# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?  (Read 10206 times)

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #150 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.

« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 19:11:50 by Thebox »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1292
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #151 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.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 19:30:37 by timey »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #152 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.

« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 20:27:11 by Thebox »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1292
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #153 on: 01/03/2016 20:36:50 »
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.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #154 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''.

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).

« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 21:35:00 by Thebox »

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #155 on: 01/03/2016 23:49:12 »
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."

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
« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 04:19:12 by Ethos_ »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #156 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."

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?

« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 08:33:52 by Thebox »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1908
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #157 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.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #158 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

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #159 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.

feature=youtu.be

also notice the box singularity when the sides of the box vanish.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 14:37:44 by Thebox »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4698
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #160 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.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #161 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.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #162 on: 02/03/2016 15:02:03 »

My scientific method involves physical experiment,

Would you like us to send you a new BOX of crayons, for your experiments that is................................?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #163 on: 02/03/2016 15:17:28 »

My scientific method involves physical experiment,

Would you like us to send you a new BOX of crayons, for your experiments that is................................?

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.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1292
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #164 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.

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

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 (?)

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1292
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #165 on: 03/03/2016 10:13:54 »
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?

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1292
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #166 on: 03/03/2016 16:45:50 »
Oh come on you lot!

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?

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4698
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #167 on: 04/03/2016 00:26:26 »
No problem with the dog, thanks, and I kicked the the kids out so I can concentrate on your problem.

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

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1292
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #168 on: 04/03/2016 08:59:16 »
I'm glad to hear your dog is problem free!  My advice, whatever it is you're doing, keep on doing it!  As to the kids, what a great idea... I might follow suit!

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.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 09:02:48 by timey »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1908
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #169 on: 04/03/2016 13:11:38 »

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,
If the 4km contracts then the light will travel a shorter distance for each trip.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1292
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #170 on: 04/03/2016 14:41:01 »
Dear oh me Colin!

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...

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1292
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #171 on: 04/03/2016 14:55:52 »
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.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1292
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #172 on: 04/03/2016 15:08:54 »
Lol!  Lol!  Lol!  Colin...  I just realised my gaff.

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?

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1908
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #173 on: 04/03/2016 15:12:07 »
Dear oh me Colin!

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?
It may have been going at the speed of light, but the entire oscillation lasted 0.45s

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?
« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 15:14:56 by Colin2B »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1292
• Thanked: 7 times
##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #174 on: 04/03/2016 15:55:26 »
The figure I mean is the result of the calculation that I proposed, which in light of the information you have given can now be:
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!
« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 16:03:08 by timey »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #174 on: 04/03/2016 15:55:26 »