0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Your gravitational wave idea, if it can produce the right numbers, should do just as well as any other mechanism, though I have to wonder where these gravitational waves are going to come from.
If you have a clock sitting on a static planet in deep space, the clock must be slowed by the planet's mass, but there's nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves because none of it is moving.
It would need to be creating energy out of nothing all the time to radiate off as gravitational waves, …
…but black holes clearly don't do that - they only produce detectable waves when orbiting each other in the final stages before merger, and while they're doing that, any object further out which is orbiting the pair of black holes on a circular path will have its clock tick at a near-constant rate while the strength of gravitational waves passing through it changes radically.
However, it doesn't matter here whether your theory is broken or not - all that matters is that you're somehow producing numbers that generate the right amount of slowing of clocks, so if that needs a constant supply of gravitational waves passing through a clock to slow it, you can have that.
How do you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?
And if everything's down in a gravity well, what are the highest parts lower than?
I can see now that there could be a lot more slowing than I suggested.
If you keep adding them forever (or I keep multiplying forever), then we'll end up with all clocks stopped completely, so the universe wouldn't behave in the way that it clearly does.
Material that's out of sight and which will never become visible to us due to the expansion of space between us is presumably unable to act on us gravitationally either,
(This slowing, when applied to a light clock,
Are you sure it's because of relativistic effects? Is it not more dense further away because we're looking back in time at less expanded parts of space?
Whatever the case, we run out of visible galaxies and end up seeing the big bang (reduced to microwaves).
I think your approach is right - each band out to 13.8 billion lightyears should be taken into account, each having more impact than the one before it due to that extra density. It's a matter of doing lots of googling to find out the distribution of matter at different distances and crunching the numbers. I don't have time to go into that at the moment, but I'll put it on the to-do list.
The ISU is not General Relativity. Because it is not General Relativity, in order to understand the ISU, you have to resist the temptation of see it from the perspective of curved spacetime. Spacetime, and curved spacetime, is not a feature of the ISU. Instead, all space is filled with gravitational wave energy, coming and going in all directions, at all points in space.The energy that must be employed to curve space in GR, is there in the ISU in the form of gravitational waves that carry energy.
That is not a description of the source of gravitational waves in my model, or how they are emitted by mass in the ISU model.[/font]
That statement is based on your experience and learning of General Relativity (and SR).
When you think of the presence of mass being maintained in space by the continual functioning of the two ISU components of mass, the inflow and out flow of gravitational wave energy, you then put that in place of the concept that there is nothing in the planet putting out gravitational waves. The planet, and all objects with mass are composed of wave-particles, and wave particles are composed of inflowing and out flowing wave energy convergences. Each convergence has a hint of mass.
Not in the ISU model, as explained. The energy is always there in space, coming and going in all directions at all times, from an infinite history of the process of inflow and out flow that continually refreshes the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.
That thinking comes from your familiarity with General Relativity, and the simulation that we are looking at producing comes from a different model of cosmology called the Infinite Spongy Universe model.
I hope you can make the adjustments in your thinking that are necessary to talk about a simulation from the perspective of the ISU model. You have to disregard your own thinking, and go with mine to do a simulation of my model.
Note that I have explained where the gravitational waves that are depicted in the inverse square law diagrams, and that I describe as filling the gravity well at a declining intensity as you go up the ladder, so do you see now where the waves are coming from in the ISU?
If so, the you have the answer to the question:Quote from: bogieHow do you explain mechanically, how mass curves spacetime?Quote from: David CooperAnd if everything's down in a gravity well, what are the highest parts lower than?In the ISU, an infinite universe, the ladder in the gravity well is defined to be of infinite length, and if, for purposes of the simulation, you are using a single massive object as the bottom of the well, then the higher parts of the ladder are lower than the parts above them, on an infinitely long ladder.
There are plenty of examples of one observer being stopped relative to another. That is entirely different than actually being stopped.
An example is the two guys at either end of my long ship, but the universe behaves quite normally for the 'stopped' guy, so I disagree with your wording above.
QuoteMaterial that's out of sight and which will never become visible to us due to the expansion of space between us is presumably unable to act on us gravitationally either,I disagree with this one. It assumes gravity travels, and at light speed. The specific matter attracting us doesn't exist except in superposition, but the gravity it exerts very much is there.
A light clock is a clock, no different than any other.
I am talking about the mass that is, not the picture we see of the past. This isn't about observation. Those galaxies are length compressed as is the space between them, so they're closer together from our reference frame, the frame being dilated by this distant mass.
QuoteWhatever the case, we run out of visible galaxies and end up seeing the big bang (reduced to microwaves).The big bang is not happening over there. That image is billions of years old. Earth is pulled by the moon where it is now, not by where it was a second ago (where we observe it). This is pretty easily demonstrated.
Quote from: HalcThere are plenty of examples of one observer being stopped relative to another. That is entirely different than actually being stopped.It is not different from it actually being stopped. In any example where one is stopped relative to another, that one is stopped 100%.
Quote from: HalcAn example is the two guys at either end of my long ship, but the universe behaves quite normally for the 'stopped' guy, so I disagree with your wording above.Neither of them is stopped unless one is moving at c, and if he's moving at c,
If you're right, then it puts a maximum limit on how much matter exists out of sight. Any more than that maximum and all functionality is halted, preventing anything from happening at all beyond the expansion of space (with no observers in the universe being able to recognise it or anything else as happening).
Well, the gravitational pull on us should be coming from the past action there when things were closer together,
so there could be two effects both increasing density over distance. However, in LET with an added recognition of the absolute frame shifting over distance such that all galaxies are relatively stationary relative to the local fabric of space (which is what would happen with an expanding space fabric), there should be no significant length contraction acting on them or the distances between them.
With both GR and LET, the gravity wells of Earth and moon both move with the body they're associated with, and the gravitational pull is instantly applied by the local part of one body's gravity well to the other body. When you accelerate the moon, half a month later you will still have the moon's gravity well keeping pace with the moon very closely, but distant parts of the well must lag behind as they adjust to try to keep up - that adjustment should propagate at the speed of light, which means that distant objects affected by their part of the moon's gravity well are effectively reacting to what the moon did long ago rather than what it's doing now
For instance from an accelerating frame of 1G a little over a light year from me, I am stopped, but it bothers me not the least.
The experience is the same as falling into a uniform-field black hole. Things behind me do not exist to the frame I just described.
You need to solve the problem that you apparently experience infinite absolute dilation, and I don't need to do that since I don't posit a time flow.
That's actually an interesting argument against flowing time. I should bring it up in a philosophy thread somewhere.
Nobody is moving at c in that example.You even agreed with that. It is the example of trying to move the long ship a finite distance in minimal time, except in this example, I don't turn off the forward thrust after a while.
OK, you're trying to save your view by discarding the Copernican principle. I was more hoping you would show me that I wasn't right. I just figured that out myself. It isn't an argument that I've seen asserted by physicists. Why not? I bet there is something wrong with it.
Again, this assume gravity travels at some speed. It doesn't. It is a field, not information. You can show that the field from distant mass must be completely uniform, but that mass must exist. It comes from objects in no particular state (unmeasured objects), so they cannot produce anything but a perfectly uniform field. QM says that more than does relativity.
But you are describing gravity waves now, and gravity waves do no reach us from objects beyond the event horizon. Gravity field from it all still exists, perfectly uniform beyond a certain distance.
In LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) there is no bending of Spacetime either. Something slows the speed of light in the vicinity of mass (and at a great distance too), but that thing that causes the slowing has not been identified. The slowing of the speed of light to different degrees in different places causes light to follow curved paths which match up to the paths taken in GR. If matter is thought of as being made of waves moving like light, that matter would be accelerated towards "sources" of gravity in the right manner, and the slowing of functionality which results from greater depth in a gravity well exactly matches the amount of kinetic energy apparently created out of nothing by the inward acceleration - the energy was actually there already in the higher speed of functionality of the material which is lost as the acceleration occurs.
ISU sounds as if it could be a version of LET in which a mechanism has been proposed for the slowing of light. That proposed mechanism sounds wrong as it depends on continual creation of energy, but we don't have any good explanation yet for the mechanism, so there's no harm in exploring options.
(Of course, with dark energy there appears to be a continual generation of new energy too, but that could be a mere illusion of accelerated expansion which we would see if there's a slowing of functionality of observers as space expands - the expansion could be slowing while our functionality slows faster.)…Your gravitational waves appear to be gravity being propagated as waves rather than the gravitational waves that LIGO detects, but you appear to lump them together as the same thing. I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that gravity is some kind of wave radiated off from all matter and energy and which loses strength as it spreads out - the energy of this radiation could perhaps be of a kind that adds up to nothing, but which slows the speed of light in the part of space it's passing through, and the more such waves are passing through a bit of space, the more clocks will be slowed there.
That is a potential mechanism behind LET. One possible problem with it is how those waves are emitted from black holes, but maybe these waves aren't slowed in the way that light is - they may be free to spread out at c in all directions. ...However, in a system with orbiting things moving at relativistic speed, gravitational attraction has to be adjusted along with everything else in order to fit with the phenomenon of relativity (not any specific theory of relativity, but the actual mechanism of relativity itself). The manner in which these waves spread out must also conform to the rules of length contraction and aberration. Furthermore, the speed of light is slowed relative to that moving system and not relative to space itself (when considering the component of slowing generated by local gravity) - it's particularly important to recognise this point, because without that you would enable light to escape from the event horizon at the back of a moving black hole (and thereby get out into deep space). That's why I think the mechanism for slowing light is that matter is surrounded by a dark-matter like extension of matter which spreads out through space, diminishing in density as it gets further from the centre of the matter, and this acts as a medium to slow light (while it's also impossible to suck this extended part of matter into a black hole).What we both agree on though is that there is something there at any point in space which slows light below it's theoretical maximum, and the more of that something is there, the more light will be slowed in that place. The actual mechanism is unimportant for the simulation - the simulation will fit with whatever the real mechanism is.
No - it's based on LIGO detecting gravitational waves and that kind of wave not being compatible with what you're calling gravitational waves because the ones that LIGO detects do not come off non-accelerating bodies, whereas you need just as many of your waves to come off a non-acceleration body as an accelerating one of the same mass, and LIGO shows that you don't get that - it only detects the last moments leading into merger, and then the gravitational waves stop completely.
Perhaps those are the same kind though, just insignificant due to their relative scarcity and high peak strength, so most of the slowing of functionality could be driven by an astronomical number of gravitational waves of infinitesimal magnitude.
I don't think it can be the same mechanism though, because the LIGO ones are carrying energy lost by orbital decay, whereas the waves you need to be coming off all matter all the time would have to emit energy without any such decay, meaning the energy has to be taken from somewhere else.
You have more of it in some places than others, and it radiates out from places with higher energy density into areas with less. That leaves you with a constant depletion of that energy in the areas of higher energy density which means they are not getting back as much energy as they are putting out.
I don't think through the lens of GR (or SR). I use LET, and LET is so close to your model that they may in most respects be the same model.
The reason I’ve never really taken the time to present my layman science enthusiast’s comparison between Lorentz Ether Theory and the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) layman level model is because LET was followed closely by Einstein’s very successful SR and GR which took the spotlight, and so my main comparisons have been between GR and the ISU.
I understand where you get that, but no wave energy need be lost in the in swirling death spiral of the two orbiting body scenario.
There is no continual creation of energy in the ISU. ...Except that the areas of higher energy density are associated with areas in close proximity to mass, and that nearby mass is continually emitting gravitational wave energy to replace any that you perceive as being lost.
LET is radically different from SR&GR, but doesn't look radically different from ISU. You have simply proposed a mechanism for gravity which fills a space in LET. That space is there because we don't know which mechanism is right. (GR has a space there too as it doesn't specify how mass curves space.) You have pushed ISU some way towards SR/GR though by ruling out absolute time, so you've placed your model somewhere in between.
The gravitational wave being sent out is the lost energy - you can't both retain that energy at the black holes and also have it being radiated away.
Those areas of high mass are going to radiate more energy away than comes back. There is no way to maintain a higher concentration of that energy there - it will fill the universe and reach a uniform level everywhere with no peaks where the mass is. It's exactly like putting a hot metal object into a tank of cold water - the heat will spread out through the water and the object will cool down even though each of its atoms is initially surrounded by hot atoms which put some heat back into any atom that loses its heat energy. There will be a continual depletion of energy from your matter as it radiates off your gravitational waves, and that will lead to the system no longer functioning unless you have some mechanism for continually creating new energy wherever mass is.
I'm not an absolutist, so there's no concept of just being stopped, and thus no issue with all the problems that arise from asserting such a state.
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 27/12/2018 11:49:34Me either. In my view, being stopped is relative, but it goes along with the view that in a larger space, one that contains many objects that are in motion relative to each other, being stopped relative to another object still means you are in motion relative to all objects that are in relative motion. Because there is no absolute space in the ISU model, you cannot designate an absolute location in space, and you cannot return to that exact location with complete certainty (even the bread crumbs move, lol.)I was talking about my clock being stopped, not having zero velocity.Anyway, this is an interesting answer you give, seemingly directly from the dogma of science, rather than the absolutist view that David pushes. I thought you were agreeing with David more until I saw this post.
Me either. In my view, being stopped is relative, but it goes along with the view that in a larger space, one that contains many objects that are in motion relative to each other, being stopped relative to another object still means you are in motion relative to all objects that are in relative motion. Because there is no absolute space in the ISU model, you cannot designate an absolute location in space, and you cannot return to that exact location with complete certainty (even the bread crumbs move, lol.)
I didn’t intentionally place my model where you perceive it to be, relative to other models. I actually developed it step by step starting with the question, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bangs?”
Am I giving that impression? Black holes are continually accumulating matter and energy through accretion.
Look at the description of the ISU above. Do you see any way that energy can escape? If so, I didn’t describe it sufficiently.
Granted, in some models, like GR, and like The Big Rip, the end of the universe might be like what you describe, but in the ISU, the gravitational wave energy that you see “radiating off” isn’t escaping, and before it gets away the mechanism for its replacement is already working, i.e., the gravitational wave energy density profile of space is universal, and has all the energy, and is continually being refreshed by the perpetual processes of arena action and quantum action of the ISU.
I don't think one of them would be stopped. One of them is stopped relative to something, in this case the accelerating observer. I'm not an absolutist, so there's no concept of just being stopped, and thus no issue with all the problems that arise from asserting such a state.
There are different aspects of models which result in they being grouped differently depending on which aspects you're focusing on at the time, so I wouldn't worry too much about how they should be set out in a chart. On the time issue though, theories which lack absolute time have something in common which they don't share with LET. On the space issue, theories which don't curve space to account for gravity have something different in common. On these two points, GR and LET share no mechanisms, but ISU shares something with each.
Some of them are hardly taking in new material at all, while others are feasting. If they are the same mass though, they have the same strength of gravitational pull. That non-addition of material in the former case cannot provide the energy that would need to be radiated off all the time for ISU. I'm not here to attack ISU though and it doesn't matter for a simulation exploring the nature of time whether the model is functional or broken - you can have your gravitational waves for this because where the energy for that comes from is an issue for a different discussion.
Energy isn't lost from the universe, but your gravitational waves will spread out and fill space more and more evenly, taking energy away from the mass concentrations and depleting them. They are not being recharged.
If you have lots of this energy everywhere ready to replace what's radiating off, that energy is going to contribute to the energy density in such a way that you won't have gravity acting the way it needs to to fit the known facts. You can only have the right energy density profile around a body by having a lack of replacement energy queueing up to replace the stuff that has to be radiated off.
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 27/12/2018 13:29:08If you can’t be certain in regard to an absolute location in space, you cannot be certain as to which clock is ticking off time at the absolute rate.My point was that none of them can possibly tick at the absolute rate, or even a fraction of it, unless the absolute rate was infinite. I don't buy into a flow rate at all, so this is not an issue. Sounds like you don't buy into it either.
If you can’t be certain in regard to an absolute location in space, you cannot be certain as to which clock is ticking off time at the absolute rate.
Meteorites, the poemThe Universe, a quiet place, is home to our existence,But surely the perspective skews when viewed from such a distance.Big Bangs blast out the building blocks of life's regeneration,In places far, imponder'ble, beyond imagination.No start of time, no end of space; a wave energy domain,A place where God and Universe seem essentially the same.What guides your acts; your own freewill, to be cast responsibly,Take caution then, false words and deeds, affect life predictably.Yet life is so undaunted that perpetually its found there,Created or evolved it seems to spring form almost nowhere.From galaxies, to holes of black, dark matter and neutrinos,Where endlessly life's dice are tossed in cosmic class casinos.Explosions then, great cataclysms, booms, its an inferno,Our beings shoot like meteors, traversing space eternal.The roles that we have just disposed are not the final curtain,We'll star as sparkling meteorites, leading roles for certain.
along these lines:https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/science/this-new-study-suggests-that-time-existed-before-the-big-bang/vi-BBRrUSK?ocid=spartandhp