The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?  (Read 10247 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #200 on: 05/03/2016 17:32:28 »
Now I understand where you're coming from timey, but this position will need a great deal of experimental verification before it will ever be accepted. As I'm sure you're aware that this view is in total opposition to current theory.

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

I think this theory merits a lot more attention.

Actually Ethos - my suggested experiment to confirm or deny this theory could be quite cheaply and simply derived...

Take 2 identical precision atomic clocks, and place them at different locations of exactly the same elevation above sea level, (taking into consideration and avoiding differences in the equatorial bulge), but of know significant difference in geological density.  See which way the time drift drifts.

My theory states, contrary to accepted physics, that the atomic clock at the denser location, will run at a faster rate than the clock in the less dense location.

If it does, then I'm right.  If it doesn't,  then I'm wrong!

And.... To answer one of your other questions: that mass in our macro world is compressible... Yes it is.  But the gravity waves gravitational force is very weak, so unless one is saying that it is the factor of the wave travelling at the speed of light that is compressing the matter of the tubes, then we would notice, in the much more variable gravitational field of our atmosphere, that everyday objects would appear larger on an aeroplane, than on the ground.  I'm sure that if this were the case, I'd of heard about it by now... (Perhaps they are, and I haven't heard? :)  It is 'a' possibility!)

...and... Jeff is indeed quite correct about viewing this theory in relation to Hubble and the light cone.  Hubble's law is based on redshift, and I'm saying that redshift has been misinterpreted in relation to parallax method.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #201 on: 05/03/2016 17:59:40 »

And... I'm saying that a gravitational increase caused by the gravity wave will cause that light to blueshift. 

Blueshifted light will not interfere with the unshifted light in the perrpendicular tube, so you woldn't get a signal if it were due to blueshift. Or redshift.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #202 on: 05/03/2016 18:14:09 »
Alan - I'm sorry but your logic does not work!

Any change in a gravitational field causes light to shift.  An increase in a gravitational field causes light to blueshift (see Pound Rebka).

The gravity wave, as it passed through earth, caused an increase in gravitational field as it passed, both inside and outside of the tubes.  The light in that tube, measuring that tube, will have blue shifted.  The experimenters ""will"" have taken this phase shift in the light into consideration, without a doubt, but they are interpreting an increase in gravitational field as 'slowing' the rate of time. This ""will"" also have been taken into consideration by the experimenters, as a 'phase' consideration, without a doubt!

These gravitational shift, and time shift considerations are part and parcel of GR.  There is no way that they can state that Einstein and relativity are correct, if the light was not expected to blueshift, and if they did not take into consideration an increase in gravitational field, as the gravity wave hit, slowing the rate of time.  These are vital premiss of GR!
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #203 on: 05/03/2016 18:23:28 »
Alan - I'm sorry but your logic does not work!




These gravitational shift, and time shift considerations are part and parcel of GR.  There is no way that they can state that Einstein and relativity are correct, if the light was not expected to blueshift, and if they did not take into consideration an increase in gravitational field, as the gravity wave hit, slowing the rate of time.  These are vital premiss of GR!
But timey, alan pointed out that the shift in frequency is basically only effective in one of the perpendicular arms of this experiment. I'm not sure why you're discounting his remark.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #204 on: 05/03/2016 18:35:36 »
No Ethos - you have misinterpreted what Alan has said.

He has said that blue shifted light will not affect the light in the tube.

I am saying that the gravity wave will be blue-shifting the light that "is in" the tube...
« Last Edit: 05/03/2016 18:50:46 by timey »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #205 on: 06/03/2016 02:04:45 »
Timey, if you are saying that the light frequency shifts only due to the strength of gravity, without the length contraction, than the equation does not balance out. By what mechanism do you effect the frequency shift if you don't also vary the length?   
What that implies is a variable speed of light. Light could not be a constant if Time can change and Length can't. 
Yet we have more than ample experimental evidence that "the speed of light is constant in a medium for every observer".   
We can try to disagree on almost anything else but that.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #206 on: 06/03/2016 08:18:20 »
SpaceFlow - The only reason we can use light to make a measurement, be that measurement by interference patterns, or by method of journey time, is because the speed of light is constant.

My logic 'is' holding both the speed of light and the speed of gravity as constant, and 'equal'...

Please see rough sketches for an illustration of what is going on here.



Line A - is an illustration of the speed of light.
Line B - is an illustration of light making the same distance in a contracted rate of time.
Line C - is an illustration of light making the same distance in a dilated rate of time.

Please note : because I have contracted and dilated a second by an equal amount, the measurement of by how much the 'length' of distance 'appears' to have contracted in relation to being measured via, what I will call, a standard second, is also equal...  It is quite clear from this illustration that it is 'not' the length of the distance that has contracted, just that the light has taken, travelling at the speed of light, a shorter, or longer 'amount of time' to travel the distance.

This is 'nothing new'.  Physicists got to this point over 100 years ago...  However, and 'this' is where the BIG MISTAKE in physics lies... they have based their concept of the behaviour of light in a changing gravitational field on the behaviour of bodies of mass in a changing gravitational field, and have based all 'time drift' consideration on the fact that a clock runs a tiny bit faster at elevation...and that a gravitational field slows the rate of time 'to the tune' of the amount by which a clock runs faster in elevation.

Line D - illustrates an amount (exaggerated from 'reality' proportions to + 5% of a standard second), by which time is thought to be slowed.
Line E - illustrates that if the rate of time increased for a stronger gravitational field in a more widely variable fashion than it is currently believed of a gravitational field 'slowing time', 'how' it could come about that current physics would be 'forced' to accept that a contraction of a 'length' is occurring.

I am saying that the 'true nature' of the rate of time for a gravitational field can be found in the frequency of light reducing in a weakening gravitational field.

Recalculating the universe under this remit gives a cyclic universe that finds the beginning and end of its cycles within the black hole phenomenon...and quite a few other really exciting side issues btw. ;)
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #207 on: 06/03/2016 08:28:10 »
SpaceFlow - The only reason we can use light to make a measurement, be that measurement by interference patterns, or by method of journey time, is because the speed of light is constant.

My logic 'is' holding both the speed of light and the speed of gravity as constant, and 'equal'...

Please see rough sketches for an illustration of what is going on here.



Line A - is an illustration of the speed of light.
Line B - is an illustration of light making the same distance in a contracted rate of time.
Line C - is an illustration of light making the same distance in a dilated rate of time.

Please note : because I have contracted and dilated a second by an equal amount, the measurement of by how much the 'length' of distance 'appears' to have contracted in relation to being measured via, what I will call, a standard second, is also equal...  It is quite clear from this illustration that it is 'not' the length of the distance that has contracted, just that the light has taken, travelling at the speed of light, a shorter, or longer 'amount of time' to travel the distance.

This is 'nothing new'.  Physicists got to this point over 100 years ago...  However, and 'this' is where the BIG MISTAKE in physics lies... they have based their concept of the behaviour of light in a changing gravitational field on the behaviour of bodies of mass in a changing gravitational field, and have based all 'time drift' consideration on the fact that a clock runs a tiny bit faster at elevation...and that a gravitational field slows the rate of time 'to the tune' of the amount by which a clock runs faster in elevation.

Line D - illustrates an amount (exaggerated from 'reality' proportions to + 5% of a standard second), by which time is thought to be slowed.
Line E - illustrates that if the rate of time increased for a stronger gravitational field in a more widely variable fashion than it is currently believed of a gravitational field 'slowing time', 'how' it could come about that current physics would be 'forced' to accept that a contraction of a 'length' is occurring.

I am saying that the 'true nature' of the rate of time for a gravitational field can be found in the frequency of light reducing in a weakening gravitational field.

Recalculating the universe under this remit gives a cyclic universe that finds the beginning and end of its cycles within the black hole phenomenon...and quite a few other really exciting side issues btw. ;)

So really  you have just re-explained what I have explained? except for adding a Cyclic Universe, which is just another no,no.

I have already provided the true and accurate universe model,









« Last Edit: 06/03/2016 08:31:08 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #208 on: 06/03/2016 10:15:00 »
He has said that blue shifted light will not affect the light in the tube.
Don't misquote me. I said that blueshifted light will not interfere with unshifted light in the reference tube. Constructive interference, which is what was detected, requires that both beams have exactly the same wavelength/frequency/energy/color call it what you like, which is why a very narrow band laser is used as the source.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #209 on: 06/03/2016 11:05:18 »
I'm truly sorry if you feel that I have misquoted you Alan.  It was not my intention.  From what you are saying, I understand you to mean that light outside the tubes that is blue-shifting towards earth will not affect the light in the tubes.  This logic is 'sound'.  I agree.

What I am saying is that the light being measured for interference patterns inside the tubes is already subject to earth's gravity field... When the gravity wave hits, the light is experiencing an increase in gravitational field, for the duration of the hit, that will cause the light 'in' the tube, measuring the tube, to blueshift - for the duration of the gravity wave hit.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #210 on: 06/03/2016 18:18:52 »
Oh for gawd's sake, why not read what I wrote?

For a start, the laser beam in both tubes was travelling equal distances in both directions, NS and EW, so any blueshift due to an decreasing field in one direction would be cancelled by an equal reshift as the beam travelled in the opposite direction.

Now the measurement required a different path length in two tubes at right angles to produce an interference signal. If the gravity wave had blueshifted both equally , there would have been no signal. If it had blueshifted one but not the other, again there would have been no signal because you can only get constructive interference between identical wavelengths. So blueshift, redshift, greenshift, nightshift, swingshift and all the other firefighters on your pinup calendar, are irrelevant.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #211 on: 06/03/2016 18:42:49 »
Aww for gawwds sake yerself Alan...!

Surely you must realise that a disturbance between a blue shift and a redshift between the increase in gravitational field of earth caused by the gravity wave, and then back again to the usual gravitational field of earth is what I am saying has caused the disturbance in the light, this being the cause of the interference patterns?

I have been previously told that the tubes are measured independently of each other, after the beam is split in two, but really it matters not.  Where-ever that light is measured, it will have blue shifted to the tune of the gravitational field of the gravity wave as it passed, and then redshifted back to earth's usual gravitational field.  This constitutes a disturbance due to time drift.

As I understood it, the gravity wave event is being considered as a special case of a Lorentz contraction.  This speaks for itself as a 'time drift' consideration doesn't it?
« Last Edit: 06/03/2016 18:49:05 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #212 on: 06/03/2016 23:42:32 »

 Where-ever that light is measured, it will have blue shifted to the tune of the gravitational field of the gravity wave as it passed, and then redshifted back to earth's usual gravitational field. 


So now you are saying that there was no net change. But there was.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #213 on: 07/03/2016 00:19:20 »
No...I'm certainly not saying that there was no net change!

Are you saying that there was not a Lorentz contraction?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #214 on: 07/03/2016 08:30:16 »
I can do no better than quote Wikipedia - for some reason it#'smuch clearer and more detailed than the official LIGO site!

Quote
When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the space-time in the local area is altered. Depending on the source of the wave and its polarization, this results in an effective change in length of one or both of the cavities. The effective length change between the beams will cause the light currently in the cavity to become very slightly out of phase (antiphase) with the incoming light. The cavity will therefore periodically get very slightly out of coherence and the beams, which are tuned to destructively interfere at the detector, will have a very slight periodically varying detuning. This results in a measurable signal.[44]

After an equivalent of approximately 280 trips down the 4 km length to the far mirrors and back again,[45] the two separate beams leave the arms and recombine at the beam splitter. The beams returning from two arms are kept out of phase so that when the arms are both in coherence and interference (as when there is no gravitational wave passing through), their light waves subtract, and no light should arrive at the photodiode. When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the distances along the arms of the interferometer are shortened and lengthened, causing the beams to become slightly less out of antiphase. This results in the beams coming in phase, creating a resonance, hence, some light arrives at the photodiode, indicating a signal.

The notion of "in phase", "antiphase" and "out of phase" signals only applies if the two beams are of the same wavelength.

As for blueshift

Quote
At the bottom of a gravity well, all matter waves have higher frequencies than control matter waves outside the gravity well. When such a blueshifted matter wave climbs out of the gravity well, its frequency decreases to a "normal" level, so that comparing its frequency with the frequency of a control matter wave will not show any reddening. An observer at the bottom of a gravity well cannot observe any blueshift of incoming matter waves, because the observer is himself blueshifted. Thus, gravitational redshift and gravitational blueshift are not directly observable.

Since the wave passed through both arms of the detector, any transient blueshift would have affected both arms equally and thus not have produced any signal.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #215 on: 07/03/2016 10:29:30 »
""When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the space time in the local area is altered.""

Here we have the defining statement!

Part of the altering of space time under the remit of GR incorporates that an increase in gravitational field causes the rate of time to slow.

Under the remit of calculating the event of the gravity wave via the interference patterns, will this slowing of time in relation to the speed of light, and the distance of the tubes, have been taken into consideration within the calculations?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #216 on: 07/03/2016 11:16:19 »
""When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the space time in the local area is altered.""

Here we have the defining statement!

Part of the altering of space time under the remit of GR incorporates that an increase in gravitational field causes the rate of time to slow.

Under the remit of calculating the event of the gravity wave via the interference patterns, will this slowing of time in relation to the speed of light, and the distance of the tubes, have been taken into consideration within the calculations?



Timey - All the beams of the lasers are an x-axis, gravity is already flowing ''through'' the beams, a linearity singularity (box singularity) a Y-axis, the gravity ''wobbled'', could have been the Earth's gravity but doe snot matter, the singularity waved at us.  The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum, it is already an invariant by it's right slowing down in a medium etc,




 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1915
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #217 on: 07/03/2016 11:18:07 »

Part of the altering of space time under the remit of GR incorporates that an increase in gravitational field causes the rate of time to slow.

Under the remit of calculating the event of the gravity wave via the interference patterns, will this slowing of time in relation to the speed of light, and the distance of the tubes, have been taken into consideration within the calculations?
Remember that the interferometer is a local observer, not a free falling observer nor a non-local observer.
The calculations take account of the stretching/compression of spacetime and the light passing through it. I suspect that's why Jeff made his comment about Hubble's Law.
I remember a good paper on this which was very low maths, I'll see if I can find it.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #218 on: 07/03/2016 12:35:41 »
Remember that the interferometer is a local observer, not a free falling observer nor a non-local observer.
The calculations take account of the stretching/compression of spacetime and the light passing through it. I suspect that's why Jeff made his comment about Hubble's Law.
I remember a good paper on this which was very low maths, I'll see if I can find it.

Even if the phenomenon of redshift blueshift were 'observer dependent' which it isn't... please see Pound Rebka experiment... what we are looking at within the gravity wave considerations is an alteration of space time that causes the 'local' space time to change.

Yes you are quite correct that the calculations take into account of the 'light' having been compressed and then returning to usual earth parameters.  Damn right they have!!!

And... the distance by which the tubes are supposed to be compressed by - would have been greater than it is - if they had not of already subtracted the 'slowing' of time considerations from the interference patterns!!!  That is a fact!!!

Jeff's comment, I believe, was much more perceptively derived than you are realising, however, it always becomes a dodgy area discerning that which goes on in other people's heads...so the fact that this is what 'I' believe, doesn't necessarily make it so...with respect to both Jeff's thoughts and your own on the matter.  I have 'already' read extensively concerning all aspects of the redshift blueshift phenomenon, however it is never wise to think oneself proficient!  There is always something more to be gleaned from further study in any field.  Hit me with it!  (chuckle)
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #219 on: 07/03/2016 12:51:31 »
Remember that the interferometer is a local observer, not a free falling observer nor a non-local observer.
The calculations take account of the stretching/compression of spacetime and the light passing through it. I suspect that's why Jeff made his comment about Hubble's Law.
I remember a good paper on this which was very low maths, I'll see if I can find it.

Even if the phenomenon of redshift blueshift were 'observer dependent' which it isn't... please see Pound Rebka experiment... what we are looking at within the gravity wave considerations is an alteration of space time that causes the 'local' space time to change.

Yes you are quite correct that the calculations take into account of the 'light' having been compressed and then returning to usual earth parameters.  Damn right they have!!!

And... the distance by which the tubes are supposed to be compressed by - would have been greater than it is - if they had not of already subtracted the 'slowing' of time considerations from the interference patterns!!!  That is a fact!!!

Jeff's comment, I believe, was much more perceptively derived than you are realising, however, it always becomes a dodgy area discerning that which goes on in other people's heads...so the fact that this is what 'I' believe, doesn't necessarily make it so...with respect to both Jeff's thoughts and your own on the matter.  I have 'already' read extensively concerning all aspects of the redshift blueshift phenomenon, however it is never wise to think oneself proficient!  There is always something more to be gleaned from further study in any field.  Hit me with it!  (chuckle)

Why are you so wrapped up in the blue-shift or red-shift? that hardly matters, if you have a beam that produces a constant pattern and the pattern shows an interference, the interference shows a disruption of the constant pattern so the premise is something disrupting that pattern.  I do not see time really plays a part, the difference is noticeable in the pattern and that is all what is needed.

 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #220 on: 07/03/2016 12:58:42 »
Box, if you are going to prove or disprove GR, time drift considerations are unavoidable... Please 'get with' this FACT!!!  Seriously ;)
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #221 on: 07/03/2016 13:08:14 »
Box, if you are going to prove or disprove GR, time drift considerations are unavoidable... Please 'get with' this FACT!!!  Seriously ;)

Well I consider my Box singularity over rules anything thus far, I consider if you want to know the truth a person should really take into consideration the Box singularity.  I am not trying to push my ideas on anybody or preach my ideas, BUT I know very well my model is viable, nobody will provide the maths for me, do you want to help me?

Can you do the inverse square law?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1303
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #222 on: 07/03/2016 13:33:35 »
Well...erm... while my mathematical impression of a young child learning how to ride a bike that's too big without stabilisers, resulting in wobbly maths syndrome - in relation to your box singularity ideas - I daresay might well make for a wonderful comedy piece...if you actually want any maths 'done', you really are barking up the wrong tree here with me mate...

Inverse square law...  Look, just draw an X on a piece of paper, but unlike that X, make the cross over in equal proportions.  Then draw radius of equal proportions, in circles around the cross section point.  Each of the quarter sections divided by the divisions of the X is showing you a representation of the inverse square law... Good luck!
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #223 on: 07/03/2016 13:46:58 »
Well...erm... while my mathematical impression of a young child learning how to ride a bike that's too big without stabilisers, resulting in wobbly maths syndrome - in relation to your box singularity ideas - I daresay might well make for a wonderful comedy piece...if you actually want any maths 'done', you really are barking up the wrong tree here with me mate...

Inverse square law...  Look, just draw an X on a piece of paper, but unlike that X, make the cross over in equal proportions.  Then draw radius of equal proportions, in circles around the cross section point.  Each of the quarter sections divided by the divisions of the X is showing you a representation of the inverse square law... Good luck!

I do understand how the inverse square law works, however my needs are a bit more than just the inverse square law, I need the inverse square law doing ''backwards'' from two different points of view of moving bodies and also I needed an area contraction formula.



I need this diagram turning into maths .   

We have 3 equal planes 10mē, the central plane will remain stationary while the two outer planes move away from the central plane a X-axis linearity. 


Relative to all 3 planes they all observe an area contraction of each other, at a length apart of unknown X away from the central plane, the planes will have visual contracted to 0 dimensions becoming a Box singularity.     The length of light between the planes also contracts its width to a Box singularity.  Even gravitational width contracts to a Box singularity.


So that is what maths I need to explain and also the Box singularity of ''black holes'', but that's another thing some other time.

























« Last Edit: 07/03/2016 14:05:41 by Thebox »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #224 on: 07/03/2016 14:05:34 »
My guess is you are not describing blades so this is not differential geometry.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #224 on: 07/03/2016 14:05:34 »

 

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