The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?  (Read 10285 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #25 on: 13/02/2016 01:28:22 »
Ok, time has been shown to run fast in space.  How has time been shown to run fast in space?  By a clock.  Does the clock have mass and associated mass?  Yes it does.  So... time has NOT been shown to run fast in space!  Time has been shown to run fast for a clock and its associated mass in space.  What rate time is running at in that space when the clock and its associated mass is not there, has not been proven at-all.

Therefore, this theory examines the possibility that GR time dilation is a mass near mass phenomenon, and that the rate of time runs slow in space.  Light has no mass.  It's frequency reduces by means of gravitational redshift.  Rendering relativistic mass as redundant, this theory states the frequency of light as being indicative of the rate of time, and the increase in the wavelength as being time related not distance related.
« Last Edit: 13/02/2016 01:54:30 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #26 on: 13/02/2016 01:58:13 »
In non-relativistic newtonian terms the average velocity traveled in distance d is given by:

75697bda2940a8106eb22d76ee73b60d.gif.

Instantaneous velocity at distance d is then:

2b7f52b0c90820085c8502a3f1b267cd.gif

Then the instantaneous kinetic energy is

84bcf955a183c54801243944f84b9d47.gif

Since the field extends to infinity then this function is continuous to infinity. Thus the gradient of time dilation must be continuous to infinity and will not reverse since the gravitational field is non-vanishing.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #27 on: 13/02/2016 02:16:57 »
Jeff - I feel really stupid!  Like I should know how that relates to what I'm saying...but I don't.  Would you please put it into context for me?
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #28 on: 13/02/2016 02:28:42 »
Ok, time has been shown to run fast in space.  How has time been shown to run fast in space?  By a clock.  Does the clock have mass and associated mass?  Yes it does.  So... time has NOT been shown to run fast in space!  Time has been shown to run fast for a clock and its associated mass in space.  What rate time is running at in that space when the clock and its associated mass is not there, has not been proven at-all.

Therefore, this theory examines the possibility that GR time dilation is a mass near mass phenomenon, and that the rate of time runs slow in space.  Light has no mass.  It's frequency reduces by means of gravitational redshift.  Rendering relativistic mass as redundant, this theory states the frequency of light as being indicative of the rate of time, and the increase in the wavelength as being time related not distance related.
OK,
I need some guidance here of how you want me to approach this;
You have made some statements that are contrary to observational evidence, and you have justified that discrepancy on the fact that taking a measurement of a situation changes the situation.   
We can take no direct measurement of anywhere where matter is not. Spacetime could be doing loop de loops where no one can watch it, but unless you have come up with a unique way of monitoring a location in spacetime that includes no matter, in such a way as to determine if it appears time or space distorted in some way, I can not help you.
You are also trying to disconnect space from time and say that only one is variable.
The lorenz transformation give us a conversion factor that is applied the same to all physical observations. To say that it does not apply to space but only to time is to say that all experiments for the last 100 years that have confirmed the theory of General Relativity have somehow been wrong.
You can not within the bounds of GR find any way to disconnect the two. You would have to totally throw it out and start again, with a different theory that still fitted all the observations accumulated so far.
You are asking me to try and help you calculate a geometry I can not visualise without throwing out hard evidence, or having an alternative explanation for observations that contradict your geometry.
And blaming the observations on the fact that it is something material that was used to make them, is not a good reason to push them aside. Not if we are talking Physics.



I am not that good. Sorry..
« Last Edit: 13/02/2016 02:31:32 by Space Flow »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #29 on: 13/02/2016 02:53:26 »
Jeff - I feel really stupid!  Like I should know how that relates to what I'm saying...but I don't.  Would you please put it into context for me?

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/work/node3.html
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #30 on: 13/02/2016 03:05:30 »
But Space Flow - I have indeed shown a means for equating what time is doing in space.  It's light.  Relativistic mass rendered redundant means that light is picking up its energy purely from its surroundings.  Energy denotes frequency, and frequency denotes wavelength.

Furthermore, I am saying that the Lorentz transformations are faulty.  Don't use them.  I've given a means to finding the constants of square root 2 and 0.41 within the Lorentz transformations to 'prove' or 'disprove' my theory, because the equation that I am suggesting as an alternative should exactly match the result of the Lorentz transformations, but from a different mathematical route, and for different reason.

The alternate  - d/square root 2, subtract result from d = 0.41 of d.  This 0.41 of d is time related, not distance related.  It takes the constant speed of light, this distance turned back into time (our rate of time) longer to travel d/square root 2 = revised distance.

You say that blaming observations on the materials used to measure them isn't physics.  I am stating time as energy related.  In an energy related equation, M + m is a consequence.  Also m has potential energy considerations.  The clock and its associated mass have more associated energy than the space it occupies does when it's not there.  Light, in that relativistic mass is stated redundant, has no potential energy considerations.  Therefore, in that light is 'just' picking up gravitational field energy in space, light 'is' our clock in space!

Yes, of course I'm trying to say that it is only time and not space that is variable, how else can one achieve an 'absolute reference' frame from which everything else can be equated?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #31 on: 13/02/2016 03:21:15 »
In non-relativistic newtonian terms the average velocity traveled in distance d is given by:

75697bda2940a8106eb22d76ee73b60d.gif.

Instantaneous velocity at distance d is then:

2b7f52b0c90820085c8502a3f1b267cd.gif

Then the instantaneous kinetic energy is

84bcf955a183c54801243944f84b9d47.gifu

Since the field extends to infinity then this function is continuous to infinity. Thus the gradient of time dilation must be continuous to infinity and will not reverse since the gravitational field is non-vanishing.

Sorry Jeff, but despite the link you provided, I'm still non the wiser as to understanding the context you have posted this in.

I kind of get that you are showing that time dilation will dilate to infinity in a non vanishing gravitational field.

Are you saying this relates to my notion of time contracting in a gravitational field?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #32 on: 13/02/2016 09:02:31 »
  Clocks are mass. 


And there's the root of a misunderstanding. GR predicts time dilation independent of the mass or density of any device you use to measure it, and the frequency of an atomic clock is not determined by the mass, density or weight of any component.

AFAIK the various clocks used by, for instance, ground stations, GPS satellites, aircraft and spacecraft, all have different masses and are surrounded by carriers of different masses, yet they all do the same thing.

When we have an entirely theoretical prediction confirmed to a remarkable degree of accuracy by several independent practical experiments, we tend to accept the primary hypothesis.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #33 on: 13/02/2016 09:21:54 »
But Space Flow - I have indeed shown a means for equating what time is doing in space.  It's light.  Relativistic mass rendered redundant means that light is picking up its energy purely from its surroundings.  Energy denotes frequency, and frequency denotes wavelength.

Furthermore, I am saying that the Lorentz transformations are faulty.  Don't use them.  I've given a means to finding the constants of square root 2 and 0.41 within the Lorentz transformations to 'prove' or 'disprove' my theory, because the equation that I am suggesting as an alternative should exactly match the result of the Lorentz transformations, but from a different mathematical route, and for different reason.

The alternate  - d/square root 2, subtract result from d = 0.41 of d.  This 0.41 of d is time related, not distance related.  It takes the constant speed of light, this distance turned back into time (our rate of time) longer to travel d/square root 2 = revised distance.

You say that blaming observations on the materials used to measure them isn't physics.  I am stating time as energy related.  In an energy related equation, M + m is a consequence.  Also m has potential energy considerations.  The clock and its associated mass have more associated energy than the space it occupies does when it's not there.  Light, in that relativistic mass is stated redundant, has no potential energy considerations.  Therefore, in that light is 'just' picking up gravitational field energy in space, light 'is' our clock in space!

Yes, of course I'm trying to say that it is only time and not space that is variable, how else can one achieve an 'absolute reference' frame from which everything else can be equated?
OK maybe it's me that needs the help here.
With this visualisation you describe.
First I need to clear up your view on what I see as contrary evidence to that view.
Now I noticed from a few different comments here and elsewhere that people are not really clear on the principle or the method of Gravitational wave detection by systems like LIGO and VIRGO.
The detectors are two evacuated tunnels of exactly 4 Kms each. They form two arms of a laser interferometer.
This instrument is designed to measure distance to an accuracy that makes the nucleus of an atom look like a small Moon. It does nothing else other than measure length or distance whatever you want to call it.
It does this by taking the one laser beam, and splitting it into two. One is sent down one tunnel to a mirror at the end and the other one down the other tunnel.
When those identical beams come back they are heterodyned together. If all things are equal the two beams recombine into the perfect replica of the beam that was emitted, and that is what the oscilloscope or whatever high tech version of an oscilloscope they are using to analyse it.
This system depends on the fact that the system of detection depends on the constant speed of light. and the fact that if a gravity wave hits it it will come from a certain direction. Now unless that direction is not at direct right angles to both arms of the detector, then it will effect one arm before the other. As it is coming through at the speed of light, then the speed of light of the lasers are fast enough to detect this difference and tell us about it.
Also the frequency of the laser gives us the resolution.
Now light travels at the speed of light and as such it is timeless. Time dilation can have no effect on it. That means that this system is only capable of measuring the space part of spacetime.
If the distance in either arm of these detectors changes at all in its length, the two heterodyned return lasers will not be in synch and will display an interference pattern.
This is what has been reported to have happened last September in both LIGO and VIRGO detectors.
I would need a reasonable explanation for these observations from the point of view of your theory.

Secondly, we now have a large accumulation of observational data for an effect called gravitational lensing. A lot of this data is from regions that don't show any matter associated with the cause. This is what is fuelling a lot of speculation about an imaginary "Dark Matter" particle.
That aside, we have definite data that space in those places is deformed to the point of bending light.
A time dilation region of space might redshift or blueshift light, but warped time can not change light's direction by any means I am aware off. So if space can deform in such a way to achieve this, and even do it without the presence of matter, than it is not invariant. That too needs explaining.
And of course we have the main one that all of us are quite aware off. GRAVITY. How does Gravity do what it does? Einstein's and as such the worlds view for the last 100 years tells us that gravity comes about because mass deforms, bends, and twists space. Is that the description of a constant invariant space?
If you can bend and twist it, then why can't you stretch and squish it?
And if you can't do all those things to space, then what is your definition for all these things?
There are probably a lot more but explaining these will suffice.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #34 on: 13/02/2016 09:25:19 »
PS: I think what Jeff is trying to tell you is that there is nowhere in the Universe where you are not under the influence of Gravity.
There is no space free of gravity, as I believe you used such a description as a place that time stops.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #35 on: 13/02/2016 09:34:53 »
  Clocks are mass. 


And there's the root of a misunderstanding. GR predicts time dilation independent of the mass or density of any device you use to measure it, and the frequency of an atomic clock is not determined by the mass, density or weight of any component.

AFAIK the various clocks used by, for instance, ground stations, GPS satellites, aircraft and spacecraft, all have different masses and are surrounded by carriers of different masses, yet they all do the same thing.

When we have an entirely theoretical prediction confirmed to a remarkable degree of accuracy by several independent practical experiments, we tend to accept the primary hypothesis.

Granted Alan, and you make a good point concerning associated mass concerning the atomic clock!

To be clearer...  A caesium atom has mass.  It has a higher frequency at elevation.  When you record this frequency, you are recording the activity of a 'body' of mass at elevation.  This mass of the caesium atom in relation to the greater mass of the earth is what you are recording.  You are not recording what the frequency is of the 'space' that caesium atom has been elevated  to.

There was entirely logical theoretical prediction involved in the notion that the sun revolved around the earth.  Look how that turned out...

Clearly, if GR gave us a full understanding of gravity, then these 'New Theory' conversations concerning gravity would be obsolete.  It is only because theoretical physicists are looking for a means to link quantum to gravity, that 'looking' at alternate logic is occurring.

This is alternate logic Alan, and it is entirely logical.  This doesn't, and isn't going to make it 'right' of course, but it does make it worthy of a calculate.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #36 on: 13/02/2016 09:53:20 »
Space Flow - please forgive me!  There was a certain element of humour involved in my circumnavigation of the gravity wave experiment.  Of course I did not think that 4 km tubes are vertically aligned,  even if partially sunk into the ground.  I've been following the gravity wave experiment for quite some time with great interest, and although the maths are complicated and a bit impregnable to me, I get the premiss entirely!

However, if light gravitationally shifts when exposed to changes in a gravitational field, then the light in that experiment is 'shifted', end of story, and they will be recording a shift in time.  No doubt about it! ...  If they are comparing this data to the remit of a Lorentz contraction, then this equation is already taking into account the 'shift' in time. K?

I'll get on rest of your post later....
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #37 on: 13/02/2016 10:12:22 »
However, if light gravitationally shifts when exposed to changes in a gravitational field, then the light in that experiment is 'shifted', end of story, and they will be recording a shift in time.  No doubt about it! ... 
So you are saying that the gravity wave is strong enough to affect the light beam. I don't think the system is set up to detect a time shift and remember Eddigton had to use the intense field of the sun to be able to see effect on light.

PS where ca I see your working calcs you mention, have I missed them?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #38 on: 13/02/2016 10:33:57 »
Colin - just quickly because I must get on with my day... No, I am 'not' saying that the light is 'bent'... (my theory states that light cannot be bent by gravity, it's massless) ... I'm saying that the light is gravitationally 'shifted'.   And yes, that a 'change' in the rate of time is occurring.  That physics is calculating this 'change' as being slower.  This is causing the appearance of a length contraction.  If you calculate under the remit of this 'change' in time as being to quicker time.  Then you can see the length has not contracted.  The contracted 'time' has caused the constant speed of light to cover the distance a bit quicker is all.

Yes I do have some calculations that I derived from a 'to scale' geometrical diagram that I conceived expressing my idea.  I cannot use the maths symbols thingy here on the forum.  I say cannot, actually it's haven't used it before.  But I will write out my formula and related constants again, photograph them and post it later.  I'm not going to post my diagrams though.  If you fancy a look, I can send them to you by private message, under the remit of a private message being private.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #39 on: 13/02/2016 11:42:47 »
A caesium atom has mass. 

But the difference in energy between the hyperfine ground states of a cesium atom is not mass-dependent.

Nor, come to think of it, is the period of a pendulum!
« Last Edit: 13/02/2016 11:45:25 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #40 on: 13/02/2016 12:07:16 »
my theory states that light cannot be bent by gravity, it's massless
It's not the mass you consider, but the momentum which is affected by gravity.

Alan is right, pendulum not affected by mass of the bob, just length and g.

No hurry for the maths as I'm quite busy this w/e. Just check over that you are not doing the equivalent of a circular argument when you talk about feeding results back in.

When you are ready pm (confidentiality respected) and I'll send you something to show an easier way to do equations on here.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #41 on: 13/02/2016 12:19:04 »
A caesium atom has mass. 

But the difference in energy between the hyperfine ground states of a cesium atom is not mass-dependent.

Nor, come to think of it, is the period of a pendulum!

Correct - they are both gravity related, and gravity causes changes in the rate of time...

The pendulum has a shorter swing being subject to less gravitational energy at elevation.  Being a mass though, it is still subject to potential energy.  If we recorded the frequency of the atoms that comprise of the pendulum at ground level, and then at elevation... we would find that the frequency of those atoms has increased at elevation.  This is due to potential energy.

Same as for the caesium atom!

Light has no mass.  No potential energy considerations there.  The frequency of light reduces in a reduced gravitational field, because it is not experiencing any potential energy.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #42 on: 13/02/2016 12:25:35 »
Ah Colin - well I hadn't been going to post the maths only for your benefit, which is just as well.  It would seem you are telling me that you are not really all that interested.

I'd be happy for you to school me in posting mathematics.  Thanks!  ...and if you do find yourself interested enough to want to have a look at the diagrams, just say, and I'll send them to you.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #43 on: 13/02/2016 12:39:04 »

Correct - they are both gravity related, and gravity causes changes in the rate of time...


Alas, there is no mention of gravitation in the Schrodinger equation that defines the ground states of the cesium atom. That's why we use it for space clocks.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #44 on: 13/02/2016 12:41:30 »
I was thinking last night about distance being an absolute. I was able to come up with an example. It is so obvious, everyone seemed to miss it. Consider the bond length of H2; hydrogen gas molecule. If the laws of physics are the same in all references, the bond length for hydrogen gas is an absolute that will be the same in all references.

If we alter this bond length, we will get something that is not hydrogen gas. If I am on a moving reference and I see what appears to be distance contraction, halving the H2 bond length, and hydrogen is still a gas, what I see will be an illusion. The distance for hydrogen gas is an invariant. At half that distance, hydrogen would need to change phase and become a solid. If it is not solid but still as gas, I saw an energy based illusion; violates energy conservation. Each phase occurs at specific energy, which is the same in all references.

If we only think in terms of space-time, distances are not absolute, but will be reference dependent. But once you add mass, matter, and therefore the forces of nature, you also have energy conservation. Here distances become absolute and use that to define the states and phases of matter.

In the topic of absolute distance, some argue yes and some argue no, It is actually yes and no. It is yes in terms of the phases of matter, but no if we only look at space-time. Those who try to reduce mass to space-time tend to violate energy conservation by making invariant distances, variable, thereby allowing things that defy common sense. Hydrogen gas, at half the bond length, is an illusion. 

In my long rant (previous post) about special relativity, I separated SR into internal and external SR, with internal absolute and external SR, relative. Internal SR takes into account the mass/energy of the observational system; matter based contained by energy conservation, while external is only concerned with the energy that reflects off objects. 

The question that comes to my mind is what is the impact of internal relativity on external relativity? Does the internal energy of a moving object impact what it sees on the outside? In GR, the space-time well parallels a pressure well connected to matter and gravity. The top of the space-time well of the sun has the lowest pressure, while the bottom of the space-time well has the highest pressures. In terms of material phases, invariant distances get smaller as we go down the space-time well due to pressure and phase changes. Materials with the smallest variant distance; core of the sun, by being at the bottom of the well see external space-time in a more contracted way.



 
« Last Edit: 13/02/2016 12:44:52 by puppypower »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #45 on: 13/02/2016 12:41:57 »

  The frequency of light reduces in a reduced gravitational field, because it is not experiencing any potential energy.

No, it increases.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #46 on: 13/02/2016 12:48:02 »
If the laws of physics are the same in all references, the bond length for hydrogen gas is an absolute that will be the same in all references.

but it is known to stretch!

New Journal of Physics 5 (2003) 124.1124.8 (http://www.njp.org/)

"....The calculated frequency for the free H2 molecule is 4190 cm−1......"
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #47 on: 13/02/2016 12:57:12 »
No, I am 'not' saying that the light is 'bent'... (my theory states that light cannot be bent by gravity, it's massless) ... I'm saying that the light is gravitationally 'shifted'.   And yes, that a 'change' in the rate of time is occurring.  That physics is calculating this 'change' as being slower.  This is causing the appearance of a length contraction.  If you calculate under the remit of this 'change' in time as being to quicker time.  Then you can see the length has not contracted.  The contracted 'time' has caused the constant speed of light to cover the distance a bit quicker is all.

But under gravitational lensing, light takes longer to get from A to B because the path length is increased, as observed.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #48 on: 13/02/2016 13:53:08 »
Yes - and the quote you quoted me on is concerning the 4km distance of the gravity wave experiment, in that I am saying a time contraction is occurring rather than a length contraction.

In space the light is taking longer to get from a to b because of time dilation rather than distance dilation.

(This is also in answer to a post you made earlier Space Flow)
In the case of gravitational lensing, a mass is passing in between our mass and the mass of the light source.  This light from the light source is not bent towards the in between body/bodies of mass.
Now this is where it gets complex.  I am saying that we will only be able to view 77.68% of the light of the light source.  (d/square root 2, (edit: I think that might be d/0.41 instead...hmmmm) and transposed back into magnitude)  But as the light passes the in between body of mass, the gravitational field changes.  Now we are looking at a new calculation of d in (d/square root 2, (edit: same as last edit) and transposed back into magnitude).  We are just looking at 'more' light.

This is based on the notion that between different 'rates' in the rate of time, it would be impossible to view all of the time scale of a slower time.  And also that it is impossible to view all of the time scale of a faster time.  You will only see a percentage as per by how much faster, or as per how much slower the other rate of time is running.  This being why, in the world of quantum, something can be seen, from our rate of time, to be in 2 places at the same time.
« Last Edit: 13/02/2016 14:07:31 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #49 on: 13/02/2016 18:41:48 »
« Last Edit: 13/02/2016 19:00:35 by timey »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #49 on: 13/02/2016 18:41:48 »

 

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