The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?  (Read 10263 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #175 on: 04/03/2016 16:53:06 »
Ok... I think (scratches head) that on the basis that the 0.45ms is related to one tube, that:

I cannot for the damn life of me 'get with' how to establish the width of the gravity wave, and again...a bit woolly on this also tbh - but that the final result of the proposed calculation above needs to be divided by the width of the gravity wave, to establish by how much the gravitational field of the gravity wave increased the rate of time as it passes. (maybe?)
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #176 on: 04/03/2016 20:45:17 »
Alrighty...well, without actually being able to confirm any figures by myself, or here, it becomes impossible for me to move on!  However, on the basis that I really do not mind appearing foolish, and I haven't actually yet established any reputation to lose!

The figure that I was hoping for relates to the straight line distance between the 2 registered hits experiment locations, and is based on Evans quote that stated this distance as in the region of 5000km. This is the shortest distance between the experiments, but, if one were to consider the scenario whereas the gravity wave moved into this distance as if it were the horizontal line of a capital T, moving down the vertical... this then constitutes the longest possible time of that distance that the gravity wave could travel upon, and the shortest distance of itself. (and just in case anyone has wrong end of stick, yes, I know it didn't travel that way)

It takes the speed of light 16.68ms to travel 5000km.
There was a 6.7ms delay between experiments.
16.68 minus 6.7 = 9.98
9.98 minus earth's gravity 9.807 = 0.173

It was my hope that the figure that I am seeking would be in the region of 0.173ms. This based on the straight line distance between experiments actually being in the region of 5000km, and obviously any slight difference in this distance would subject this figure of 0.173 to an alteration.

Now pretty please, with cherries on top... is anyone going to put me out of my misery and do the calculation for me?
« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 23:17:33 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #177 on: 04/03/2016 21:19:05 »
P.S.  And yes, I do realise that earth's gravity is meters per second, not ms. It's actually now giving me a headache trying to transpose these meters into ms, with respect to speed of light and visa versa... I suspect that I've perhaps gone a little astray maybe... I think I need a cup of tea...
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #178 on: 04/03/2016 22:02:50 »
...and to say so, the straight line distance consideration between the experiments, is in fact just a side issue that I'm interested in.  It has no bearing on the result of the proposed calculation, (that I cannot complete myself), to establish, under the remit of my theory, by how much the rate of time increased when the gravity wave hit.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #179 on: 04/03/2016 23:10:27 »
...and to say so, the straight line distance consideration between the experiments, is in fact just a side issue that I'm interested in.  It has no bearing on the result of the proposed calculation,
couldn't understand why you did the calculation so I'm glad to hear that it's not important.

If you do ever need it:
"The LIGO “observatory” is made up of two identical and widely separated interferometers situated in sparsely populated, relatively out-of-the-way places: LIGO Hanford in southeastern Washington State in an arid shrub-steppe region crisscrossed by hundreds of layers of ancient lava flows; and LIGO Livingston, 3002 km away in a vast, humid, loblolly pine forest west of Baton Rouge, Louisiana."

I suspect this is great circle distance rather than straight line.

I suspect you are not getting any offers to do the calc because most folks are wondering about the maths. The 0.45s for the wave was an oscillation at, if I remember correctly, around 150Hz, so you have around 60 cycles which were not of the same amplitude. I don't know how you would decide to process that, take an rms?
I suspect you would be better off trying to find out what the average phase shift was, must be in the reports somewhere.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #180 on: 04/03/2016 23:25:38 »
Erm...  Colin, what I said was that the straight line distance consideration between the 2 registered hits of the experiment locations is just a side issue.

It's the proposed calculation, that my phone cannot handle that is important.

I don't understand why you would consider the geological lie of the land at any experiment site as being important, or the shrubbery.

The gravity wave did not travel in a circle.  There were only 2 experiment sites that were up and running and registered the gravity wave.

I have access to the LIGO data, on my phone screen.  My phone will not handle the calculation.

Do you have a dog?  Or horse perhaps?  Small children?  Lol!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #181 on: 04/03/2016 23:58:44 »
There was a 6.7ms delay between experiments.
16.68 minus 6.7 = 9.98
9.98 minus earth's gravity 9.807 = 0.173
AAAAARGH! You have subtracted two numbers that have nothing whatever to do with each other!

The delay between signals was measured in milliseconds. It is a time, with dimension T

g is measured in meters per second per second, and varies from place to place. It is an acceleration, with dimension LT-2.

For the umpteenth time, (a) you cannot subtract variables with different dimensions and (b) the numbers don't matter: it's the physics that counts because the universe doesn't know or care whether you measure in seconds, heartbeats, Imperial feet or Assyrian cubits.

I cannot possibly put you out of your selfinflicted misery, as long as you insist on subtracting 20.35 Euros from 300 elephants and claiming that the result (279.65) provides some deep insight into the laws of physics because it happens to be the absolute temperature in my garden right now and both quantities start with an e (NB both statements are verifiable!)

Physics is not numerology.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2016 00:02:18 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #182 on: 05/03/2016 00:25:33 »
Lol Alan!  I think you have pretty much repeated what I myself said about the straight line distance consideration, but in a much more amusing fashion.  Nice one!

But considering I have stated this as being just a side issue of interest to me, why is it that you think this is the factor worthy of your consideration?

It's THIS I'm having trouble calculating:

1600km plus tiny distance of contraction, divided by speed of light = (?) (my phone calculator cannot handle this equation)
1600km divided by speed of light = 5.34ms
(?) minus 5.34ms = (?) multiplied by 400 = (?)

When I know this figure, this being (or at least close to...maybe the duration of hit needs to be taken into consideration also) by how much the journey time has become shorter, not a shorter pole, then I can take this back to my interest in the direction that the gravity wave came from.

Again, I'm not doing numerology, although admittedly I reckon for you lot - watching me navigate mathematics must be synonymous to watching a small child learning how to ride a bike that's a bit big for them without stabilisers! ;). I understand the principle, and I know where I want to get to... s'just more than a bit wobbly is all!
« Last Edit: 05/03/2016 00:27:50 by timey »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #183 on: 05/03/2016 08:27:50 »

The gravity wave did not travel in a circle. 
Not sure why you would think I might think that. Just quoting the distance between the sites which is not a straight line.
Sorry if my response is unwanted, it was just background interest!
« Last Edit: 05/03/2016 08:38:46 by Colin2B »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #184 on: 05/03/2016 09:40:55 »
But considering I have stated this as being just a side issue of interest to me, why is it that you think this is the factor worthy of your consideration?
Side issue or not, Chairman Mao said, in his address to the Fourth Peoples Congress, "When you do anything, unless you understand the principles behind it and the mechanism of it, you will not be able to do it well, or at all". Who am I to disagree with such genius?

So, back to the mechanism of the detector. Each unit consists of two mirror systems (call them north and west) at right angles. When a gravity wave passes through a detector it will alter the length of one or both arms. The trick is to detect the transient difference in length. The inertia of the end mirrors is such that it doesn't matter much how long it takes to make that measurement, so the change is amplified by having the light reflected back and forth 400 times before subtracting the north light wave from the west wave. The speed of light is irrelevant: you could in theory use sound or ferrets and string to measure a length, but we have good reason to believe that c is constant.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #185 on: 05/03/2016 13:26:07 »
Yes - agreed, the speed of light is constant.

We already know that the rate of time is variable via changes in a gravitational field.

Therefore, undoubtably the gravity waves gravitational field will have slowed the rate of time ever so slightly by the remit of GR.  I have no doubt that this constitutes in part some of the "phase" considerations mentioned by the gravity wave experimenters.  They will have understood that the consequence of a slower rate of time will have caused the light, travelling at the speed of light, to make a slower, or longer, journey time.  This is an application of the Lorentz transformation, which renders length or distance as a variable.

I am looking at the possibility of the light making a shorter journey time, and that the appearance of a contraction is a direct consequence, in this case, of an increase in time, caused by the increase in gravitational field of the gravity wave in addition to earth's gravitational field, at those locations, for the duration of the gravity wave hit.

This renders the length, or distance of the tubes as constant.

My theory renders length, or distance, as constant.  Albeit for the fact of bodies of mass rolling around, within their constant lengths, in this constant distance, changing the parameters of gravitational field and time aspects of these constant distances as they progress upon their gravitational trajectories.  ie: the universe is not expanding...but has been slowly contracting in its spacial dimensions since the moment of inflation, due to a sea of individual particle masses clumping together. ie: a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #186 on: 05/03/2016 13:35:51 »
Sorry if my response is unwanted, it was just background interest!

Not at-all Colin :) .  I suppose I do feel a bit resentful of your purporting to know of another's, or others opinion with regards to this thread, when it's clear from the nature of your post you haven't been up-keeping the thread of the thread.  As a moderator I understand that to upkeep all the threads of every discussion is nigh on impossible though.

I've always enjoyed our contacts on line so far, and some of your comments were illuminating to say the least, despite your non-up keeping of the thread of the discussion.

Keep 'em coming, if you would :)
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #187 on: 05/03/2016 13:40:27 »
Ok Alan, since you seem to have been drawn to the self professed 'messy' bit, let me clean it up.  Please see below 3 roughly sketched diagrams:



Diagram A clearly shows the gravity wave depicted arriving at an angle that affords 6.7ms before registry of second hit at site 2.

Diagram B shows the gravity wave depicted at the angle whereas it would take the 'most' time, and the 'least' distance of the wave, to cross the distance between the sites.

Diagram C goes back to the correct angle and adds in, via r considerations, the notion of earth's gravitational attraction 9.807m/s

When I can know by how much the gravity wave has shortened the journey 'time' of the light measuring the gravity wave, the considerations of the time increase that the gravity wave is adding to the earth's 9.807m/s, via r, will alter the trajectory of the angle the wave is arriving from slightly.

It should be possible, via the considerations of diagram B, in relation to the 6.7 delay, and the distance between sites, with respect to this increased time aspect, and altered angle... to more accurately determine the direction from which the gravity wave came.

Furthermore - it is my suspicion that all of this information, inclusive of the increased time aspect, will be contained within the straight line distance between sites, when considering 16.68ms in relation to 6.7ms, and the gravitational force of earth, and the angle of the gravity wave, this being 'without' adding the increased time aspect I'm suggesting to the angle of the wave trajectory.  That this increased time aspect will be reflected within the straight line distance considerations, in relation to the original angle, as an 'additional' on one side, and missing from the other side of the geometry, a fraction of ms...  If I am indeed right about the information that I think is contained within the straight line distance between the sites in relation to the increase in rate of time aspects, 'I think' I can see a means of using the data to create an inverse curve out of the straight line distance of 5000km and using it for furthering clarification of the directional aspects.

Quite how to go about mathematically deriving these considerations is what's giving me the trouble though...
But that's why I'm here, right?  :D

So... For the gravity wave to make the first hit, and then make the second hit 6.7ms later, the part of the gravity wave that made the second hit would have been the equal of 6.7ms, equaling 2008.6km distance from earth.  This means that 2991.4km distance of the gravity wave itself, equaling 9.98ms, passed across the straight line distance at an angle. (this creates, as geometry, another triangle on other side of the distance line).

What my misbegotten non conversation of ms as per c, meters as per g, etc is concerning - ""and this being because my theory states that a gravity field increases the rate of time"" - is attempting to: a) apply that contracted factor of time to the 2991.4km distance of the wave that passed through the straight line distance of 5000km, b) applying that contracted time factor to the weakening gravity field experienced at radius from Earth, that this angle the gravity wave arrived at experienced from a distance of 2008.6km... c) drawing up a new set of angles based on the additional time aspects, to scale, on graph paper, and d) trying to apply the geometrical nature of this 'data induced' inverted curve shape that I'm seeing in my head, in relation to the triangles created by the nature of these angles.
Of course having the precise measurement between registered hits is essential, I'll have to trek through all the research data, it's hard on the phone, don't have a bigger screen available at mo.  I thought someone here might know it off hand!  I do realise that dealing with such small fractions of an ms, will be hard to replicate on paper, but it's the geometry I want to 'play' with, and so long as close enough is pretty near close... close enough, is good enough for now.

However, this directional aspect of the gravity wave is only a side issue to the premiss of the experiment itself as far as I'm concerned.  What this thread is concerning is:
'Is distance an invariant?'...
I'm saying the light in those tubes is displaying interference patterns when the gravity wave hits due to a shorter journey time, not due to a shorter tube.
And I've given at least the premiss for a calculation...

And I've also posed the following question, which forms the basis of the physics of my theory, and gives reason for the premiss of a gravity field increasing the rate of time.

When you measure a cesium atom in elevation, are you measuring what time is doing in the space the atom is located, or are you just measuring what time is doing for the atom located in that space?
« Last Edit: 05/03/2016 13:53:01 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #188 on: 05/03/2016 14:04:31 »
My theory renders length, or distance, as constant.

Which is all very well, but LIGO measured a change in distance caused by the gravity wave making the mirrors move.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #189 on: 05/03/2016 14:27:09 »
Yes - and how they measured this contraction in length is by using the phenomenon of light, and recording the interference patterns in the light caused by the disturbance to the 'length'...

And... I'm saying that a gravitational increase caused by the gravity wave will cause that light to blueshift.  That blueshift is indicative of a 'faster' rate of time.  This will cause the lights progression, at the speed of light, during the duration of the gravity wave hit, to be making a 'shorter' journey 'time'.

If one does not realise that a blueshift causes an increase in time, then one would 'have' to conclude that the tube itself has contracted, by the exact amount that the journey time was shorter!!!

My related calculation gives a premiss for calculating by how much the time contracted, by using the data of by how much the tubes are 'supposed' to have contracted.

The logic is simple!
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #190 on: 05/03/2016 14:44:12 »


My theory renders length, or distance, as constant.  Albeit for the fact of bodies of mass rolling around, within their constant lengths, in this constant distance, changing the parameters of gravitational field and time aspects of these constant distances as they progress upon their gravitational trajectories.  ie: the universe is not expanding...but has been slowly contracting in its spacial dimensions since the moment of inflation, due to a sea of individual particle masses clumping together. ie: a cyclic universe that finds its beginnings and ends of cycle within the black hole phenomenon.
Now I understand where you're coming from timey, but this position will need a great deal of experimental verification before it will ever be accepted. As I'm sure you're aware that this view is in total opposition to current theory.

I must confess that I have always been drawn toward the cyclical model but have yet to establish a function by which the contraction could be reasonably accounted for.

I think this theory merits a lot more attention.

 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #191 on: 05/03/2016 14:48:30 »
Yes - and how they measured this contraction in length is by using the phenomenon of light, and recording the interference patterns in the light caused by the disturbance to the 'length'...

And... I'm saying that a gravitational increase caused by the gravity wave will cause that light to blueshift.  That blueshift is indicative of a 'faster' rate of time.  This will cause the lights progression, at the speed of light, during the duration of the gravity wave hit, to be making a 'shorter' journey 'time'.

If one does not realise that a blueshift causes an increase in time, then one would 'have' to conclude that the tube itself has contracted, by the exact amount that the journey time was shorter!!!

My related calculation gives a premiss for calculating by how much the time contracted, by using the data of by how much the tubes are 'supposed' to have contracted.

The logic is simple!

...actually it is not quite as simple as all that, because in addition to the amount by which the tube has contracted, you would also have to add back on to this distance, the amount of distance they have 'already' subtracted, on account of their belief that a blueshift will cause the rate of time to slow.  This coming under the description of 'phase considerations' ...

P.S.  Thanks Ethos.  Appreciated!
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #192 on: 05/03/2016 15:27:25 »
I'm open to your concept timey, but there are a few details that we need to straighten out first. Allow me to first establish that; "I would be extremely pleased" to see this model verified because I favor the cyclical model. But proceeding via the scientific method, we first need to try and falsify it.

1. I don't think we should totally dismiss the malleability of matter.
            (a) Even in our frame of reference, matter is composed of mostly space and is very compressible.
            (b) Can we then presume to illuminate other forces such as velocity and gravitational influence to also effect the structural geometry of material objects?

2. I think it more reasonable, in view and in support of your theory, to suggest that there may exist an equilibrium between time and structural geometry taking place. And if that be the case, how in the world could we ever determine which competing entity is the greater influence?

Please understand timey, I'm asking these questions in hopes that answers might be forth coming and in no way am I attacking your theory. In view of my fondness for the cyclical model, I would be very pleased if your model were proved correct.

 



« Last Edit: 05/03/2016 15:42:32 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #193 on: 05/03/2016 15:36:43 »
I'm open to your concept timey, but there are a few details that we need to straighten out first. Allow me to first establish that; "I would be extremely pleased" to see this model verified because I favor the cyclical model. But proceeding via the scientific method, we first need to try and disprove it.

1. I don't think we should totally dismiss the malleability of matter.
            (a) Even in our frame of reference, matter is composed of mostly ru space and is very compressible.
            (b) Can we then assume to illuminate other forces such as velocity and gravitational influence to also effect the structural geometry of material objects?

2. I think it more reasonable, in view and in support of your theory, to suggest that there may exist an equilibrium between time and structural geometry taking place. And if that be the case, how in the world could we ever determine which competing entity is the greater influence?

Please understand timey, I'm asking these questions in hopes that answers might be forth coming and in no way am I attacking your theory. In view of my fondness for the cyclical model, I would be very pleased if your model were proved correct.

The theory is best viewed in relation to Hubble and the light cone.
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #194 on: 05/03/2016 15:49:04 »


The theory is best viewed in relation to Hubble and the light cone.
What do you think timey? I think jeff's observation is worth considerable thought as well.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #195 on: 05/03/2016 16:06:51 »
There is no length contraction for this very simple reason, the length is always constant on a graph or reading.



 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #196 on: 05/03/2016 16:10:45 »
There is no length contraction for this very simple reason, the length is always constant on a graph or reading.



I doubt if the bed or patient are travelling fast enough for it to be apparent.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #197 on: 05/03/2016 16:12:53 »
There is no length contraction for this very simple reason, the length is always constant on a graph or reading.



I doubt if the bed or patient are travelling fast enough for it to be apparent.

I think you missed the point there Jeff, any computer readout is normally defined between a set distance of points, in the example the set length is the computer screen.

The length is constant


 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #198 on: 05/03/2016 16:19:23 »


I think you missed the point there Jeff, any computer readout is normally defined between a set distance of points, in the example the set length is the computer screen.

The length is constant

Constant until you drop it from the fourth story window. Something I've been tempted to do while listening to all this rubbish!
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #199 on: 05/03/2016 16:27:04 »

Constant until you drop it from the fourth story window. Something I've been tempted to do while listening to all this rubbish!
[/quote]

The length of one second is the length ,

Look what science does in reality,



 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #199 on: 05/03/2016 16:27:04 »

 

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