: 21/02/2016 16:46:30 »
Thank you Puppypower for your dialogue. 

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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #126 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?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #127 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.
« Last Edit: 21/02/2016 17:31:20 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #128 on: 21/02/2016 17:52:36 »
Checked the link again.

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...
 

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3159
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #129 on: 21/02/2016 18:06:23 »
Thank you Puppypower for your dialogue. 

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.
do you mean this?



 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
 

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3159
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #131 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.



so you have to  have an imaginary point source to be accurate, not triangulate, tri- quadulate
quad


hope this helps







« Last Edit: 21/02/2016 22:22:40 by Thebox »
 

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3159
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #132 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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #133 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!
 

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3159
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #134 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.   

 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #135 on: 24/02/2016 21:31:03 »
Quote
the origin of the waves
This 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).


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 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?
« Last Edit: 25/02/2016 08:39:54 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #136 on: 27/02/2016 12:59:16 »
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!
 
The following users thanked this post: Thebox

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3159
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #137 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.
« Last Edit: 28/02/2016 14:27:00 by Thebox »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #138 on: 28/02/2016 21:14:18 »
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.

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!
 

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3159
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #139 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.

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!
Well a train journey is only a train journey.

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. 
« Last Edit: 28/02/2016 22:30:20 by Thebox »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #140 on: 28/02/2016 23:44:39 »
Here, here... and as I also am quite happy with that which I do post, we find ourselves in agreement.
 
The following users thanked this post: Thebox

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3159
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #141 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
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #142 on: 01/03/2016 12:19:04 »
I doubt very much that LIGO are using precision atomic clocks to record the 'time' it takes for the light to travel the 4km distance to the end of tube mirrors and back.

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?
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #143 on: 01/03/2016 12:57:36 »
They arn't measuring the time taken for the beam to travel but the interference pattern when the test mass moves.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #144 on: 01/03/2016 14:23:33 »
Exactly...

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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #145 on: 01/03/2016 15:49:22 »
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.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 15:53:09 by timey »
 

Online Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3159
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #146 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.

« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 17:14:40 by Thebox »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #147 on: 01/03/2016 17:27:13 »
With the aid of a proposed weird little twist to the equivalence principle, whereby we state that the speed of light cannot exceed itself via the rate of time of its location, at that location, a slowing of lights time via 'in line motion' is inevitable.

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
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #148 on: 01/03/2016 17:38:07 »
Exactly...

This discussion is putting forward the notion that there is no mass movement during the gravity wave occurrence.
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.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1305
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #149 on: 01/03/2016 18:23:12 »
No Colin -  The experiment as is is fine.  What I am suggesting is that it would be very interesting for an experienced mathematician to consider the data of the experiment under this alternate remit.  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.

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.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #149 on: 01/03/2016 18:23:12 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length